The forgotten olive branch

Having led a somewhat sheltered life - I had a Catholic education after all - I like nothing better than having a gander at a good old-fashion scrap.
But this standoff between the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia - henceforce known as "the bloody union" - and its vigorous protection of the rights of outworkers and the fledging apparel manufacturers - henceforth known as the "poor bastards" - just trying to make a honest buck has really got me perplexed.
When the whole thing first blew a couple of months back I reckoned I had it all sussed. Shaking my head when callers rang to bemoan the loss of monies they could ill-afford thanks to being pinged for breaches of the Clothing Trades Award and the Industrial Relations law, I, like many, immediately laid the blame squarely at the foot of the bloody union. My sense of injustice hit full steam when I was informed the fines collected by the bloody union in relation to the alleged breaches are paid into union funds.
I sympathised with the poor bastards when they said the first they knew they had breached the award was when they read their name in this magazine and cried alongside them (metaphorically speaking of course) when they said their involvement in the prosecutions had led to a tarnishing of the reputation they had strived so hard to build.
But as the whole sorry saga unfolds, I have to confess my card-carrying commitment to the poor bastards is beginning to wane.
If you believe TCFUA Victorian state secretary Michele O'Neil it seems that while many of the businesses prosecuted or fined for breaching the outworker laws are quick to criticise the bloody union's methodology and mutter about being forced to manufacture offshore, they are not quite so quick to acknowledge the get-out-jail free card offered by it before action is taken.
As it has been noted extensively throughout our little rag, under the act, the union has the power to enter premises and inspect records. If the records are not correctly kept the union can impose fines of up to $10,000 for each breach of the award.
Yet O'Neil and her NSW equivalent Jacques Morel insist companies are given at least two written warnings prior to union inspections and are invited to contact the union for assistance on how to comply once these are issued.
It seems few, if any, fashion houses choose to exercise this option.
Legal beagle Tony Watson from Melbourne firm Middletons - which is representing a host of the fashion businesses caught up in the fray - demonstrated his outrage on his clients behalf stating: "If I'm using a barrister it's not my responsibility to make sure he's paying all the staff properly. It's a pretty unusual concept."
Equally Slater & Gordon, the legal outfit representing the bloody union, could take the moral high ground and argue that legally speaking the law is on its side. If I'm caught stealing clothes from a high street retailer, I'm not offered one warning letter - let alone two. Nor do I fancy my chances of being invited by the police to discuss assistance options. Now that would be a pretty unusual concept.
And now with Middletons hell bent on getting the Victorian Minister for Manufacturing & Export in on the act, the politicians are going to get involved. All I can say to that is gawd help us all - no matter whose side you're on.

Pull quote: "I have to confess my card-carrying commitment to the 'poor bastards' is beginning to wane."