>
>Peter Colley wrote:
>
>> CRA cites Tiwai as an example of the success of its strategy, and claims
>> that productivity and the like have improved enormously. There are two
>> aspects to such claims:
>>
>> 1. They are never independently verified. We all know how shonky the OHS
>> statistics are from transnationals operating in third world countries where
>> such statistics are never independently scrutinised.
and ellen replied:
>
>This may well be true, at least in part, if productivity figures have
>wages as a component. The wages offered workers at Tiwai seemed higher
>but were not once overtime and other penal rates were lost under the new
>agreements. The result would have been lower cost of labor for each unit
>of production, whether or not anything was done to improve processes.
>
the australian newspaper published a comparison of labour packages at the CRA
Weipa plant b/tw those that took the contracts and those that decided to remain
on the award last week.
the overwhelming evidence is that the contract workers (prior to the decision
of the Arbitration Commission) were very much better off even though they had
traded in some conditions.
the company was also saying it was better off b/c in unit cost terms they had a
cheaper site. the wedge had to be x-inefficiencies and other constraints. if
they are to be believed.
as i mentioned the other night, a point peter ignored, the unions and the govt
were completely straitjacketed in this mindset that any time a firm would
individually bargain it would be at the expense of the worker. that is, it
would always involve lower incomes. indeed, a case the other day reinforced
this bent, where a company in queensland (also) persuaded workers to trade in
their sick leave entitlements plus more for up front wage rises. the agreement
was declared invalid by the AC when it went for consent b/c it worsened workers
rights. but CRA has been much smarter. their indiv. contracts appear to be very
generous. and the workers have flocked to them in droves.
it may be said that this is just predatory pricing - soon the conditions will
be eroded in recontracting once the award protection is broken.
well we might look at the Bell Bay (tasmania) smelter case for some guidance
(another CRA site). they have already entered recontracting and there is little
sign that the workers are regretting their decision to take indiv. contracts.
the whole mess is a sorry one. workers being divided by the lure of $s - a lure
which looks more attractive in the context of a govt/ACTU policy which has cut
workers real incomes for 12 years.
to say that CRA is stupid and has really gained productivity improvements would
be a rather dangerous statement to make i think. they clearly are paying a lot
more to the contract workers and are willing to give the same to any of the
rest.
kind regards
bill
#### ## William F. Mitchell
####### #### Head of Economics Department
################# University of Newcastle
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
################### Phone: +61 49 215065
##### ## ### +61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
>ellen dannin
--
#### ## William F. Mitchell
####### #### Head of Economics Department
################# University of Newcastle
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
################### Phone: +61 49 215065
##### ## ### +61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
