It's not like we have enough misleading Howard government advertisements clogging up our TV screens, a coalition of business groups have now released their own "independent" advertisement in support of Howard government WorkChoices laws (designed by Liberal party pollsters, no doubt for maximum independence from the government!). If anyone was in any doubt about whom the IR laws were designed to benefit, that doubt should have been dispelled by the business groups spending millions on these advertisements. But lets take a look at the ad:
The ad starts with telling us that "it hasn't been easy, but over the last two decades Australia has undergone workplace reform". Well, that's interesting, lets stop right there. Over the last two decades? So a decade before the Howard government the then Labor governments were changing and reforming our IR system to make sure it kept up with the times. But that's not what these business groups want - they don't just want progress, they want the extremes of Howard government's IR agenda.
Then we have those great slogans of all WorkChoices propaganda "Choice", "Flexibility" and "Productivity". Yes, the business groups would like the choice and flexibility it gives the employers to cut their employees' conditions, wages and protections and to force more flexibility out of employees. There are no real choices or flexibilities for the employees, but who cares about the workers, right? The ad then heads into even murkier waters. "Australia's economy has grown by nearly 4%" it boasts - quoting March '07 quarter ABS figures. This is accompanied by a graph showing the rate of growth in seasonally-adjusted GDP increasing from zero to 4% (presumably in response to WorkChoices legislation):
The representation in the graph is blatantly misleading. Needless to say, before the introduction of WorkChoices, GDP growth was nowhere near zero. Secondly, the ad suggests that there is some sort of a causal relationship between WorkChoices and 3.8% annual increase in the GDP evident from ABS figures. No such relationship has been established. Further, GDP growth has on several occasions exceeded the 3.8% in the last decade, see the graph below:
The rate of GDP growth goes up and down in cycles (the average over the 20th century is about 3.5%). To implicitly suggest that the current rate of growth is unusually high or that it is causally related to WorkChoices is to engage in deception.
The subsequent representations that "since the introduction of workplace reforms" new jobs have been created, exports increased and higher dividends have been paid to shareholders are similarly misleading because they suggest a causal relationship between WorkChoices and any economic events since their introduction. The suggestion is utter nonsense. For example, employment figures have been increasing steadily for more than a decade before the introduction of WorkChoices. Similarly, export growth figures are not unusual and the sector is much more likely to be affected by free trade agreements that have been signed, international price and currency fluctuations and international economies than WorkChoices. The suggestion of a link between the two is simply mischievous. The same reasoning applies to dividends to shareholders. Incidentally - if there is a link between dividends and WorkChoices then perhaps we should blame the recent sharemarket collapse on WorkChoices!
Having finished with the blatantly misleading praising of WorkChoices the big business advertisement then descends into ridiculous warnings of the end of the world if WorkChoices laws are abandoned. There is the very subtle "gone out of business because of union bosses" sign painted over a window (gone out of business because of corporate fraud or mismanagement would be a much more realistic sign) followed by a statement that to undo WorkChoices is like trying to unscramble an egg (hmm, WorkChoices = scrambled eggs, nice analogy!).
And then we have the best part - a doom and gloom scenario based on "independent" research. The so-called independent research report that is pictured was produced by Econtech - a company that has close affiliations with the Howard government and the report was in fact commissioned by ACCI for the purposes of this ad, based on rigged assumptions designed to create the outcomes that ACCI wanted.
This blatantly misleading ad concludes with a plea to "keep the workplace reform". Trust us - we the big business know whats best for you. OK, so our member companies maybe the ones that are slashing your conditions and reducing your take home pay, but its not like we are just interested in our profits and our executive bonuses. OK, so we just released a deceptive advertisement, but its for your own good you know, how else are we supposed to get you plebs to see the benefits of being deprived of your rights? Just trust us, ok?
I was at the Law Institute of Victoria Workplace Relations Section debate yesterday. The topic was "AWAs: Should they stay or should they go?" and the two combatants were Jeff Lawrence of Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Union (LHMU) and next secretary of ACTU and Christopher Platt from the Australian Mines & Metals Association (AMMA).
I don't propose to give any sort of a detailed account of the debate. It was what you'd expect - Platt was arguing that AWAs are wonderful and are good for employees, at the same time as revealing that, even in the mining industry, employees on AWAs earn less than those on collective agreements, Lawrence was extolling the virtues of collective agreements and freedom of association, Platt was countering that by arguing that freedom of association includes freedom from association, which he seemed to interpret as depriving everyone of opportunity to associate.
