WORLD WORLDWIDE AUSTRALIA News Journal Update - (en) Australia, acmeanjin: The Fight For Safety By Oliver (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machinetranslation]

 On July 25, 2023, workers walked off Brisbane's massive Cross River Rail

project, voting to stop work until the following week. This decision
came in the wake of a catastrophic safety failure at the Boggo Road
site, where a worker fell over 12 metres from scaffolding and was rushed
to the hospital. The injured scaffolder, Nation "Nash" Kouka, remains
hospitalised after his near-fatal fall. ---- The Cross River Rail
project, outsourced by the government to the private company CPB
Contractors, has been grappling with numerous Occupational Health and
Safety (OHS) issues. Notably, the Gabba location has seen the release of
dangerous silica dust, posing risks not only to the workers but also to
the public. According to on-site workers, accidents and near misses are
common.

On the same day as the above accident, a metal rod plummeted from some
scaffolding, rebounding into the cockpit of a forklift. Fortunately, no
injuries occurred, yet this incident serves as a testament that such
occurrences are not isolated. Despite these notices, the hazardous work
environment persists. This confirms the suspicions held by most workers
in the construction industry: even if they were to report safety
breaches, the government agencies responsible for enforcing the laws are
failing to make sure bosses actually rectify safety issues.

Workers have made their concerns over OHS clear to their bosses, but CPB
insisted on putting profits over worker safety and refused to listen.
The consequences of CPB negligence have been catastrophic.

Compounding the issue is the fact that CPB has found an ally in their
negligence in the Australian Workers Union (AWU). In order to prevent
the militant CFMEU from effectively standing up for worker safety, CPB
has appointed AWU as the official site representatives.This arrangement
protects CPB profits because, as reported by former AWU members at Cross
River Rail, AWU officials have been totally uninvolved in worker's
struggles to resolve important OHS issues - and workers who are not
backed by the collective power of a union are easily ignored. CPB's
negligence has extended to interfering with CFMEU union officials'
attempts to inspect the sites, hindering the resolution of OHS issues.

Amid the July work stoppage, CPB hastily announced a "safety reset" in
an effort to regain control of the situation. Workers were instructed to
return to the site less than two days after the accident to participate
in the "reset." CPB leveraged pressure on individual workers and the
contractors employing them, attempting to compel the workforce's return.
  Unwavering in their determination, workers stood firm, remaining
off-site until Monday, with the union mobilising to make sure the
stopwork decision was adhered to across all sites. This sent a clear
message that they were united and prepared to take safety into their own
hands. With the return to work on Monday workers began the safety reset
on their own terms, supported by their union.

With the media spotlight fading, CPB Contractors began to drag their
feet in collaborating with CFMEU officials on the safety reset. This has
stalled the project, as workers were unwilling to work in dangerous
sections. On August 8, 2023, the CFMEU publicised these unresolved issues.

Scaffolding that was not up to safety standards
Risk of falling objects from heights
A serious silica dust issue
Structural integrity issues
Serious electrical safety issues
Many unqualified workers who were working with little training
Workers are standing strong, staying in the smoko hut until their
workplace is safe. This collective resolve to stand up against their
employers will triumph in winning a safe working environment, a feat
that the government agency responsible for OHS oversight has failed to
achieve.

OHS on the balance sheet

Let's be clear: the driving force behind these OHS issues is profit. The
bosses seek to maximise productivity while minimising expenses,
including those required for worker safety. Cutting corners on equipment
and personal protective gear leads to dangerous accidents, and proper
training is often overlooked in the pursuit of higher profits. The logic
of capitalism dictates that in order to raise profits, the bosses will
inevitably cut costs by skimping on OHS issues.

On the other side of the equation, bosses want to get as much work out
of us as possible.  Fatigue and working at unsafe speeds due to
demanding schedules and speed-ups further contribute to safety issues.
These practices compromise the well-being of workers, chronically
exhausting them, leading to mistakes and accidents that could otherwise
be avoided. Both long shifts and speed-ups are ways the bosses try to
milk every bit of productivity out of us.

Unsafe work has a profit motive.

  While the profit motive undeniably causes innumerable problems, it
also bestows upon us a degree of power.In order to extract  profit from
us, bosses depend on our continued labour.  While one or two workers
might be replaced if they individually refuse to work in an unsafe
environment, a united workforce poses a greater challenge, compelling
employers to negotiate or risk an expensive battle. It's true that OHS
issues arise from this exploitative profit extraction, but organised
workers have the capacity to unite in the fight for safety.

labor protest capitalism kills

OHS fights in the past: Safety at SGIO

It is important to look to related struggles to assess where workers
have succeeded and failed in the past. The following is an account from
Humphrery McQueen's Frameworks of Flesh on a struggle during the
construction of the State Government Insurance Office (SGIO) building in
the Brisbane CBD.

"Jim Young fell eight storeys to his death on the Queensland SGIO site
in July 1968. Stoppages began at once around the city as the men walked
off for 12 hours. The building unions campaigned for enforcement, which
the Department of Labour and the MBA impeded. The unions' call for
safety officers met with "a blank refusal". The issue remained alive
until an inspector determined the situation in favour of the SGIO
workers. The Branch Executive welcomed the victory as good in principle
because the demands had been accepted by the boss. They criticised the
conduct of the struggle because the members had not told the office
about the problem until the stoppage was under way. Although the rule
was that even the smallest dispute had to be notified, the officials
were becoming more responsive and flexible to protect their members and
to preserve their own authority.

The SGIO dispute happened just in time for Branch officials to raise at
the Rockhampton Safety Convention on 29-30 July 1968. One organiser
afterwards accused the employers of attending for "the sole reason of
pulling the union policy to pieces." The union delegates got no chance
to ask hard questions because all queries had to be submitted in writing
and the embarrassing ones were never read out. Secretary Delaney
complained that "many pious resolutions had been carried at conventions
but were forgotten immediately after.

Conditions at the SGIO job confirmed Delaney's assessment. Although the
client had charge of the State's system of workers' compensation, the
safety for its new building was a disgrace. SGIO labourers became even
more union-minded after the transfer of their delegate. A few days
later, the death of Bro. Harmer led to a further walk-off before all the
city's building workers marched on Parliament House. They went out again
on 27 November 1968 to press for safety committees. Most employers were
either against their establishment, or insisted on nominating the
membership. Early in 1969, the men at SGIO elected their own safety
officers.

Another death at the SGIO site in June provoked a third and protracted
stoppage. The contractor and the MBA still opposed allowing workers any
say in the choice of a safety officer. The men stayed out. The union
wanted the firm to be charged with manslaughter. By 30 June, collections
on other jobs had brought in $2,000 for the strikers; on Saturdays, the
Branch distributed food parcels valued at $15 each. The Commissioner
agreed that men should have some say in the selection of their safety
officer, and the firm conceded that the job needed cleaning up. Then, a
dispute erupted over the sacking of a BL delegate. Job action got him
reinstated. When bricks began popping out of walls in February 1970, the
BLs refused to work on the SGIO plaza. Concern over safety became a
catalyst for rank-and-file control around the sites.

The payment of height money muddied the education of labourers in the
battle for safety. The employers argued that they were paying extra for
labourers to take risks. In turn, men who got that bonus were less
likely to insist on protections. The unions saw multi-storey allowances
as a way to improve the weekly wage. When the height allowance was at a
flat-rate, it brought the earnings of labourers closer to those of
tradesmen. Safety could seem secondary."

cross river protest crowd

OHS involves everyone

When some people think about OHS they think it's solely about dangerous,
blue-collar type work. OHS issues go beyond physical injuries and can
also encompass mental health and safety from harassment.

Mental health is often individualised by employers, despite many mental
issues stemming from the workplace. While modern companies are more
likely to pay lip service to mental health, maintaining an ever
increasing profit margin requires keeping workers in line with little
pay, worsening working conditions, and harsh management. Company
"solutions" tend to address symptoms rather than root causes, promoting
self-care in your own time and asking coworkers "R U OK?" once a year.
Some "progressive" companies may even allow for paid therapy sessions,
cementing the idea that distress caused by poor working conditions is a
sign of personal failing and a need for self-improvement, rather than a
problem of working conditions. This approach serves as both propaganda
and a means to evade the work of seriously addressing mental health in
the workplace.

As an example of an OHS dispute centred about mental wellbeing, last
year workers at Melbourne Dangerfield organised to demand safety from
the regular harassment they received from customers. They, along with
their union RAFFWU, picketed the store to demand a full-time security
guard. They were successful in this campaign for workers' health and safety.

Where to from here?

OHS laws are all well and good, but unless we organise ourselves with
our coworkers to fight to enforce them they are just words on paper. Our
collective power is the sole guarantee that we'll keep coming home to
our families. To achieve this,we need to talk to our coworkers to
identify and address the OHS issues that matter most to them and how to
demand better working conditions from the bosses. The creation of health
and safety committees can be helpful, but they need to be backed up by
the whole workforce.

We should demand more from our unions in the support they give us in our
fight for safety. Regrettably, unions like the AWU are commonplace,with
ineffective organisers, long wait times for support, and a conciliatory
position towards the boss. Members of such unions must hold officials
accountable, while ultimately understanding they need to rely on their
own initiative and solidarity. If unions fail to provide workplace
organising training and OHS legal information, it will be up to members
to organise to share this information amongst themselves. Safety is a
life and death issue, and we cannot wait for conciliatory unions to fix
our problems.

While good union officials do exist, we can't rely on them. While bosses
fear militant union officials, what they fear even more is a well
organised workforce that is involved in maintaining their conditions at
work. Officials can provide invaluable experience and legal knowledge,
but without that on the ground organisation their abilities to intervene
will be limited. The fight for safety can only be waged by the workers
it affects.

Where laws do not exist we will need to fight on the shopfloor to
pressure the government to make OHS reforms. An example of this is the
recently announced ban by the CFMEU on manufactured stone. Workers in
Queensland who have handled this product have had a 1 in 5 chance of
being diagnosed with silicosis, a fatal lung condition. The union has
called on the ALP to ban manufactured stone but if protections are not
passed through parliament the CFMEU will enforce a ban on the product
across their sites. Workers will not touch the killer stone f it is
brought on site. This action will put pressure on companies and the
government to push through legislation banning the deadly stone. Where
governments fail, workers' action will win our safety.

In the context of CPB, we need to use our collective power as a class to
keep those responsible accountable. Rallies, strikes, riots. Nothing is
off the table when we're talking about a worker seriously injured by
negligence. Workers voting to walk off the unsafe site is a proud
example of how we can flex our collective power and remind the bosses
that they need us more than we need them.

https://www.acmeanjin.org/article/fight-for-safety
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca