The unions, I think, are both being very responsible and very politically smart in following up the rescue of the Beaconsfield miners with an emphasis on occupational health and safety issues in general and the terms of an enquiry into the events at the mine in particular.
Bill Shorten on Lateline:
I back Kim Beazley in this issue. It’s just the truth of the matter. If you want to raise union health and safety training – and it’s not a bad idea – union health and safety training. We can’t. We can’t. We’re breaking the law. So I think he’s perfectly correct. For myself, the mission for me has been at Beaconsfield working with our members and families to help them. But I think going forward, a good strong inquiry can shake out why it is that some of these unsafe mining practices, according to these very experienced hard-rock miners, were taking place, and what it is we can do about it to prevent this happen happening again and how do workers voices get heard at the workplace.
And Shorten puts paid to the claims that he was grandstanding and related snarkiness, arguing that what the public have seen through the unprecedented media coverage is just the day to day role of unions in action.
My observation is that all that myself, and I had plenty of other AWU officials there, were doing is what unions do every day in the workplace, especially when there’s tragedy and catastrophe. The welfare of the families, looking after the miners, once all the Winnebagos have gone from the museum car park down from the bottom of the mine, we still have to go and sort out the workers entitlements and what’s happening. This is what unions do. I think what’s happened is because this was a tragedy with a death combined with a miraculous rescue, the media’s been more focused on these activities than perhaps happens in a normal workplace fatality. In the same two weeks, there’s been many, unfortunately, too many workplace fatalities all over Australia that haven’t received the same attention and I know that there’s union officials working on all of those too.
Beaconsfield has been good for Shorten – cant say the reverse applies.
rog, you of course conveniently overlook the 40k that Shorten and the union raised for Knight’s family, with your usual negativity.
Thats a new role for the unions – as charities. I wonder if Beaconsfield is there only fund raiser?
As I have said before, over the years my contacts with unions has led me to believe that they are nothing but a bunch of thugs and standover merchants running an extortion racket.
To deny that unions routinely raise money for the families of dead and injured workers is beyond ignorance and well over the line into misrepresentation.
I would be the last to claim that unions are perfect organisations with no political opportunists ever as officeholders, but unions are the bulwark of workers’ rights and have done that job well for decades.
Unions have always been into ‘charity’ activities.
This is a prime example of why. I thought Shorten played his role very well.
He spelt out what was happening and that was all.
He was obviously close to the families hence what happened when they came out and ever since.
Also and this is very important he has backed up two issues which Howard apologists have dissembled about.
The Unions had safety courses as part of their EBA and the miners wanted it.
Agreed that unions are not perfect (well, dang), but having always found Ken Parish a rational and sensible sort of blogger, I thought that Troppo post was quite aback-taking — starting with the classic tabloid trick of adding an unflattering photo of someone they want to diss.
He also seems to be missing the point about the press. That’s what journalists do: they stand around looking for a likely nose to shove a microphone under. Then when the owner of the nose obliges, she/he gets dissed for hogging the microphone. Surely Ken Parish knows this, in which case the post must have been a disingenuous attempt to discredit Shorten.
And everyone knows that the journos at Beaconsfield were desperate for stories while they waited. They would, whenever they got the chance, have fallen with cries of glee on an articulate, telegenic, intelligent union boss who had something of substance to say.
Employers groups also contribute to/run charity events.
When the miners came out they called for Koch not Shorten, they knew which side their bread was buttered on.
rog,
Who id the family call over.
not kochy but big Bill!
Employers only contribute when they have to whereas it is part of the Union’s core competency
Look, Shorten had nothing to contribute to the rescue except to lift his profile. He knows little or nothing about mining and mine rescue and abandoned his day job to advise the ABC on the process.
“Employers only contribute when they have to…”
That is just so wrong.
rog, you are bringing up a straw man.
no-one ever said he had anything to do with the rescue.
The families were grateful he cut his holiday short to come to beaconsfield when everyone thought there were three dead miners.
He through the union assisted the families as they do in these situations hence the family reaction when they were leaving for the hospital.
While everything that can be done to protect miners should be done, I think it has to be recognized that mining is just an inherently dangerous occupation. So is window washing and tree cutting and fire fighting. Not to say that people shouldn’t be protected as best they can but there’s a limit to what can be done to prevent all accidents from happening in mining.
“Look, Shorten had nothing to contribute to the rescue except to lift his profile. He knows little or nothing about mining and mine rescue and abandoned his day job to advise the ABC on the process.”
Being on site at the time of any major accident, especially one involving fatalities, is the job of any union leader.
I don’t count myself as one of the Bill Shorten fanclub, but I thought he did a terrific job at Beaconsfield as far as demonstrating support for his members, and communicating what was going on down in the pit.
What I don’t get is why the sour grapes at the AWU for doing its job, ie supporting the families, and having a visible presence in support of its paying members – that’s precisely what the membership would expect the union and its leadership to do.
It should be noted that as far as getting his mug on the box is concerned Pavlov’s Cat is absolutely right – Shorten was a resource, had contact with the rescuers, could explain what was going on, and was generally pretty good talent.
Oh, and nobody from the company (apart from Matthew Gill, who was obvioulsy a bit pre-occupied with organising the rescue) was in a position to offer a running update. Any organisation worth their salt should have had somebody down there whose only responibility was to talk to the press.
Good grief. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Shorten hadn’t been there? At the very least he would have been hung, drawn and quatrtered by the membership.
I’m just wondering why Shorten had all the publicity. Surely the local union rep was a better choice, given that he/she likely knew far more about the mine, its processes and facilties, and the men who worked there.
Anyone who doesn’t think that Shorten has cynically used this tragic episode to build his political profile is hopelessly naive.
As I said over at Ken’s thread, it’s quite possible to combine your self interest with the interest of others. Shorten no doubt had in mind his own political career. He was also doing his job. In the real world, outside blog threads, it’s possible to have two (in this case complementary) motivations.
Anyone who doesn’t get that is either cynical or partisan.
Shorten also no doubt has more media experience than the local union rep. It’s quite intimidating to be interviewed by tv or radio if you’re not used to it.
Anyone who doesn’t think that Shorten has cynically used this tragic episode to build his political profile is hopelessly naive.
Maybe, but then it would the same as Howard after 7/11 and the Bali bombings.
Mark,
I’m a little concerned about your argument around media experience. It seems that you’d prefer a managed process conducted by the professional spin-meisters, rather than the simple provision of information by the local guy on (and under) the ground.
Guido,
I think you’re spot on. They’re both good examples of political cynicism. However, when Howard does it we get a heavy dose of lefty indignation. The Left’s silence on Shorten’s outrageous abuse of his position is deafening.
Big difference with Howard was that he is the minister responsible for the security and welfare of the country. At Beaconfield the entire responsibility for the accident lies with the management and the directors with the Mines Act describes those responsibilities.
The unions may ”act” responsibly but they do not have actually have any real responsiblity.
Big difference with Howard was that he is the minister responsible for the security and welfare of the country. At Beaconfield the entire responsibility for the accident lies with the management and the directors with the Mines Act describes those responsibilities.
I disagree. The Union has a direct responsibility to its members’ welfare. And whether you think that Shorten should have been there or not (rather than the Tasmanian AWU head) they had a central role
Yo-yo
I’ve been interviewed on tv. There are certain skills to it. Obviously.
You’ve not made any case that Shorten “outrageously abused” his position beyond assertion.
The unions may feel they have a responsibility but that is all it is, an emotion. I can tell you, they feel no fear when it comes to signing up members and feel no pain when being absent when it comes to representing their members.
RWDBs ought to take a leaf out of Howard’s book and praise the Union for its role. But instead we get reflex negativity.
Absolutely what the Non Ferrous Petal said. Shorten’s role was to be the public face of the union and as far as I can see he did the job admirably, focusing on providing support to the task of rescuing the trapped miners and, through his comments, taking the pressure off the mine manager who, in addition to meeting the media’s insatiable, though understandable, demand for news had the job of co-ordinating the rescue.
In addition, as far as I could see, Shorten’s role of providing sensible level-headed comments provided guidance to others on how to behave when the frustrations from the delays in getting to the miners could have caused tempers to flair and recriminations to fly at a time when for that occur would have been counterproductive to the rescue effort.
Beyond his role of fronting the media it seems clear that Shorten and his Organisers were effective in providing support and comfort to the families of the trapped miners and the family of Larry Knight as well as to other union members.
The surprise about Shorten tells us about the preconceptions harboured by the anti-union crowd. Shorten challenges those preconceptions.
They call it politics – what they really mean is play the man not discredit the idea
Hey Naomi, can we can expect to see the union incl Shorten in court putting up their collective hands saying “yes, it was me me me” when it come to apportioning blame/guilt/responsibility?
Doubt it, water wont run uphill.
No, because it wasn’t Shorten’s fault, rog, for Chrissakes!
Kim: … wasn’t it?
Doesn’t anyone else here find it strangely co-incidental that no sooner than the dust settled, Shorten suddenly turns up?
Isn’t it just too convenient that he had to supposedly ‘interrupt’ an ‘overseas trip’ to come to Beaconsfield?
Think about it: it’s the perfect alibi.
The AWU obviously has a close relationship with the miners, who have direct access to explosives. Heavy explosives.
The ‘earthquake’ that set off the ‘mining disaster’ was ‘localised’, incredibly, right near the mine site.
The pieces are starting to come together aren’t they?
How fortuitious that the one man, who’s benefited so much from this (even Miranda loves him now…) is the same man who heads the Union that represents the miners who so heroically dug their colleagues out. Colleagues, who, I might add were members of this very same ‘Australian Workers Union’. Colleagues who were later seen hugging and shaking hands with none other than Bill Shorten…
Co-incidence?
How about this then: even though the trapped miners clearly favoured the Foo Fighters as their music of choice, the ‘benefit concert’ so ‘hastily’ arranged (almost too hastily…) will be headlined by Shannon Noll. That’s right.
Noll.
What’s really going on here?
Why haven’t these questions been answered?
Why, despite clear evidence that Bill Shorten (if that is his real name…) has directly been involved at every stage of this disaster, is the ‘inquiry’ going to focus on the mine management?
When will the media put the pieces together?
Heh.
Though I must admit the Shannon Noll thing is very suss…
I thought Denton must have lined up Paul Featherstone in a hell of a hurry.
This explains it all.
We’re through the looking glass, people…: are you trying to say he caoused this?