There is a certain level of irony that the union deal Bill Shorten is in trouble for is one which is believed to have been good for business. After decades of the Liberal Party and conservative media targeting the ALP for being union hacks who destroy productivity, Bill Shorten is under fire over an article in Fairfax for negotiating an agreement that saw a major project finish five months ahead of schedule.
It’s all a bit mystifying really. The apparent horror is that the AWU – the union of which Shorten was national secretary – was paid "nearly $300,000 after he struck a workplace deal that cut conditions and saved the company as much as $100 million on a major Melbourne road project [the EastLink]."
READ MORE
Shorten future at stake: ex-premier
Now for a start, the reporting of this is rather poor. It implies that the company saving $100m means that workers lost out on $100m. This is not the case at all.
The figure is based on a report done by Ken Phillips of the right-wing free enterprise think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. As Phillips told the ABC, the figure came from estimating the difference between what occurred on other major projects such as the CityLink.
Phillip’s report was more about trying to highlight how WorkChoices and the introduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission had improved construction costs.
As Phillips told ABC radio, "We were able to estimate that there was about $31 million in differences in costs due to sham OHS (occupational health and safety) disputes that occurred on CityLink that didn’t and weren’t going to occur on EastLink, sham weather disputes of about $12 million that were to occur, that occurred on East CityLink and didn’t occur on EastLink."
The payment of $300,000 by the company to the AWU looks bad, unless you realise that many companies pay money to unions. In a sense it is little different from political donations. And indeed like political donations they are registered with the Australian Electoral Commission.
Among other aspects in the enterprise agreement were that rostering on the project was such that work could theoretically go 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. The trade off involved better penalty rates and pay rates. In 2005 when boasting of the agreement, the AWU noted that the agreement meant "pay rates start 3% above industry Award and rise 14% over three years and “double-time pay rates all day on Saturday".
On projects prior to the EastLink certain days were set as rostered days off on which work could not occur. This was done away with in the EastLink agreement.
Phillips concluded that "because of the way the rostering was able to be done on EastLink, and in comparison to CityLink, the number of days lost due to down productivity was in the order of $185 million".
His report noted that "the speed with which the project is progressing is almost unheard of in the history of construction in Victoria over the last 20–30 years".
So clearly nothing for Shorten to be embarrassed about – unless you think the prospective Prime Minister should have been party to “sham weather disputes” that stopped work and increased the costs of a major project.
You can argue the toss over whether workers would have been better off having all public holidays and nine days over Christmas and New Year off rather than those being work days on which penalty rates were paid, but in all negotiations you can argue whether giving up one thing is better or worse for the workers or the company.
The payment of $300,000 by the company to the AWU looks bad, unless you realise that many companies pay money to unions. (Guardian Australia’s Nick Evershed has a nice graphic of all the money). In a sense it is little different from political donations. And indeed like political donations they are registered with the Australian Electoral Commission.
About the worst anyone can allege is that the money was paid in order to get a good deal, but there would need to be some proof of actual quid-pro-quo and also evidence the workers were dudded by the deal.
The Fairfax article gives this payment a bit of a sinister shade, writing: "The figures are detailed in fine-print in documents lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission." Such a characterisation is a bit silly. You might as well say your charitable donations are detailed in fine print on your tax return. The documents are standard and the payment is recorded in the appropriate manner.
Does this put Shorten in the clear?
Well no one is alleging the money was used for inappropriate purposes – the AWU argued it went towards things like training. No one is suggesting the payments were anything like the much more inappropriate ones by Winslow Constructors in 2005 in which it paid the union dues of 105 of its employees (and about which Shorten will be facing the royal commission next month).
About the worst anyone can allege is that the money was paid in order to get a good deal, but there would need to be some proof of actual quid-pro-quo and also evidence the workers were dudded by the deal.
But just because he was not party to anything improper does not mean politically he is in the clear.
Watching the ABC’s documentary The Killing Season this week reminded everyone (if any was needed) of the awful state of the ALP. Why on earth any current sitting MPs or Senators thought it wise to talk about the events of 2010-2013, let alone do re-enactments.
But it wasn’t just the glee shown by some about their actions, it was the events leading up to it. The care more about the communications strategy of the policy than the actual policy. The fact that those in the Rudd camp thought it great Rudd had done a deal with Andrew Forrest on the mining tax, because that would take the heat out of the issue.
The stories of the unions won’t in themselves hurt Shorten – there’s no sense of any wrongdoing even in the way that some alleged Julia Gillard to have done wrong. But it all just feeds into the view of Shorten as a union official with little else to his credit.
There is just so much emphasis on the surface and not on the substance. And thus it ever seems with Shorten. For example, this week reports were leaked that "Labor is preparing to harden its stance on asylum seekers significantly amid fears the coalition is gearing up to paint the Opposition as soft on border security."
The fear and worry about appearances festered throughout the Rudd years and despite introducing an unpopular carbon pricing scheme also infected the Gillard years.
Under Shorten nothing seems to have changed.
Talk has advanced among some in the press of Shorten’s leadership being in question. With the ALP ahead in all polls, it is unlikely that – baring some surprise evidence at the Royal commission –anything will happen.
And yet whereas four months ago the vibe was the ALP wanted Abbott to remain, now the sense is very much that the Liberal Party hopes Shorten remains leader, for Abbott feels he has his measure.
The fact that people are less satisfied with Shorten than they are with Abbott is rather astounding given how Abbott has ever been disliked by voters.
The stories of the unions won’t in themselves hurt Shorten – there’s no sense of any wrongdoing even in the way that some alleged Julia Gillard to have done wrong. But it all just feeds into the view of Shorten as a union official with little else to his credit.
Despite his poor personal ratings, people don’t particularly dislike Shorten; what has he done that would have you think one way or the other about him?
In the end, allegations of union impropriety won’t hurt Shorten’s ability to be leader; it will be the lack of any sense that if he were not leader that he would be missed.
