United Voice

Graham Kierath’s opinion piece (Women and Rudd in Julia’s Way which appeared in the West Australian on Wednesday, July 28) was a clumsy attempt to bolster his own place in history and to tarnish Julia Gillard’s run for an election victory.
Mr Kierath proudly states he was the second longest-serving industrial relations minister in Australian history. He then laments the fact that Workchoices [and his own legislation that pre-dated it] is now a dirty word. He defends individual workplace agreements by arguing that workers are “happy to negotiate on their own behalf” against their employer. 

Ugly experience
My Union, the LHMU, had the task of representing employees in industries such as cleaning, security, hospitality, childcare and aged care, who were faced with individual contracts under Mr Kierath’s legislation and under WorkChoices. For those workers it was an ugly experience.
Firstly, there were no negotiations. Individual agreements were offered to new employees on a take it or no job basis. Clauses such as this became commonplace in job offers:
“This offer of employment is conditional upon you becoming a party to the Agreement by signing it of you own free will”.
After a complaint from the LHMU, Mr Kierath’s appointed Commissioner for Workplace Agreements said these job offers did not constitute intimidation because they “did not contain any suggestion of the use of threats or violence” and in fact should be seen “as an inducement”.
I can confidently say that cleaners who were told to sign the agreement or no job even though the agreement strips away sick leave and penalty rates, found that process pretty intimidating. 

Reduction in conditions
Analysis of Mr Kierath’s individual agreements done by the State Department for Industrial Relations, found that most agreements [in the industries represented by the LHMU] contained significant reductions in conditions such as sick leave, annual leave and penalty rates. Some did not even provide for pay increases during the life of the agreement.
And existing employees were not safe either. They were often told if you don’t sign there are others who will who will take your place. Take the example of a major cleaning company who had a contract at Perth Airport for 12 years. When it came up for re-tender they asked the cleaners to sign agreements that stripped a host of conditions which would see a night shift cleaner lose $170 per fortnight.
The company told the cleaners they had to sign because if they did not another cleaning company would win the contract because their cleaners were already signed to a similar agreement. The company went further saying if the cleaners did not sign, it would withdraw its tender and walk away from the contract. Out of fear for their jobs the cleaners signed.  These were cleaners earning $11.17ph. 

Supreme Court
While Mr Kierath was IR Minister, the Department of Sport and Recreation tried to sack two cleaners for not signing a workplace agreement. The Government argued that despite being employed by the department for over 10 years each, they were in fact “new employees” because they were paid as casuals. When the LHMU challenged that view it took a case in the Supreme Court before the Government backed down. After they won their case the West Australian was good enough to carry their smiling faces (and their mops) on its front page.
I could go on with case after case under Mr Kierath’s legislation and then under Workchoices that followed, but I think readers will get the point. An Individual wage agreement for a low paid worker is an unfair, one-sided affair where even good employers can be forced to go hard for fear of losing their business to less scrupulous players.
So the current ACTU campaign highlighting the certainty that Mr Abbott will bring back the worse of WorkChoices is not a scare campaign. It is based on the bitter experience of Australian workers across many industries. Even powerful mining companies choose to negotiate in a group. Why deny that same right to employees who want to collectively negotiate with their employer.
In his final attack on Ms Gillard be sought to undermine her support among women by polling his own three daughters. Not surprisingly Abbott came out in front.  Can I offer Mr Kierath another challenge. Ask the cleaners at the airport or the two cleaners at the Department of Sport and Recreation if they like Ms Gillard’s removal of WorkChoices and I think you will get a different answer.