Right-wing lawyer admits anti-democratic intent of Workchoices and success of Union Solid. : Melbourne Indymedia

By his own admission ex-Freehills lawyer Stuart Wood isn’t having much luck lately. Wood, who offers legal advice to employers and claims to be “one of Australia’s leading workplace relations barristers” has been on the losing side of a number of recent industrial disputes. Contrary to the intent of Workchoices, a string of strikes and community assemblies have resulted in real wins for unions and the workers they represent.

Wood asserts that unions are “outsourcing” picketing to groups such as Union Solidarity. He candidly admits to advising employers in six disputes where Union Solidarity have become involved. By his assessment workers have won every blue bar one.

“In only one case that I know of…has the unionsolidarity [sic] tactic not been successful”.

A familiar pattern seems to be emerging in Victoria where some employers are keen to exploit the climate created by Workchoices. Unions are taken on or legitimate claims are frustrated. Stuart Wood and law firms such as Freehills are only too keen to “advise” employers how legal avenues can be pursued to avoid negotiating with the union/s involved. Legal sanctions are often threatened or realized, which stop the union playing an effective role. However the dispute continues, the rank and file remains strong and the community rallies support. Finally the employer comes to their senses and negotiates with the union. The dispute ends when union members are satisfied with the result, democracy and decency prevail.

The only tangible effect of conservative industrial law firms in a number of disputes has been to actually prolong the conflict and cost the employer more money. Not to mention the stress and angst caused to individuals and families by threats of legal fines to decent working people.

Wood and his cohort seem frustrated by this turn of events. The expectation was that employers under Workchoices would have a free hand in implementing whatever changes they want.

“[S]uch as opening new operations, closing old ones, hiring, terminating or trying to develop new and more productive ways of working”

All of these changes, of course, can have a detrimental effect on the employees concerned. Unions have a legitimate role in representing the interests of workers affected by change and ensuring their interests are protected.

Wood’s reveals the real intent of Workchoices is to bypass this democratic process and allow the employers to implement any change regardless of the social consequences.

“Any operator who is thinking about making the changes that I have described …must have regard to the likely outworking of any change which is not accepted by the relevant union.”

However action by the community has frustrated efforts to bypass the relevant union and protected the interests of the employees concerned.

“I doubt that any of the project operators who have been hit with a union solidarity type response to their activities thought, when they began the planning for the changes, that they would be targeted in the manner that they have been.”

If for nothing else Stuart Wood should be commended for his candor and honesty. His arguments are directed to employer associations and not for general consumption. He seeks to position himself as something of an IR guru advising employers how to implement change in the face of union opposition and community solidarity.

“To some extent, planning must become more sophisticated and take account of these possibilities, perhaps probabilities, at an earlier stage.”

Wood finishes his paper with a warning to employers that we hope will become a taste of things to come.

“Because the community picket strategy works so well, from all perspectives and has been so effective in Victoria (and to an extent in Western Australia), it will not be long before the strategy is adopted in other states”

Lets hope so
Union Solidarity.

Reference:
Stuart Wood, Outsourcing Industrial Action, http://www.stuartwood.com.au, p. 10-13.