When I was a young fellla I was working on an industrial building site and, along with others, was ordered to work on steel girders 75 feet above the ground with no protective scaffolding.
It was raining and the air was full of miniscule graphite particles from the furnace nearby which, along with the water, made the steel slippery.
Or was it raining?
‘Yes’ according to the workers and ‘no’ according to the bosses.
The bosses insisted we work in the dangerous conditions.
“It’s only light drizzle that does not qualify as rain”.
Much discussion about what constitutes ‘rain’.
So the work team union rep told us fellas to do nothing until the union secretary arrived and ‘discussed’ the matter with the big boss.
Which resulted in us being assigned to other duties until the steel was dry.
On threat of general instant strike.

It may be a pedantic legalistic finely worded argument for some but for others the right to strike is a lifeline.

Industrial tribunals have long had the power to order secret ballots on strikes. The power was rarely used. There is a belief in some circles that it is only the wicked unions which force unwilling workers to go on strike. However where secret ballots were called workers were just as likely to support a strike against the advice of union officials. The problem then is how do you get them back to work.

Well researched and closely considered piece. I have only had time to skim it so far. While I am appalled at Rudd’s Malcolm-fraseresque approach to trade unions, I am also disturbed by this comment of yours.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2002 said Howard’s restrictions breached agreed policy.

This committee, like all similar UN Committees, has absolutely nothing to do with Australian law or society. To borrow from somebody else, WE will decide what the laws of this country are. This tendency by otherwise thoughtful leftists to relegate the Australian parliament in favor of a bunch of unaccountable UN gravy-train stooges of despots and dictators is a most regrettable developmet.

You can bet that when the Telstra, Coca-Cola or BHP-Billiton IR bloke sits down with Fred the fitter to work out the terms of Fred’s shiny new individual contract, he won’t be starting with a blank sheet of paper in front of him. What he’ll do is present Fred with some pro-forma document, phrased in legalese, and setting out standard terms that have been worked-out well in advance by the company with the help of it’s IR lawyers, Fleeceham and Gitt.

And the negotiations?: “Sign this if you want to keep working here.”

I figure that one of the reasons Howard and his government are so unpopular with the voters is that there are a lot of Freds out there who have been forced to go through the above charade.

The possibility exists for another Clarrie O’Shea-style political martyrdom.

Then the government, either Howard’s or Rudd’s, will learn that the thicket of prohibitions so comprehensively noted by Chris White are merely scraps of paper.

Neo-liberals seem to believe that their recent rediscovery of nineteenth-century nostrums of political economy, if applied to economic policy, will obviate intolerable hardship and legitimate protest.

I have news for these neo-liberals. It didn’t work in the nineteenth century and it won’t work in the 21st century.

The sheer inflexibility of Howard’s legal prohibitions against collective action will make conflict worse when it breaks out.