A slightly disturbing aspect of the debate was that Lawrence came across as a rather unconvincing speaker. He did not do a great job dismantling Platt's arguments and often did not address those arguments at all. His speech came across as poorly structured, poorly researched and poorly presented. One would expect more of the next secretary of the ACTU. Platt was a much more engaging speaker, even if his arguments were full of holes and based on made up data - for example he misrepresented the content of the latest report into AWAs by Professor Peetz by asserting that AWAs increased wages in hospitality and retail industries, which is not the case.
But the crux of the AWA debate was summed up in Platt's response to a question from the audience regarding his assertion throughout the debate that AWAs allow employees and employers free choice of how their employment relationship will be structured (in his words allowing them to achieve "a meeting of the minds"). In response to the question Platt elaborated on that choice: if a potential employee is told that he can have a job on the condition that he signs an AWA because that is how the particular workplace operates he has a choice - he can sign an AWA or he can look for another job. The choice, according to Platt, is that of the employee!
It was a perfect illustration of the fallacy of the rhetoric of choice in the employment sphere. If the potential employee has valuable skills that are in short supply and the employer has no better candidates, sure, there is a choice. Of course if AWAs become the standard practice in the particular industry even an experienced and skilled employee may find that his choice of whether to sign an AWA becomes illusory (because the prospect of finding an employer that doesn't use AWAs is greatly reduced).
But if the employee is young, inexperienced, without highly sought after skills, is a migrant, a mother re-entering the workforce after an absence, an older person or any one of the many vulnerable groups (ie precisely the groups that require protection in the IR sphere) the "choice" is between taking the position on an AWA or selling Big Issue on a street corner. Let's not forget that if a person on welfare turns down the job, chances are they'll be in breach of Centrelink rules and will find themselves with no welfare payments for a number of weeks or months. Their "choice" is thus between abject poverty and signing the AWA.
Free choice implies a range of real options. A person faced with an ultimatum "your wallet or your life" may make a "choice" to hand over the wallet, but no one in their right mind would argue that it is a real or free choice. The outcome of that choice is pre-determined by our sense of self-preservation. So why is it that we accept the rhetoric of choice when it comes to AWAs? A potential employee is placed in a similar situation to a robbery victim - they can starve, they can beg on the streets or they can sign the AWA. Their sense of self-preservation dictates only one possible outcome. The more normative AWAs become, the more predetermined that "choice" is.
The only true choice regarding AWAs will be the choice we exercise at the ballot box in this year's election and, if we are not careful, this could be the last true choice in the IR sphere for a very long time.
Update: please see Christopher Platt's response in comments
The Australian Fair Pay Commission released its July 2007 wage decision (which will come into effect in October 2007). The summary of the decision can be viewed here. The Commission increased the federal minimum wage by a princely amount of 27 cents an hour for the workers on pay scales under $700 per week and by an even more "generous" 14 cents an hour for workers on pay scales over $700 per week. These increases add up to an extra $10.26 per week and $5.30 per week respectively, before tax.
For a worker on the minimum wage of $522.12 per week, this amounts to an increase of 2%. For a worker on a pay scale just under $700 per week, the increase is 1.5% and for a worker on a pay scale of above $700, the increase is less than 0.76%. When you consider that the inflation rate is 2.4% and that the Commission will not issue another decision for a year, the lowest paid employees are sliding backwards - prices are increasing faster than their pay rates. At the time when the government attempts to dazzle us all with talk of economic prosperity, its dividends are not being shared equally - the poor are becoming poorer.
Let's compare this wage "increase" with the 6.7% increase scored by federal politicians some three weeks earlier. The same people who created a system that gives workers a pay rise less than the inflation rate obviously need considerably greater increases in their pay packets.
And if any further proof is needed that the minimum wage increase is a measly fob-off to ordinary workers - that proof is delivered by industry representatives' comments on the decision. When the ACCI and various industry bodies describe a wage increase as "moderate" or "fair and responsible", you know that the workers have been given a raw deal.
