Lies , Damn Lies!

I am sure you have seen it , but it may well have washed over you like many a heart-wrenching ad targeted to tug at our already over-stretched heartstrings. It shows a miserable daughter and tearful mother at the funeral of the father and husband who died presumably due to an accident in the construction industry.

Overlaying the scene is the message

"The last time a liberal government had their way with workplace laws one construction worker was killed every week, now the Turnbull government wants to bring back these laws"   - Authorised by Troy gray for the ETU (Electrical Trades Union of Australia)

While even a single death in the workforce is tragic, the cynic in me asked is this really correct?

Perhaps not quite.

Safe Work Australia provides extensive statstics on work place safety including a detailed report title "Work-related injuries and fatalities in Construction, Australia, 2003 to 2013".  The following statistics are taken from this report and the Safe Work Australia web site.

Construction worker deaths never at 1 per week over past decade

Table 10 covers the period 2003 to 2014. In 2015 there were 26 fatalities and 17 YTD in 2016.

Contrary to the claim over the past decade fatalities in the construction industry have NEVER been one per week.

Similarly there is no basis for the claim that the rate of fatalities changed when Liberal government was last in power.

The number and rate of fatalities in construction and indeed other industries has declined slowly over the past decade irrespective of which party was in power. For example, the number of fatalities in 2005 under the Howard Liberal government was lower than that of 2009 and 20011 under the Labour governments of Rudd and Gillard. But the differences are small and unlikely to be statistically significant.

Nevertheless the claims by the ETU seem to be totally fictitious. Their ads are nothing but self-serving propaganda  and in the vernacular of the Trade Practices Act are guilty of deceptive and misleading conduct.  Union's have every right, and indeed, obligation to their members, to promote workplace safety but they also have an obligation to tell the truth.

On this occasion they are well wide of the mark and their claims are simply "lies, damn lies" not statistics.

Is Shorten standing up for workers?

Repeatedly under intense media fire for his questionable deals Shorten has defended himself by claiming "I have spent my whole life standing up for workers" (Insiders 21 Jun 15 )

Can this be true?

Especially in light of the widespread evidence that confirms Shorten negotiated deals and side deals that left everyday workers 'worse off' while the Union and he personally were 'better off'.

Just look at some of the articles ; -

• Cleanevent staff lost $400m under deal by Bill Shorten’s AWU - The Australian 8 July 2015,
• Bill Shorten's AWU 'sold out' workers for $300,000 - SMH 14 Oct 2015,
• Unibilt admits to false records for its payment for Bill Shorten's research officer - SMH 16 Oct 2015, 
• ALP leader Bill Shorten failing to escape AWU ‘fraud’ vortex - The Australlian 15 Oct 2015, 
• Unions royal commission: Stephen Sasse claims side deal with Bill Shorten - The Australian 12 Oct 2015, 

Can Shorten still be correct when he says he has always served in workers' interests?

Mmm.  In an Alice-In-Wonderland world one could argue that the Union is more important than the worker. That the prosperity and longevity of the Union, the fair-minded, diligent advocate fighting for workers rights, is paramount. Without them, the poor worker would be worse off. Even if the worker has to sacrifice some of his hard earned wage, it is justified because it will ensure that he can be protected now and in the future by a stable, prosperous Union organisation. The justification is even greater if the Union manages to project a disproportionate influence on the government of the day, and even succeeds in having ex Union officials, in large numbers, elected to parliament. This gives the worker a seat at the table, a part of the decision making process. So surely the worker must be better off.

Indeed, Mr Shorten's argument would go something like that.

If you believe that, you can believe he is telling the truth. But can you?