fuck yeah complementary measures

libertarians and the free trade of workers

so the libertarian argument is that it’s bad when aust unions stand in solidarity with workers in poor countries to fight for labour rights in “free trade” agreements. the only way for those people to get better jobs is for them to be “imports” for the aust mining industry. 

(see threads around these comments last week, and this kind of comment today)

i think there should be free movement of people around the world, but i don’t think that people should be effectively forced to migrate if they want better jobs. it’s not a coincidence that australia has these (well paid) jobs (and unemployment payments if you lose your job, and access to health care, and all those other things that make it an attractive place to live). the ability to organise in unions - labour rights - was absolutely critical to australia’s social and economic development post-invasion. 

the ethical response to living in privilege (that was hard-fought, as well as thanks to global political and economic factors beyond our control) is to use our resources, including our political influence when we negotiate trade agreements, to support the push from those with less resources for the same rights that we take for granted.

in terms of filling mining industry jobs in isolated places.

1. there is clearly a need for more and better training of Australian workers, and state and federal governments should increase funding to TAFE instead of cuts and privatisations 

(I think Federal Labor said they would do this but as far as I can tell they haven’t - and that is really what non-MP ALP types (and Doug Cameron) are saying at the moment, although they could really be clearer about that, and it is right to criticise those who are happy to make it seem like they endorse racism)

2. similarly our migration system should be principled, not adjusted ad hoc whenever large businesses (and wealthy individuals like Gina Rinehardt) complain loudly enough

More about the Trans-Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated

Fighting vs listening

Thinking today about campaigning and social change. Often groups either pick fights all the time (“This is outrageous Peter Garret must resign!”) or are forever trying to politely discuss issues with people who will never come around (“If only we have one more afternoon tea with Peter Jensen he will definitely see there is no reason why women can’t be priests”).

Really it should be a strategic decision: can we work constructively to change people’s minds with a focus on recruiting new people, or should we pick a fight about this in order to build activism, clarity and passion of people already on our side? Both approaches can win, but it depends on the context.

To know which way to go, you need a very clear understanding of who your current supporters are and ideally their position on the particular issue (likewise your opponents).

Thanks @kymtje for one final prompt on this topic today!

Why money is poo

Belatedly posting a short story that @blacktownben wrote for me when I was freaking out about an essay on “what is money”. I gave him a ridiculous summary of what I thought I was trying to write about and he put it in an awesome (and awesomely-titled) story! You rock Ben :)
I had been saving for a new pair of joggers for the past three months with the pocket money dad gave me each week. I finally had enough so I asked mum to take me to Rebels Sports. I was in awe at the colourful selection of shoes, red stripes, blue lights and even some with springs in the bottom. I had so much choice. I had a look at all the logos until I saw one familiar, the Nike tick. They were pretty reliable, so I slipped off my worn out sneakers and the salesman grabbed the foot measuring thing. Something reaked from under the bench, when I looked I was just relieved that I had brought my own socks.

I had big feet for my age, 11 and a half. ‘I hope they don’t charge per inch’ I thought to myself as I slipped on the shoe. The attendant pushed down on the toe of my shoe “can you feel that?” she asked. I nodded my head and got up to try them on walking around. They were perfect.

We got to the counter and made small talk with the guy behind the counter as he scanned them. “That will be $264 and 95 cents please” said the man, my heart sank when I realised I only had $230. “Don’t worry about it, I’ll pick up the rest” said mum. I didn’t think dad would approve, he was a pretty stingy kind of guy despite all of his wealth.

As we got to the doors in the car park out to the car park there was a weird looking guy with dreadlocks handing out flyers. I grabbed one on my way past. It was something about child labour, I flipped it over and there was a list of companies which employed child labor. When I saw that Nike was one of them I didn’t believe it, how could a kid like me make such a good looking pair of shoes?

