|
April 18, 2006
Mario Tronti's The Strategy of Refusal asks a key question: 'At what point does the political State come to manage at least some part of the economic mechanism?' His answer is along these lines:
When this economic mechanism can begin to use the political State itself as an instrument of production --- the State as we have come to understand it, that is, as a moment of the political reproduction of the working class. The "end of laissez-faire" means, fundamentally, that working class articulation of capitalist development can no longer function on the basis of spontaneous objective mechanisms: it must be subjectively imposed by political initiatives taken by the capitalists themselves, as a class. Leaving aside all the post- and neo-Keynesian ideologies, only Keynes has provided the capitalist point of view with a formidable subjective leap forward, perhaps comparable in historical importance with the leap whih Lenin made possible from the working class point of view.
Well times have moved on. It's no longer Keynes. It's Hayek and a neo-liberal mode of governance that shapes the political initiatives of business towards the working class.
As we know the Howard Government's 'WorkChoices' legislation, which took effect in March, was designed to undercut collective bargaining, and it signified a transfer of power from workers to corporations. WorkChoices would increase, not reduce, complexity; lower minimum standards; widen inequality in the labour market; and curtail internationally recognised employee rights.
Secondly, the arguments in favour of Workchoices failed to address, let alone account of, the large body of relevant empirical research and evidence that showed that individual contracts do not, necessarily produce higher productivity or higher wages than collective bargaining.
What's more, the WorkChoices legislation ensures that individuals and organisations who suggest including 'prohibited content' in agreements are to be fined tens of thousands of dollars. The Minister can decide what is 'prohibited content’. This interference in agreement-making runs completely counter to the rhetoric of ‘choice’ and removing 'third party' involvement from relations between employees and employers. Thsi is government that involves itself in relations between employers and employees.
What we also know is that the push for individual contracts for employees overturns a century of collective efforts to create basic rights and a 'fair go' in Australian workplaces. If this shift in power is what is really happening in relations between employers and employees, then the individual workplace contracts can be placed in a wider debate about a neo-liberal Australian moving away from collective values towards individualistic values.
This is highlighted by David Peetz, who says in this op. ed in the Courier-Mail that there is still more to come. First up is the Independent Contractors Bill. Its details are unknown and it is yet to be introduced into Parliament. But the philosophy behind the Independent Contractors Bill is why can't we all sell our services to those who wish to purchase them?The intention is for employees become "independent" contractors and the Bill will make it even harder for "independent" contractors to join a union or collectively bargain and ensure they are not subject to the minimum standards that protect ordinary employees.
Peetz says:
The recent sackings by Optus give us an idea of what may follow. Optus last week sacked 60 to 70 employees, citing what might translate as "operational reasons". The details are unclear, but there are reports that the retrenched workers were told at meetings they could attend a free seminar to find out how to become "independent" contractors, working for a company contracted to Optus, and that they could buy their Optus vans if they wished. As "independent" contractors, of course, they would have no entitlements to sick leave, holidays, penalty rates or the like, would be responsible for their own workers compensation, insurance, ABN, taxation and vehicle upkeep, and would of course have no protection against unfair dismissal.
There's the shift to away from collectivity to individuality of the market.
start
previous
|