A yet another embarrassing leak about big business plans to advertise in support of Howard's WorkChoices revealed that the business groups commissioned economic models to speculate on what economic benefits WorkChoices brings to Australia. The models are likely to be used as basis for advertisements to tell the voters about the inflation, unemployment levels and economic growth "penalty" that would result from employees having any rights in the workplace.
Of course you can get an economic model to give you any answer you want, depending on the assumptions and methodology you chose to adopt. Pick the outcome and there will be an economic model out there to justify it. Pick an opposite outcome and there will still be an economic model that will give you that outcome. Both of those models can sound feasible and yet be complete nonsense.
Interestingly, this economic modeling by the business groups seems to be inspired by government commissioned models, which ensured favourable results by assuming the outcomes that they desired to achieve. The business groups model was constructed according to (undisclosed) "terms of reference" (ie assumptions) given to the forecasters by ACCI. Apparently there were three scenarios to examine: "no change to Work Choices, an abolition of the industrial relations laws, and a return to the pre-1993 era before the Keating government made enterprise bargaining the main mechanism for wage negotiations." Needless to say that "a return to the pre-1993 era" is not on the agenda of either party. The only possible rationale for examining this scenario is to push the "Labor will ruin the economy and cause Australia to collapse into the Pacific ocean" type of scare campaign. Very much like the sort of campaign that the Howard government likes…
But even without the lack of transparency in assumptions and the flawed scenarios, economic forecasting is a bit like weather forecasting - it is occasionally right, but only by accident. As Laurence J. Peter so wonderfully put it - "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today." Economic models are not crystal balls that show the future, they are just guesses, based on a whole lot of (politicised) assumptions. And they make an excellent basis for misleading advertising.
OK, lets face it, no one can be in the least bit surprised to learn that the intended advertising campaign by business organisations to promote WorkChoices is not quite independent of the Howard Government. The $11 million dollar ad blitz will be directed by a Liberal party pollster Mark Textor of a firm called Crosby/Textor, which does a lot of work for the Liberal party. A number of other personalities associated with the Liberal party are involved, including former advisers to Kennett and to Peter Reith. One would have to be really naive to believe that the big business advertising plans had nothing to do with the government.
There is nothing objectionable to the Business Council running ads, provided they are not misleading. Unlike the Howard government, they will not be using taxpayer funds. Personally I'd even welcome their advertising. It will highlight big business interest in maintaining unfair IR laws, it will highlight the links between big business and the government and it will make the government look even more hypocritical when it criticises advertising by unions.
It is not the plan to advertise itself that is disconcerting, but the reaction (or rather lack of reaction) to it from the Labor party. Howard government has been running a smear campaign against the unions and their connections to the Labor party. The government has, quite misleadingly, been using the spectre of "union power" to scare voters into believing that, should Labor win government, the whole world will be ruled by thugs in cricket pads.
From leaked material it appears that at least some advertising by the big business will be in the same vein - making voters afraid of reversing WorkChoices because of "control" it would give back to the unions. Naturally control by big business is much more palatable (not to mention more conducive to larger profits and executive salary packages). Other messages reportedly include "the old wharf strikes of the '70s" (wonder why they couldn't come up with any events less than forty years old) or "union leaders … having a BBQ in the backyard at Kirribilli" (not nearly as classy or acceptable as dinners for Liberal party supporters) - all of which is supposed to convince the voters that having any rights in the workplace will bring about the end of the world as we know it.
So why do we hear nothing from the Labor party about the cosy relationship between the Libs and the big business? Why was there no outcry to threats made by industry groups to undermine Labor if it persisted with plans to boost employee rights? If a union acted in such a manner Howard would be talking about it from now till election. Why is Labor not expressing outrage over the arrogance of business groups who claim to be non-political at the same time as making statements such as "this issue would be off the agenda if the ALP changed its industrial relations policy." (ie. we wouldn't have to advertise if the damn Labor party just did what we want!)
Is Labor simply unwilling to engage in this sort of slimy politics? That's doubtful - they must know that this election campaign is going to be dirty, very dirty. Is Rudd saving his best for later? Or is Labor too afraid to give an impression that they are attacking business? Is it because big business and business groups have so much power that Labor does not dare to punch back?
If unions are fair game for scare tactics and smear campaigns because of their support for Labor, but business groups cannot be touched even if they are clearly lobbying for the Liberal party, then it is clear who has too much power and whose power we should be concerned about.
Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. - Robert Frost
RSS