When I got home I jumped on the computer and went to the website on the flyer and typed ‘Nike’ into the search. I browsed through the first couple of things that came up and I thought to myself, ‘what is money?’ so I went to ask my dad, he knows what money is, he has lots of it.
“Dad” I asked? “Yes” came the response. . “What is money? What is it for?” I asked. Dad sat there for a moment looking ponderous “Well, money is essentially what makes the world spin” he said “But why?” I asked. He looked thoughtful again and shrugged “I guess because everything has a value and money lets us measure that value, do you follow?”. I nodded at him “If my shoes are worth $264, why did some kid in Indonesia only get 15 cents to make them?”. Dad shrugged again and turned back to his work. I remember hearing on TV once that money is the root of all evil, I didn’t think much about it at the time but now I think I understand, I finally understand.  Money is an illusion to make the labourer think that they’re actually being compensated for their hard work. Money is a way to stifle the creativity of human beings by foisting them into the work force just so they can eat and provide for their families. Money is the choker chain around the necks of the poor that is yanked when they don’t perform tricks for the likes of my dad.

When I grow up, I don’t want to be anything like dad.

RU proving how arrogant you are today?

Plenty of cynical comments around on twitter this morning about “RU OK day”. It’s great that you’re really smart and you can see flaws in this campaign. It would be even more great if you could also be smart enough to see, through all those flaws, what the spirit of the campaign is, particularly the spirit of the many others who are using the campaign to talk to their friends or colleagues, or to draw attention to other mental health campaigns.

The spirit of RU OK day involves:

* Thinking about your friends, colleagues, neighbours and others you see regularly but might not actually talk with about how they really are

* Getting over our socialised fears of asking direct questions/talking about feelings/initiating a deeper conversation with someone than you normally do

Many, many people have had an experience of depression where they found it very difficult to even tell close friends or partners how they felt. Many more have been the close friend, partner, or shared an office with someone without knowing that person was going through hell.

Today many people are actually sharing all sorts of links, reflections, memories that can help you understand depression and help you know what to do if you find out a friend is depressed.

There is plenty you can do to make the “are you ok” conversation more natural - invite someone to coffee, and start by chatting about crap for instance. But asking a direct question, while confronting, can often be important. Just like union organisers don’t just chat generally about a worker’s views about unionism - eventually they ask, “so will you join?” Eventually you should ask, “so are you OK?”

If you’re still a cynical bastard and don’t believe talking to people is a useful strategy, take a lead from @johnalchin who has been tweeting all day about the Government’s better access program, which covers a certain number of sessions with a psychologist, but is being cut. 

At least use today to share something constructive that you think is a better approach to mental health.

Trying to be optimistic

The price on carbon announced by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee on Sunday will have little effect on greenhouse emissions, especially given the massive corporate subsidies in the early years of the scheme and the ability to incorporate international “offsets” in the later years. 

On the other hand the Greens did win some so-called complementary measures that as far as I can tell the regulatory bodies are expected to consider as part of the overall policy response that they can ask the Government to strengthen in future. 

In my view it’s important to highlight the parts of the package that have a better chance of having an impact on Australian and international emissions. Partly because we should celebrate our wins (even very partial wins), and partly to try and change the framing of the debate about what constitutes an effective climate policy. 

Broadly the (partial) wins are: 

• Vague sense that we can and will shut down coal, and that it’s important not to build new coal-fired power stations - although this has been a clear demand of the environment movement, it hasn’t been widely recognised as such in mainstream media (possible exception of Victoria)
• Direct government funding of (genuine) renewable energy
• Incorporation of progressive tax reform
• Emphasis on the need for the transition to be planned, and that the planning should involve the community - this is represented by the various “watchdogs” and advisory bodies that are supposed to undertake public consultation, as well as some of the other smaller-scale programs

There are then some obvious areas we can now and after the legislation is passed campaign for improvements: 

• Clearer timeline for dismantling coal
• Public ownership of new solar and wind projects would mean that investment is more in the interests of the people than in the interests of corporations, and much more money should go to this than to historically big polluters
• Built-in democratic processes could be expanded, e.g. if there is funding to polluting industries, there could be major democratic processes where workers in those industries decide how to use it

These are just broad directions. There are also plenty of ways we could improve the tax system overall and make it fairer, and all economic reform should have this as an important component. 

Theoretically at least the package could provide a platform for the environment movement to re-orient its campaigns away from carbon pricing and towards so-called complementary measures. It will be increasingly obvious that these measures are the ones that will have the biggest capacity to reduce emissions.