LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
IN response to the letter headed ‘Esso must remain competitive in changing times’ by Andre Kostelnik, Esso’s production operations manager, I would like to offer some relevant facts and raise questions I believe need to be asked.
Firstly, it is precisely the lack of competitive pressure on the handful of major gas companies in Australia, exporting the majority of that gas, which has led to skyrocketing prices and profit margins.
Even the chief competition regulator, Rob Sims has even conceded there is a “crisis in the gas market”.
This makes implausible, if not ludicrous, Mr Kostelnik’s argument that Esso’s extreme tactics against its contractor workforce is necessary to “remain competitive”.
I agree Esso has made a positive contribution in the Gippsland communit
For most of Esso’s 50 years here, there has been mutual respect between Esso management and staff, and the communities which have supported our combined prosperity.
The very foundation of Esso’s global success comes not only from our natural resources, but the skills and dedication of generations of Gippsland workers.
There have been rough patches, but overall Esso has sought and benefited from workers’ union consultation structures and agreements that have delivered daily, the skills and effort needed to return Esso exceptional profits.
So the question is, why has Esso’s approach changed?
In the most extreme tactics I have seen in my 23 years in the industry, Esso and UGL (subsidiary of Cimic, formally Leighton Holdings) have worked together to ‘offer’ 200 Longford maintenance workers a take-it-or-leave-it pay cut of around 30 per cent and worse conditions, or lose their job entirely.
How would anyone feel, or be able to fulfil their family and financial responsibilities, if they were confronted with this option tomorrow ?
Irrespective of your skills, knowledge, experience, duration with the company, performance record and recognition; you are sacked if you don’t return tomorrow on dramatically less pay, and in the case of offshore, you would see your family half as frequently.
What’s more, if these workers submit and prove these ‘re-contracting’ tactics to be a winning strategy, how long until all their workers, contractors and suppliers’ incomes are similarly slashed?
The flow-on effect of this is huge to the local community.
Loopholes in the Fair Work Act allow contractor UGL to use a subsidiary company with an ‘enterprise agreement’ signed by three people in Western Australia, to apply to 200 maintenance trades workers at Longford.
As a result, contractor workers are denied the right to a negotiated employment agrement, or be represented in their employment agreement.
Notwithstanding this is a right Australia committed to protect as a signatory to the United Nations ILO Conventions, as well as the objectives of the Fair Work Act.
In fact, Esso’s parent ExxonMobil’s Standards of Business Conduct “provide a worldwide framework consistent with the spirit and intent of the ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, including effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining”.
It is not just the principle which is at stake.
It is what giving workers a voice in their own conditions delivers to the quality of life for their families and the community.
One of the workers’ main objections to UGL’s take-it-or-leave-it Agreement is extending offshore shifts from weekly to fortnightly.
Not only does this make offshore work even harder physically, emotionally and psychologically on workers, but their families as well.
Importantly, by extending periods working offshore, Esso and UGL can reduce their use of local workers, by making it relatively cheaper to fly in workers from much further afield.
This is because they’re only flying them in half as often.
