the Banner Bright

Renee Burns on new rules that “reduced the access period for proposed changes to existing enterprise agreements from seven days to 24 hours”: “Unlike the recently implemented JobKeeper scheme, the regulations as made apply to all businesses covered by existing enterprise agreements; with no requirement to demonstrate a downturn in business or other COVID-19 related detriment. The regulations do share a sunset clause with other COVID-19 responses — with the access period reverting to seven days after six months’ operation — however, any changes made to enterprise agreements under the regulations will continue in perpetuity. … ACTU Secretary, Sally McManus … [said] ‘…the effect of reducing this period to 24 hours leaves workers exposed to employers seeking to exploit the fear caused by the pandemic and to pressure workers into rushed agreements, locking out their access to advice’. … Changes made to enterprise agreements under the new regulations are permanent, accessible to all businesses and continue an identifiable pattern of weakening workers’ representations rights. As such, the new regulations — introduced without consultation — look to be less a necessary lifeline of flexibility and more like a wolf in COVID clothing.”

Per Capita’s Emma Dawson [$] sounds a warning about Universal Basic Income: “[T]here’s a reason that the UBI has been championed by heroes of conservative and neoliberal politics such as Charles Murray and Milton Friedman: it’s an effective tool by which to reduce the size of government and increase people’s reliance on the market. Handing out unconditional cash from taxpayer funds gives great grist to the argument that government should stop delivering essential services and expect people to buy them from private providers. … Persuading the government to raise taxes, or even print money, to distribute to working people means that, no matter how badly you pay them, they can still afford to buy your stuff. Essentially, the UBI is just another measure to funnel the products of our national economy into the hands of those who control the means of production. It exacerbates the concentration of capital amongst those at the very top of our economic system.” One great advantage of the UBI is that it attracts widespread support (a survey published this week found 71% of Europeans agree “that EU member states should pay all citizens a basic income, regardless of their employment status”) but that is partly because it is still a nebulous concept. If progressives want a UBI it must be carefully designed and implemented in conjunction with UBS.

Joshua Badge: “At first glance, the government response appears to protect renters, but landlords win at every step. State governments opted for a trickle-down approach, with New South Wales gifting landlords $440m in further tax breaks. Victoria followed suit with a $420m discount on land tax, setting aside a mere $80m for renters themselves. Even then, state government rent relief goes straight to landlords, making the whole scheme a scandalous transfer of public money to private investors. The states’ strategy has been to protect the interests of property owners and pray they pass on the benefits to tenants. … Ours is a society with more empty residences than homeless people. Wealthy households have never been more prosperous, while millions remain impoverished. The solutions are simple. If someone is homeless, give them a home. If they are hungry, then provide them with food. The discussion we should have is not whether we should do this, but how? We should increase welfare payments, ban no-cause evictions, invest in social housing and legislate stronger rights for renters. We could also establish rent controls, nationalise housing and push for a national housing guarantee.”

When big companies like Amazon engage in flagrant union-busting, they are usually disciplined enough to keep their true motivation hidden. But this week, Amazon vice president Tim Read quit over the company’s treatment of union organisers, and explained why in a blog post: “3,000 Amazon tech workers from around the world joined in the Global Climate Strike walkout… [Their] leaders were threatened with dismissal. … Fast-forward to the Covid-19 era. Stories surfaced of unrest in Amazon warehouses, workers raising alarms about being uninformed, unprotected, and frightened. Official statements claimed every possible safety precaution was being taken. Then a worker organizing for better safety conditions was fired, and brutally insensitive remarks appeared in leaked executive meeting notes where the focus was on defending Amazon ‘talking points’. … Warehouse workers reached out to AECJ for support. … [T]wo visible AECJ leaders, were fired on the spot… The justifications were laughable; it was clear to any reasonable observer that they were turfed for whistleblowing. … [R]emaining an Amazon VP would have meant, in effect, signing off on actions I despised. So I resigned.” Of course, they will simply replace Read with a more compliant corporate warrior — but it’s interesting when the mask slips.

Linguist Zachary Jaggers questions the use of the term ‘essential workers’: “By this point in the coronavirus pandemic, you’ve probably heard a lot about ‘essential workers.’ They’re the people working in hospitals and grocery stores, on farms and in plants. They’re keeping public transit, shipping and utilities running. But is ‘essential’ describing the workers themselves? Or only the work they do? Right now, many don’t feel like they’re being treated like they’re essential, and workers at Amazon, Walmart and other companies have organized strikes to protest unsafe working conditions. There seems to be a disconnect between how some low-wage workers are being described and what they’re experiencing on the ground. … It makes you wonder whether some of these workers are considered all that essential. Might ‘expendable’ be a more fitting term? … Other workers are questioning why their work is even being described as ‘essential.’ … They feel their work is really only ‘essential’ to their employers to ‘help them make money,’ as one Walgreens worker put it.” Consider Scott Morrison’s claim that “Everyone who has a job in this economy is an essential worker”, and remember, as he bullies the States into putting people at risk of a second wave of infection, that he cares about money first and people only as a means to keep the money moving,

Matt Korostoff has published a powerful infographic to illustrate the obscenity of wealth inequality: “Jeff [Bezos] is so wealthy, that it is quite literally unimaginable. We rarely see wealth inequality represented to scale. This is part of the reason Americans consistently under-estimatethe relative wealth of the super rich. Every 10 pixels you scroll is $5 million. OK, we’re coming up on the end now. Lol, just kidding, we’re about ⅓ of the way. Keep scrolling though, there’s more to see. … No single human needs or deserves this much wealth.” Reading about it doesn’t do it justice; you should click through to scroll (and scroll, and scroll) for yourself.