ISSUE 107 : Jul/Aug - 1994 - Australian Defence Force Journal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

X AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. 107 JULY/AUGUST 1994US and UK RejectionThe concept of military unionisation has beenrejected by both the United States and the L'nitedKingdom. It is appropriate to examine the approachof each of these countries separately because theirexperiences are markedly different. The US consideredthe concept of collectivism for its military in themid 1 970s. but the prospect caused so much concernthat Congress moved to legislate against the possibility.However, there has never been any seriousattempt to unionise the British military.The move to unionise the US military gatheredmomentum in the mid 1970s when the large governmentemployee union, the Association of FederalGovernment Employees (AFGE). proposed organisingthe military. The union's campaign gained supportfrom many serv icemen, and a number of reasonswere suggested for this rev ersal of the traditional conservatismof US servicemen in this area. The US militarywas now an all-volunteer force with the recentabolishment of conscription, and it was felt thatsoldiers now wanted a career with benefits similar tothose available in civilian employment. They were nolonger prepared to accept low pay and poor conditionsout of a sense of duty or patriotism. It was alsoacknowledged that there had been a general erosionof benefits which created dissatisfaction amongservicemen and fostered support for some form ofcollectivism. The military had apparently enteredMoskos' "occupational" phase.Both the general public and the US Congress werestrongly opposed to the concept of military unionismfor the American armed forces. Acknowledgementwas made of the successful European experiences:however, it was generally felt that this was irrelevantto the United States. This argument was summarisedin an article in a 1978 military journal which arguedthat the societal context of European unions wasvastly different from that of the United States. Thearticle described the nature of civil-military relationsin America as different from those in Europe:Americans did not consider their armed forces as justanother part of the labour force: "Americans continueto expect standards of conduct, discipline, dedicationand self-sacrifice from their military which they arenot prepared to have bargained away at the behest ofany union." (Taylor. 1978. p.87).Opposition to the prospect of a unionised US militarywas strong. Some opponents argued that unionisationwould mean an increase in manpower costs aspay and conditions were "improved" by union action— if unions do nothing else well, they do raise wagesand benefits — and this would inevitably result inhigher defence costs or a reduction in operationalcapabilities {Sabrosky. 1977. p. 150). The attitude ofthe military hierarchy was expressed by GeneralMaxwell Taylor: "Collective bargaining over suchmatters as pay. overtime and safe working conditionshas no place (in the military) since pay is fixed by law.overtime has no meaning in a profession always onduty, and the work is of necessity often dangerous"{quoted by Coulter. 1978. p.23). A further fear wasbased on a traditional distrust of unions. There wasconcern that once a military union gained power, itcould present a real threat to government control of thearmed forces: "There is no sound reason to assumethat military unions would exercise indefinitely a degreeof politically neutral self-restraint and self-denialunparalleled in the history of the union movement . . .To rely on a military union not to act like a union, isfundamentally unwise" (Sabrosky. 1977, p. 156).Government action to prohibit unions in the USmilitary quickly followed. The bill was drafted bySenator Strom Thurmond, who argued that "thefundamental need for obedience and the consequentneed for discipline make it impossible for servicemento do some of the things that civilians are entitled todo" (quoted by Coulter. 1978. p.24). The bill waspassed with only three dissenting votes. The AFGEbacked away from its proposal without any effort tochallenge the government action. The issue had beenquite definitely put to rest, and there has been noserious attempt to resurrect it since.The British perception is that there can never be aplace for unionism in the British armed forces. Asargued by one former senior officer, the military areregarded as belonging to a service, not an occupation(Lunt, 1978). The Queen's Regulations specificallyban military collectivism. This attitude places theBritish military firmly in the Moskos "institutional"phase, with no likelihood of progressing on to the"occupational" phase. The British accept the paternalisticrole of the government and the military hierarchyin looking after the interests of service personnel.Service pay is largely determined by recommendationput to the government by the Review Body of ArmedForces Pay. which was established in 1971 to advisethe Prime Minister on pay and allowances for thearmed forces. The Review Body bases its approachon acceptance of the fact that members of the armedforces have no right of association and that the Rev iewBody's responsibility is to ensure fair levels of paywhere there cannot be a process of collective bargaining(Review Body on Anned Forces Pay [UK], 22ndReport. 1993).
UNIONISATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE 9The Australian ExperienceThe Australian military has traditionally been conservativein regard to the concept of military unionism.This may in part be attributable to its origins in thesimilarly conservative British military, although unlikethe British situation, collectivism in the Australianmilitary has never been specifically prohibited underthe Australian Constitution or the Defence Act. However,there were certain limitations in service lawmanuals, and the provisions of s. 13 of the DefenceAct highlight the fact that service personnel are notengaged under a normal employment contract. Noaction can be brought before a court by military personnelconcerning their employment. This "unique"employment relationship was recognised by the HighCourt of Australia in 1985 in the case of Coutts vCommonwealth: Military service has always stood ina different position from service under a contract ofemployment with a private employer . . . (no servicepersonnel have) at common law any right of actionagainst the Crown for breach of contract or any rightto sue for pay. However, the 1988 CommonwealthEmployees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Actincludes members of the Defence Force in its definitionof "employee" under s.5( 1).Australian service personnel have until recentlyaccepted their lack of representation in conditions ofservice matters and were seemingly happy with thetraditional paternalistic approach where such matterswere left in the hands of government and seniorofficers. A proposal in 1974 by Whitlam GovernmentDefence Minister. Lance Barnard, for the establishmentof an organisation to represent service personnelin the determination of pay and conditions receivedlittle support within the military. An organisationknown as the Australian Armed Forces Associationwas formed in 1974, but it attracted very few membersand disappeared within a few years. However, by1984. there was sufficient support for the concept ofsome form of collectivism within the ADF to enablethe successful establishment of the Armed ForcesFederation of Australia.The Armed Forces Federation of Australia (ArFFA)was formed by a group of RAAF officers in October/November 1984. It does not regard itself as a "trade"union in the traditional sense, but rather as a professionalassociation. This emphasises a differentapproach to objectives, strategies and politics. TheFederation prefers to be seen as a watchdog and lobbyorganisation, with its main objective being to adviseand inform the government, the opposition, the mediaand the services of concern in matters relating to pay.conditions of service, welfare and other personnelrelated issues. The reaction of the ADF to the formationof ArFFA was supportive and markedly differentfrom the heavy-handed reaction of the US authoritiesto the attempt to introduce military collectivism there.The Chiefs of Staff issued guidelines on representativeorganisations for the Australian military, and theFederation's Constitution was carefully drafted tocomply with these guidelines. These guidelinesrequire any military association to be voluntary, nonindustrialand to have no political affiliations. Theguidelines also specify that associations are not tointerfere with government control of the services, thechain of command or disciplinary processes.The Federation's Constitution complies with theserequirements, categorically rejects the right to strikeand limits Federation activities to avoid interferencein military command and discipline matters. TheFederation concentrates on consultation and negotiation,and prohibits any action that may result in itsmembers confronting their superiors {Parsons. 1992,p. 15). The Federation also agrees to suspend itsactivities in any unit going on operations, and confinesits area of interest largely to service pay andconditions matters. However, even after the formationof ArFFA, the military hierarchy in general stillregarded conditions of service matters as being exclusivelytheir domain. This was illustrated in a statementmade by the Chief of the Naval Staff in 1985. inwhich he said that although he was happy for Navymembers to join ArFFA. he was concerned aboutArFFA trying to get involved in conditions of servicematters because that was his job (Pratt. 1987. p.330).The Federation's conservative record to date has eamtit the support of the Defence hierarchy. The currentChief of the Defence Force. Admiral Alan Beaumont,said last year: "The Federation's aim of protectingand promoting the welfare of its members is consistentwith my objective and those of the Chiefs of Staffon behalf of the whole of the ADF'. (CDF letter toArFFA dated 8 June 93. quoted in Annx NewspaperNo 839. 26 August 93).The establishment of ArFFA has been described asan "unequivocal rejection of paternalism", reflectingincreasing doubts about the ability of the militaryhierarchy to adequately protect and further the interestsof their troops (Hogan, 19H9. pp. 13 & 17). Infact, it has been argued that among service personnel,"it is widely believed that the convention of thegovernment's faithful protection of the service-member'sinterests had been set aside" (Gowans. 1986.p.25). There was a growing body of opinion, bothwithin and outside the Defence Force, that service
Page 1: A U S T R A L I A NNO. 107JULY/AUGU
Page 6 and 7: 4 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 12 and 13: II) AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNA
Page 16 and 17: 14 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCH JOURNAL
Page 20 and 21: DIGGECalendar 1995The Diggers calen
Page 26 and 27: About to leave the Armed Forces?Con
Page 32 and 33: ;n M SIR \[ 1 \N OUhNCI IQkCI l()l
Page 36 and 37: Air Force Memorial —Runnymede, En
Page 38 and 39: 6 JUNE 19 44By early 1944. 3.500.(X
Page 40 and 41: Australians in the Great InvasionTh
Page 42 and 43: 50th Anniversary CommemorationsAust
Page 44 and 45: YOUNG"ENDEAVOURADVENTURE AT SEA FOR
Page 48 and 49: 38 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCK JOl/RNA
Page 50 and 51: 4() AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNA
Page 52 and 53: a: AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 58 and 59:
4S AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 60 and 61:
50 AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
The Western Front was a continuous
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74:
64 AUSTRALIAN DEFHNCH FORCE JOURNAL
show all

ISSUE 107 : Jul/Aug - 1994 - Australian Defence Force Journal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?