Whether right or not, it's clear that the union movement is fearful that the impending wave of industrial relations reform legislation will put it out of business. In response, it has launched a media campaign to pressure the Federal Government to limit the reforms.
An eight-week strike, picket and media assault against a small Dandenong manufacturer highlights the campaign that can hit any company.
Kemalex Plastics is a family owned, Adelaide based automotive industry supplier that started in 1947. About a decade ago, it decided to go down the independent contractor path. As employees left and the company grew, all new staff were engaged as self-employed contractors through labour hire. The family says this has helped change the culture of the company to a total business focus.
In 2002, Kemalex bought a small, financially troubled plastics plant in Dandenong. It believed that by replicating its Adelaide approach, it could make Dandenong profitable.
The company negotiated an agreement with the National Union of Workers that allowed the use of independent contractors.
No employees were asked to become independent contractors but new people came through labour hire. As in Adelaide, contractors receive higher remuneration than employees.
But in negotiating the 2005 agreement, the NUW announced that the independent contractors had to go. The company declined and the NUW began a strike involving about half the staff.
While strikes are normal, the intense media campaign conducted against Kemalex is unusual. Initially the unions used ABC radio and television, then suburban newspapers and leaflet drops until the campaign gained mainstream media coverage.
The strike turned violent when about 40 non-Kemalex unionists moved in to run the picket. Federal Labor MPs began a steady stream of picket line visits creating media opportunities.
Such has been the dedication of the unions to the anti-Kemalex campaign that striking employees have been paid by the union while on strike and contractors have been woken at their homes by union officials offering them "thousands" and alternate jobs if they would complain against Kemalex.
The headline issue being run by the unions is that Kemalex is forcing "low paid migrant women" to become contractors.
Kemalex denies this and the unions have failed to produce evidence to back their claim. However, when such claims receive repeated media exposure they become part of the political backdrop.
This appears to be the purpose of the union-driven media campaign against Kemalex as opposed to a normal but extended strike.
Now the name "Kemalex" is being used as a symbol of the alleged employer exploitation that will occur if the Federal Government's legislative reforms are passed. Kemalex is being used as a public relations battering ram in a union-organised but party-political scare campaign.
The tragedy in all this is that Kemalex and the people who work in the business have suffered financial damage. Kemalex saved the jobs of 60 or more people who faced losing their work in 2002 before the company bought the Dandenong plant. Jobs at Kemalex are probably once again at risk.
What was initially a low level industrial disagreement has been escalated and extended through a national media campaign of political posturing. The company didn't do this. The unions did.
Australian manufacturers face severe competitive pressure but it's no wonder that the idea of undertaking needed labour reform inside businesses must appear daunting to managers.
The Federal Government may achieve legislative reform but whether or not managers feel they have the complex media and other skills to fix problems is a big question. Perhaps that's what the anti-Kemalex, union media campaign sought to achieve; to instil reform fear in managers.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment