Тип работы: Презентация
Предмет: Международные экономические отношения
Страниц: 18
Год написания: 2018
Учебная работа № 397417. Тема: Презентация Банк «Industrial and commercial bank of China»
Выдержка из подобной работы
Stanley Bruce’s great industrial relation blunder
…..ional program
in the labour movement about the dangers of the conservative industrial proposals
and about historical precedents.
A campaign for a militant industrial response has to be combined
with exploring all the legal possibilities for defeating the Liberal offensive.
Rhetoric about industrial mobilisation, on its own, won’t get very far.
It’s also necessary to construct the broadest united front, including
the bureaucracies in the labour movement, whose interests are threatened to some
extent, and state Labor governments, whose traditional prerogatives are threatened.
The Liberals have a tall order before them, legally. They’re
talking about using aspects of corporations law to grab control of state industrial
systems, forcing most industrial matters into the federal sphere and then abolishing
most of the functions of the state systems.
Legally, that is a high-risk strategy. Even the current conservative-dominated
High Court is likely to reject such proposals if they’re strenuously opposed by
the states.
A big danger in this situation is left talk by sections of the
union bureaucracy and state Labor governments about handing over the state systems
to the federal government on traditional Labor centralist grounds.
Such moves should be strenuously resisted. The striking thing
about the Liberals’ proposals is that they are an extraordinary rerun of the policies
of the Bruce-Page conservative government in 1926 and 1928-29, which were defeated
firstly in a referendum in 1926 and finally by the electoral defeat of the Bruce-Page
government in 1929.
In some ways the social circumstances of the late 1920s were similar
to now. The labour movement was in a relatively defensive situation and the economy
was in a relative boom.
The political situation in the labour movement was quite similar
too, with Matt Charlton, the federal parliamentary leader, supporting the transfer
of industrial powers to the federal sphere, rather like Gough Whitlam did more
recently.
The major difference is that in the late 1920s there was quite
a bit of conflict on the conservative side about the proposals, with the turbulent
figure of Billy Hughes opposing Bruce every inch of the way. There doesn’t seem
to be the same scale of dissent on the conservative side in current conditions.
The most recent example of successful industrial resistance to
conservative attack is the struggle of the Maritime Union a few years ago. That
was a classic agitation combining industrial militancy, community mobilisation and
the intelligent exploitation of every legal mechanism, which largely contributed
to achieving the desired outcome: the preservation of the MUA.
In Jack Lang’s useful memoir, The Great Bust, which was largely
ghost-written by Norm Macauley, there is a useful account of the Bruce-Page government’s
failed attempt to do what the Howard government is hoping to do. The two relevant
chapters are available below to assist the beginnings of a discussion, which will
have to take place pretty fast if the next few months are to be used to prepare
for mobilisation.
Imagine a referendum in which every political leader in the Commonwealth
was rejected in his own sphere of influence. That was what happened in Australia
on September 4th, 1926. No one escaped the axe. It was a referendum to hand over
industrial powers to the Commonwealth, and to provide limited powers over trusts
and combines. Prime Minister Bruce sponsored the proposal. He was not only defeated
throughout Australia but in his own state of Victoria as well. The federal leader
of the Labor opposition, Matt Charlton, supported Bruce. He also had his advice
rejected throughout the Commonwealth and couldn’t even carry his own electora…