A new CFMEU initiative looks far more interesting as a campaign tool. The union has sponsored the production of a documentary about the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the Gestapo-like outfit that treats union members as if they were terrorists. The 35-minute program is being publicised via a YouTube channel, and when it launches on 14 August, the whole documentary will be available for download at the Constructing Fear website.

That in itself is an impressive idea — compelling content is far more attractive than putting the same old sound-bytes online — but what makes this particularly exciting is the plan to move the campaign offline and into people’s living rooms. According to the site, “We are encouraging community groups, unions, churches and anyone else who is interested to organise their own screenings of the film.” Would-be hosts are provided with a copy of the DVD, customisable promotional materials, and instructions for hosting a successful film night.

This model was successfully used to promote Robert Greenwald’s Outfoxed. The straight-to-video documentary was sold cheap to community groups who were encouraged to organise screenings — within five days, it had been shown at 3000 house parties. The tactic also kickstarted Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which is now the top-grossing documentary release. And these audiences are engaged in the campaign in the longer term: “After the presentation, MoveOn.org asked the guests to sign up to do volunteer work. ‘It’s a great organizing tool,’ [Wes] Boyd said.”

I doubt that this documentary has the same broad appeal as either Fahrenheit 9/11 or Outfoxed. But if the CFMEU and the film-makers can get Constructing Fear out to construction workers, their families and friends, that is still tens of thousands of voters who will be given a good reason to join in the campaign against Howard, and given a real opportunity to do so.

It’s one thing to have people pass on your viral video, competing as it is with spam, forwarded jokes and chain letters; it’s quite another to give people — for free — a professional-quality documentary and the resources to show it to their friends. There’s a great deal of potential there for political campaigners. I’ll be watching the CFMEU’s experiment with great interest.

[Cross-posted to Solidarity.]

The report was prepared by Econtech, a firm that is heavily invested in the WorkChoices project — it was paid by the business lobby to sing the legislation’s praises. It is also committed to the ABCC, after preparing a report in 2003 predicting that government-sponsored union-busting would boost the construction industry. Econtech has now been hired by the ABCC, to verify its own predictions and justify its client’s existence.

If you don’t like the official evidence, invent some new evidence

It is worth noting that the 2003 Econtech report was reviewed by the Employment Studies Centre at the University of Newcastle (pdf). That review found fundamental problems with the Econtech methodology and assumptions.

At p 2 of the ESR evaluation, for instance, we’re told that “the Econtech report simply assumes, without any empirical inquiry, ‘that the productivity gap for engineering construction is one-half of that identified for commercial building…’”. And at p 27 of the recent Econtech report: “For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the [labour] cost gap for engineering construction is one-half of that identified for commercial building…” There has been no effort made to explain why the one-half figure was adopted. It was simply made up.

More fundamentally, Econtech measures labour productivity by measuring the total cost of doing certain construction tasks. The ESC points out that the Australian Bureau of Statistics already measures productivity in the construction industry, and the official statistics show the opposite result to that found by Econtech. In other words, because the ABS figures didn’t match the Government spin, Econtech had to invent its own measurement technique.

Here’s a concrete example. This criticism is from p 2 of the ESC evaluation:

Econtech derives the 51 percent labour cost to undertake the 8 construction tasks from Rawlinson’s. According to the ABS Australian National Accounts 1993-94 Input-Output Tables (Cat. No. 5209.0), wages and salaries comprise only 23.1 percent of total inputs to construction (Direct allocation of competing imports). This is close to half the labour content used by Econtech…

The Executive Summary to the 2007 report again claims “labour represents about 51 per cent of total costs in non-residential building”. You might think that the full report would explain how they arrived at the 51% figure, especially after the ESC criticism, but you’d be wrong. The first time it is mentioned, at p 26, we’re told it’s just an assumption: “For example given … a share of labour costs in total costs of 51 per cent”. Over the page, a table is “[b]ased on the estimate that labour accounts for 51 per cent of total costs.” Why, when the ABS actually measures the contribution of labour to industry costs, does Econtech pluck a figure out of the air?

It is even stranger when you consider that Econtech is happy to rely on ABS data on industrial action. That is because it suits the political agenda behind the report, to show that a decline in industrial action has led to apparent economic benefits. But as we know, those economic benefits are based on Econtech’s unusual productivity guesstimates. What’s more, a discussion paper (pdf) prepared for the Cole Royal Commission — which led to the establishment of the ABCC — disputes the link between industrial action and productivity:

There is a poor direct correlation between the average number of days lost to industrial disputes and changes in the three productivity measures. For example, the period with relatively few days lost to industrial disputes in the early 1990s had relatively flat MFP [multi-factor productivity]. Importantly the level of MFP in this period was lower than estimated in the 1980s when industrial disputation was much higher. The weak relationship is also evident in more recent times.

Because the evidence didn’t fit, the Econtech study had to make up its own measure of productivity, which, as the ESC points out, is strongly at odds with the official statistics.

Ask the bosses what they want you to write

The conclusions of the Econtech report are based on case studies of projects undertaken by construction companies. As The Australian reported:

Essentially, it appears labour productivity and costs have turned around significantly for the nation’s big construction firms because of a big decline in union activity.

The link is apparent because Econtech’s researchers relied on the case study companies to tell them what had a big impact in their workplaces.

The report is based on information that “was provided by two leading construction companies”, and was written “[a]fter meeting with representatives of four construction companies”. Unions, on the other hand, were not asked for their input. So, in an election year, when the building industry is threatening to run a series of anti-union political advertisements to support the Howard Government, the supposedly damning anti-union report is based on the say-so of construction bosses.

The Econtech report also relies on a pamphlet written by Ken Phillips of the Institute of Public Affairs, a hard-right lobby group. You might also remember Phillips from the sham Independent Contractors of Australia organisation. The pamphlet was riddled with made-up figures. For example, on p7, Phillips states that “[i]t is not clear if the Eastlink industrial undertakings require non-working union delegates” — but that didn’t stop him claiming that they cost $58.5 million. On p 8, he also made up figures of $9.2 million for industrial action that didn’t happen, and $43.3 million for OHS stoppages that never occured. And later, he claimed that his figures are “likely to be conservative”! The Econtech report endorses these figures, made up by an aggressive anti-union campaigner, without question.

The ABCC must be scrapped

The ABCC is a draconian, star-chamber organisation with secret-police powers, and has no place in civil society. Even its cheerleaders at The Australian reckon its “draconian powers such as forcing witnesses to give evidence, holding hearings in secret and issuing directions on non-disclosure” are unnecessary. The ABCC should be abolished.

It runs an ideological, anti-union campaign that is putting workers’ safety at risk. Take the highly publicised case of Joe McDonald, whose attempt to hold a safety meeting was disrupted by ABCC officers. Later, CFMEU organisers at the same site were prevented from conducting a safety inspection in the exercise of their legal rights. But only a few days later, the same Q-Con site was the scene of a potentially catastrophic accident, as a cubic metre of concrete fell sixteen stories to the ground.

The union has been pressing workers’ safety concerns at Q-Con for months. The ABCC has sided with the employer the whole time — how much longer until someone is killed because the ABCC has been protecting unsafe workplaces? It’s no wonder John Howard’s not well liked by Perth construction workers.

Cross-posted at Solidarity.