Ruthless Critique – Worker Analysis of Capitalist Media

EMPLOYER REACTIONS TO MEB GIVE UP THE GAME

Multi-Employer Bargaining (MEB) is the new step the Albanese government wants to introduce to supposedly give workers a leg up. Reading the reports in the media, it would seem this way too. Unions support it, employers are losing their minds over it. However, if you dig deeper, you will see that this is not the case.

A more complete article about MEB is in the works, so we will not delve too deeply into the specifics yet. Instead we will analyse a piece written in HCAMag,[1] an outlet touting itself as “HR news for HR professionals”. With a motto like that, it should be clear that this is a publication by and for employers. This example is worth examining because in some ways it is more honest than the general media narrative, yet in others still succumbs to it.

“Labor’s industrial relations bill is being introduced into Federal parliament this morning (Thursday). Sources briefed on its contents have told The Australian that while the bill will establish new rights to strike in support of multi-employer bargaining, a safety clause will prevent rogue bargaining agents who have repeatedly breached the Fair Work Act from participating in multi-employer bargaining.”

This paragraph speaks volumes. We are told that the bill will give workers greater rights to strike but that there will also be safeguards against "rogue bargaining agents". 

On the first point, the text of the bill does not really bear this out in any meaningful way. However this does not mean it's a direct lie: you will rarely find pure fabrications in the media. What it does tell us is extremely valuable. It shows us the viewpoint of employers. To them, any change at all to the current status quo that could negatively impact them is cause for outrage. Employers act like the few symbolic gestures the new act offers workers are the end of the world.

The second point is a breath of fresh air when MEB is being discussed. It is an admission of the fact that this bill isn't really about giving workers or unions more power. The next paragraph makes clear who the “rogue” are.

“The clause is widely assumed to be directed at the CFMEU’s construction division, given its track record of breaching federal workplace laws.”

In essence, it bans the most militant unions from participating in the new scheme. If the bill actually gave unions more power to negotiate across a sector (which it doesn't, MEB is something employers can only do if they volunteer to join a multi-enterprise organisation), the bill clips their wings, preventing them from doing anything useful to advance their cause.

“Unions will also be required to participate in conciliation with an employer before workers could take industrial action.”

Again, this is the system that is already in place. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Just in this case, specific unions can now be barred from the process.

“The Secure Jobs Better Pay bill proposes a simplified legal test to approve pay deals and expands the power of the Fair Work Commission to arbitrate in cases where there is a stalemate, according to employer and union sources.”

The actual nature of this simplified test will be explored in the later article, but in this case simplification will make EBAs and EAs in general worse for workers. As has already been written in the Militant,[2] the FWC is not the friend of workers. It has been packed with employer-friendly arbitrators. The expansion of their power will not benefit the working class as in the case of stalemate that a union could otherwise hold out for the employer to cave, the FWC could now order a deal and a return to work.

“Despite the safeguards to assuage business concerns, some business and industry groups remain deeply resistant to the reforms, predicting that it could lead to large-scale or even sector-wide strikes in the coming years.”

This brings us back to the main point of interest in this article: the glimpse into the mindset of employers. As even this surface-level view of the change demonstrates, there is nothing here that really benefits workers, and yet these employers are losing their minds. But even this view is lacking. A majority of employers backed the change to MEB at the jobs and skills summit. If they lose their minds over the smallest of changes to negatively impact them, what does it say when they support something?

“The bill will be subject to a Senate inquiry and employers are attempting to get a parliamentary vote delayed until early next year.”

This is the general nature of parliament, but it does raise the point that our parliamentary system gives undue influence to employers who, at least officially, are not represented directly. Why should those who the Australian people did not vote for get a chance to interfere with the passage of our laws? Why do employers have such influence to cause these things to occur? These are the questions that you should ask when consuming media: "Why is this so?"

“Entrenching industry-wide pattern deals and opening the door for economy-wide strike action is the exact opposite of what we need to support a modern and flexible economy, says Master Builders Australia CEO Denita Wawn.”

