Green unions.

Man, this steams me.

OK, so apparently the ETU head-thug, Dean Mighell admitted to pulling off a “bullshit stunt” in a pattern agreement, which was “good fun”, and “dickhead” employers paid “millions of dollars” to workers, which they “shouldn’t have”.

A tape of this got to the media and Rudd gets him out of the ALP. I’m not entirely sure why, but I suspect its part of his Tough on Unions campaign. (And I’m sure this is the first Labor has heard of any such activity, despite its ties with the union movement.)

Apparently he “bragged about obtaining pay rises for workers by threatening strike action.” It’s all to do with pattern bargaining, which the ALP claims it doesn’t support.

So, the workers can be united, but not so united they unite with other workers on other sites? But that means the ALP only supports individual-workplace agreements.

Anyways, Labor handed back the cash that the ETU had donated. Mostly as a PR exercise, because the Liberals will milk it for all its worth.

The Greens got some ETU donations as well, but refused to return the money. It’s not the first time the Greens have received union donations, but they usually come as a protest against the ALP, and go to other minor parties as well. Just recently, there were a few news articles looking at the Greens from a workers rights perspective – which is ace.

Bob Brown: “Labor seems to be drifting away and feeling frightened to back its traditional union base. The Greens would not do that.”

Rachel Siewert: “A number of them are realising and are seeing day by day the ALP step back from some key IR positions: AWAs, collective bargaining, right to strike, unfair dismissal and now the Building and Construction Commission. I think it's fair to say a number of them are concerned."

Senator Siewert said the likelihood of the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate meant her party would seek to amend Labor's legislation in key areas and ensure WorkChoices was removed

Richard Di Natale: “The Greens were increasingly seen as the workplace party".

Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate is becoming quite important. The ALP can then safely lose the less worker-friendly policies, whilst retaining their business cred – but there are many issues where they can ensure Labor is kept honest.

Pike takes a swipe:

Victorian Health Minister Bronwyn Pike, who fought a tight campaign against the Greens to retain her seat at the last state election, criticised Mr Mighell's donation.

"The Greens have been working hard to get rid of Labor members in Melbourne and his donation is hardly an action that would see a Rudd Labor government elected," she said.

That’s the same Pike that ran an anti-Green smear campaign against the Greens in Victoria, where the Greens defended themselves without attacking Labor back. Her seat was the best chance for a Green win, which seemed to have triggered the anti-Green brigade into action – and it hasn’t, obviously, ceased.

And her point is, in itself, bizarre – donating union funds to the Greens won’t elect Labor? Even if donations to the Greens meant more votes for them, then more votes would expire and then end up flowing to Labor, as they always do, thereby ensuring a Rudd Labor government. So even if it made sense, it’d still be wrong.

What the unions said:

AMWU acting national secretary Dave Oliver said his union would be looking to work with both the Greens and the ALP to "get rid of these rotten laws".

CFMEU national construction secretary Dave Noonan said no decision had been made yet about donations to the Greens.

Community and Public Sector Union national secretary Stephen Jones said he "wouldn't be disappointed" if the Greens held the balance of power in the Senate. "It's good to see the Greens taking a principled stance on IR," he said.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow said unions acknowledged the Greens had a strong history of supporting workers' rights. "However unions well understand that the only alternative government that could reinstate fair and balanced IR laws would be a Labor government," she added.

That’s not too bad, considering Oliver is not only an ALP member, but his position was previously held by Doug Cameron (before he got launched into a safe Labor seat). Sharan Burrow’s position was also previously held by Greg Combet (before he got launched into a safe Labor seat.) Not sure about the others, but from an ALP bunch – I guess that’s the best they can manage.

Andrew Bartlett has his say:

Andy points out how in 2004, Labor previously claimed he was supporting “fascist” and “evil legislation” when he supported the ABCC. Labor now plans to maintain the commission (in worse form than when the Democrats supported it) until 2010, which has upset a few unionists. He also notes the other Labor backflips, and stresses the need for an independent and rational voice in the Senate.

Nothing wrong with that, I agree. But he then slams the Greens as an inappropriate choice for that voice, because they are too busy “courting large trade union donations”, and “positioning themselves as more union than Labor”.

He then slams them again in the comments, because their claims of “donations eroding the democratic process” are a “double standard”, and that the Greens have attacked him for smaller donations before. He makes a note about how important the size of the donation is, and claims Democrats deserve the credit for the disclosure laws anyway. Ouch.

But the Greens are freaks, they have 3 pages of bylaws dedicated to preventing corruption in their own party through donations. There’s a review process, restrictions on who can donate, who can accept donations, transparency requirements, rejection policy, a definition of what constitutes a donation, and a detailed description of what constitutes a conflict of interest – using the OECD standard.

The Democrats seem to only have a few lines that meet this requirement – a pledge to not be “beholden to groups” (under Objectives), and a promise to obey funding laws (under Funding, in the Constitution).

There are many examples of corruption in the major parties, so checking their policies isn’t necessary. But essentially, I just don’t see how anyone could buy the Greens.

My point:
It's good to see the Greens' worker-justice policies being recognized.

And to the guy on Bartlett's blog that claims "there’s no reason why the Greens are any more or less immune to influence than any other political party." There are 883 reasons why - because that's how many words in the bylaws that prevent it. They are beholden to the Charter. Under no circumstances (not even under a conscience vote) can they act in contradiction of the Charter. They can act against national policy under conscience, or in the interests of the electorate.

This is spelled out in black and white, well thought out, thorough, and brilliant. The Greens can be branded 'just another party' when the others come close to this level of protection. Until then, give it a rest. They'll support unions in their social justice role regardless of whether they get no donations, or tens of thousands of dollars worth - because that's what they do.