WorkChoices
At an invitation-only BBQ in Canberra, Stephen Jones, assistant national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, eloquently outlined his battle plan to defeat the Howard government's WorkChoices legislation. Plan A: Postcards.
I asked him what Plan B was. Jones' Plan B was a "Plan D" as in DEWR (Department of Employment and Workplace Relation), where "a collective agreement was won" (but a majority of staff are now on non-union contracts — Australian Workplace Agreements).
Plan B was a "Plan T" — as in Telstra where AWA's have been steadily rolled out to new starters since 1999 (when the same Stephen Jones was an official in the Telecommunications division of the CPSU).
Plan B (D and T) have resulted in the near-death of the CPSU at these workplaces and have clearly not worked. We need a Plan C — a campaign that begins with using all the resources necessary to make the November 15 protest actions the start of a broad movement along the lines of what defeated the Poll Tax in Britain (and ultimately ended Margaret Thatcher's rule).
Jones himself admitted that thousands have joined the ACTU's Community Action Network and that community sentiment is clearly against the proposed anti-worker laws. Why then are members of his own union not given a collective choice (or voice) about what action to take against these laws? Within the CPSU to date there has been no open organising meetings, no plans to stop-work and join the national day of protest that Jones himself was endorsing. So how are the voices against WorkChoices supposed to be heard?
Tim Stewart
Canberra
Mandatory drug testing
I enjoyed reading the "Statewatch: Keeping an eye on them" column GLW #643 and #644 and hope that it becomes a regular feature of this excellent newspaper. But I was somewhat surprised at the first item included in GLW #644. The item reported in a positive tone a measure to introduce fingerprint and drug testing for private security personnel in South Australia, arguing that it was an attempt to rein in "the sometimes out-of-control private security industry". While it may be true that many private security guards are former police officers, this still doesn't mean that we should applaud measures such as these. I see the introduction of mandatory drug and fingerprint testing a serious affront to workers' rights — and an attempt by the government (in this case, the SA Labor government) to exploit the climate of fear created by the "war on terror" to infringe on our civil liberties. No employee should face intrusions of their privacy such as fingerprinting and drug testing, and this is
especially an issue in the current context of Howard's industrial relations "reforms".
Katie Cherrington
Marrickville, NSW [Abridged]
Dangerous precedent
In GLW #646 you reported that I received a 14-day sentence for contempt of court to "intimidate" Network Against Prohibition (Northern Territory) members. I was actually given a $40 fine for contempt — the 14 days I served was for a trumped-up assault-police charge along with a $100 fine for resist-police relating to the smoke-in for which Stuart Highway is serving three months jail.
I was also fined $340 for trespass during an occupation of NT Chief Minister Clair Martin's electoral office. Gary Meyerhoff was given a suspended sentence for this incident, however he was found guilty of "business invasion" — a charge with a maximum seven-year sentence and in the same legislation as "home invasion". While this legislation was clearly aimed at armed robbery when it was introduced, it has so far only been used against NAP members in relation to two peaceful occupations (the previous business-invasion charges were either dropped or found not guilty).
Meyerhoff's conviction sets a dangerous precedent for future use of this legislation against activists involved in peaceful civil-disobedience.
If you would like to support Stuart, please send him letters of solidarity at Stuart Highway, Darwin Correctional Centre, PO Box 1407, NT 0801.
Ema Corro
via email
Depression
As a woman who suffers from depression and anxiety disorder, I would like to contribute further to the debates on depression and treatment. There is not one cure for all sufferers. All cases are different and different treatments are required for each individual case. It can be life threatening for a person to decide to discontinue with their medication based on the assumption that they are merely "a puppet of the pharmaceutical companies".
Many scientists are trying their hardest to prove that depression is a biological illness. To my knowledge there is no conclusive evidence to prove this. Depression is an epidemic particular to this historical epoch.
Depression is primarily a social illness (cause) and secondarily a physical illness (effect). Though pharmaceutical companies no doubt exploit the situation for profits, the medical profession are still not recognising the primary causes of depression.
Social alienation is a major cause. Without explaining to the sufferer that it is primarily a social illness, he/she will continue to view the problem as "their own fault". In a society which champions the individual, he or she will only experience antagonism as he or she tries to function in society.
Medicines are necessary for treating the secondary physical effects but only by addressing the primary causes, and fighting for a socialist society will we witness the end to this epidemic.
Angela Vecchio
Preston, Vic
Industrial deregulation
It is ironic that the most vigorous advocates of labour market deregulation also tend to be the most enthusiastic supporters of capitalism. After all, if capital ownership were radically redistributed (via nationalisations or turning private enterprises into worker co-operatives) there would be less of a conflict of interest between business owners and workers, and therefore less need for legislation to protect vulnerable workers from unreasonable treatment by business owners or their representatives.
"Socialism first, deregulation second!" Now there's a slogan for the Liberal Party and the Business Council of Australia.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere, NSW
Terrorism I
It is worth pointing out, if only for the record, that the number one terrorist organisation in our region is not Jemaah Islamiya (JI), but the TNI, the unreconstructed Indonesia military. How is it possible to talk of "terrorism" without thinking of the mass slaughter or state terrorism in East Timor over 24 years? Even now, there is a notorious TNI battalion along East Timor's border with West Timor. In recent comments, [Australian Defence Force chief] Angus Houston showed his enthusiasm for full military cooperation with the Indonesian military. Why is the Australian army training with people who have committed mass civilian atrocities?
Stephen Langford
secretary, Australia East Timor Association (NSW)
Sydney
Terrorism II
It is curious that the Howard government both imports new terrorism risks then announces that it has exactly the solution. Any increased risk of terrorism in this country will be directly related to Australia's involvement in the ill-advised and adventurous war in Iraq. Now we have proposed terror laws that are repressive and are more likely to dampen free speech and encourage abuse of human rights than thwart terrorist attacks. It seems that this government either has a desperate wish to feel needed or is more willing to crush dissent than admit to lies and mistakes in the decision to support America's war of terror. A much simpler and fairer approach to the apparent crisis would be to adopt an independent foreign policy and observe United Nations principles of non-aggression and non-interference.
David Bastin From Green Left Weekly, November 2, 2005.
Nicholls, ACT
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.