Again this speaks to the paranoia of employers and their resistance to any change that could impact them. It is even more intriguing to read this from the CEO of Master Builders Australia, which is in essence an employer union to help individual employers oppose unions and advance employer interests. This is the main detriment that MEB will offer, it will allow employers to officially join together like unions. It will give them greater strength. They will be able to choose when they want to – and when they don't. In the case of construction, it is clear employers don't want to risk any chance that the CFMEU will pursue sector-wide industrial action. Yet, as mentioned before in this article, they will be banned from participating in MEB. Even more, as already mentioned, the bill makes MEB voluntary for employers. This is the epitome of the paranoid and reactionary perspective of employers.

“This bill does nothing to secure jobs or provide better pay in the medium to long term and goes against the very fabric of traditional Labor industrial relations policies.”

This is an interesting comment, since the Labor party has traditionally been good – from the employer’s perspective. Consider what this says about the Labor Party's supposed commitment to the working class. You cannot benefit both employers and workers. This is a proverbial "mask-off" moment for who the Labor Party serves.

“‘Workplace laws need to encourage workplaces to drive productivity at the individual enterprise level, not take us back to a ‘one size fits all’ approach last seen in the 1970’s,’ says Wawn.”

This line about productivity is something that the Labor Party has talked about at length in how they plan to deal with the nation's debt. As has been seen by the latest budget, this goal to improve productivity has not translated into actual benefits for workers. "Productivity" and "efficiency" are the language of employers, seeking to make as much profit for as little expense as possible. Since wages tend to be by far the biggest expense for most employers, it should be obvious what this means for workers.

Perspective is something one should always consider when reading an article. Who was it written by? What interests do they have? The HCAMag article was openly written by employers, for employers. Most media in this country shares the same class perspective. This fact should be taken into account when you try and understand what is actually happening. The Jobs and Skills summit that brought about MEB saw employers, on the whole, back it, despite the fears expressed here. Employers lose their minds when the smallest changes that could impact them happen. But when they are silent, when they in fact embrace change, it should be clear that the working class will not benefit from that change.

TEARS FOR MILLIONAIRES - SILENCE FOR THE POOR

Our national broadcaster served up an interesting article[3] recently, highlighting how climate change is due to ravage the Victorian town of Inveloch in the coming decades.

Coastal erosion is set to destroy 20 waterfront houses in the town by 2070 - the humanity! If a handful of houses doesn’t seem all that much compared to the havoc runaway climate change is due to wreak on the poorest nations and peoples of the world, the article is quick to inform us why these threatened houses are due such media exposure.

Reportedly the properties are worth between $1-3 million each! A few millions dollars wiped from the property portfolios of those wealthy enough to own such homes in the first place is apparently worthy of national news.

It’s worth noting that nowhere in the article are other, more working class, communities under threat mentioned, either in Australia or around the world. The human causes of such weather events are not brought up, and of course no mention of the totalising logic of capitalism - profit at all cost - that has brought us to this point.

The people of the Maldives will surely sleep easier tonight - it could be worse, they could own a million dollar waterfront property in Victoria!

References:

Featured Image attribution: March on Murdoch(51002362000) by Matt Hrkac is licensed under CC BY 2.0

[1] https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/safeguards-to-curb-militant-unions-in-the-new-ir-bill/425341?utm_source=GA&e=YmlsbC5tb250Z29tZXJ5QGhvbG1hbndlYmIuY29tLmF1&utm_medium=20221026&utm_campaign=HRDW-Breaking-20221027&utm_content=BC491084-499F-4FBB-865E-6516F0895ED8&tu=BC491084-499F-4FBB-865E-6516F0895ED8

[2] https://auscp.org.au/publications/how-fair-is-the-fair-work-commission/

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-19/inverloch-homes-to-be-inundated-by-rising-sea-by-2070/101546290