Talk:Dollar Sweets dispute

NPOV

Whilst I would fundamentally agree with the POV of the article. It is far from NPOV, and written from the perspective of the employer. Mayalld (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sources overwhelmingly come from the employer side, but I simply could not find many sources from the union point of view. I usually resort to seeing if there are any peer reviewed articles in Labour History, published by the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, but could not find any articles on the dispute or its implications there. So I wrote the article based upon the sources to hand, favouring the reputable secondary report from the Sydney Morning Herald with primary (POV) sources as backup. As you can see by my contributions, one specialty of mine is Australian labour history. Can you identify parts of the article which need re-editing to eliminate NPOV?--Takver (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)?

This article's point of view seems fine to me Owen214 (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Union Point of View by the then Vice President of the Union , Les Johnson . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Johnson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC) All the articles on this topic are fundamentally flawed because they are from a biased point of view, from Peter Costello and from a Newspaper opinion. I am one of the union officials who were involved in the Dollar Sweet dispute. There is a lot more to the dispute than the public or the newspapers or probably even Peter Costello are aware of. I am prepared to talk about the real issues behind this dispute and some of the fallacies stated in the documents you have on display here.

Peter Costello's article is an inaccurate account of what happened. Those on the picket line were the majority of the voters from a Union meeting and the minority of the workers decided to what is known in Union cirles to "scab" on their workmates after they succumbed to threats by the company and Richard Mulcahy to be sacked if they did not break the strike which had just commenced.

A clause in the threat was that they had to agree to have all there rights taken from them and that they could not have any industrial dispute in the future. This is like excluding refugees from being accepted to live here if they did not agree to forgo any legal action against anyone who decided to rape their women and children. This is an example in the extreme but necessary to highlight the kind of rights the employer and it's representatives were taking away from the workers who signed their illegal agreement. The majority in any democracy has the final say. The last time I remember 15 voting not to accept this were greater than the 12 who signed it and went back to work. This action allowed the company to sacked the majority.

It should be pointed out that every major employer and most small employers in the confectionery industry had already accepted and implemented a 36 hour week just prior to Hawke's Prices and Incomes Accord. These worker's were entitled to the same conditions as nearly every other confectionery worker enjoyed. It should be noted that this industry had one of the lowest paid and most exploited workers in the country. The award actually had a 38 hour clause in it years before this dispute and not 40 hours as Costello's article would have you believe.

It was the truck driver's and the employer's intimidating and assaulting the worker's and the union officials. I was a victim of a thug truckdriver working for the employer and employer organisation.

The people on the picket line were ordinary family people, some husbands and wives fighting to merely get their jobs back but without having their right to defend against unjust treatment being taken away from them. They acted in accordance with normal picket line protocol. They never physically stopped any vehicle but asked them not to cross the picket line. Union worker's would not cross it which was the reason for the Employer action against the Union for loss of income.

This was the only means of protest these people had to get their jobs back that most had worked at for over 10 years. One tactic we tried to implement was to try to find where the goods were taken from the picket line rogue truck driver's. This was common practice for Unions and a means of resolving disputes more quickly.

I followed a truck on one occasion from a distance and in a non intimidating fashion, but merely to find where the goods were being taken so we could ask for assistance of other Unions at that work-site. This was common practice to locate where goods went to from picket line buster's. It must be inderstood that this was the only form of action available to try to get these people there jobs back when sacked due to a minority vote of the worker's arranged by The Employer, Costello and co.--101.170.134.60 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I followed the truck off the freeway to some back street that I now know to be Doveton. The truck stopped suddenly in the middle of the road blocking the road. Two people with iron bars and the truck driver with an iron bar came running towards my vehicle. I had to put my car into reverse to escape but they did rip my car door open and had hit my car with an iron bar.

I am not aware of any truck driver being attacked but I know I was attacked by the truck driver and his thugs in Doveton. Mr Costello's report has totally reversed the truth of the actual events. At no time was the Truck driver assaulted or even approached. I had reported the matter to the Police but they refused to take action. On another occasion I was outside the rear lane of the workplace on public ground and one of the workers, who decided to return to work at the cost the jobs of the majority who had voted to strike, went to get a trolley in the lane-way. I asked him not to cross the picket line. He punched me in the face right in front of the Police. I asked the Police to charge him with assault but they again refused.

These were the type of tactics being used by the company and one must assume to be under the guidance of either Fred Stauder, Peter Costello, Richard Mulcahy and or Michael Kroger, or all of them. It is now obvious that this was an ideal situation for them to catapult themselves in the Political arena and that they were prepared to do anything to get there.

The only other thuggish behaviour I witnessed was by at least two of the three of Mulcahy, Costello and or Kroger driving past harassing and intimidating the workers on the picket line yelling out abuse such as "get a job you mongrels"..etc. I had a good relationship with Fred Stauder's son and we could have reached an agreement together before all of this, had it not been for the personal dispute between the Union Secretary and Stauder.

The real basis of the dispute relates to a personal dispute between the Union Secretary, Frizziero and Stauder over a cigarette. Fred's son has or had asthma and the Union Secretary refused to stop smoking in negotiations which led to and escalated this dispute. This point was what the real dispute ended up being all about.

I am Les Johnson who was the Vice President at the time. I attended the picket line in moral support of the workers who were sacked on numerous occasions and knew most of what happened and leant much later of other disturbing facts.

I am not aware of any bomb or death threats as Peter Costello claims. The Telephone lines were never cut to my knowledge, but Union employees of Telstra did refuse to cross the picket line when the company's phone needed repairs. To my knowledge today, that was just a normal breakdown and refusal to cross a picket line was normal practice of ALL unions.

Peter Costello also stated in his HR Nicholls article that..quote "Despite the fact that the picketers slept in vehicles parked outside the premises, the local council was unable to find any breach of health regulations. However, acting on an anonymous 'tip off', the council 'revealed' to the company that a back door was not fully fly-proofed and workers were wearing their overalls to and from work in breach of the Cleanliness (Food Drugs and Substances) Regulations 1984" UNQUOTE.

I believe that the company or Peter Costello contacted the Council in an attempt to get the picketer's removed under Health laws, but their action backfired on them.

The Unions were not innocent by a long shot. There were thing's going on behind the scenes that I wasn’t aware of until a much later date which enraged me. The personal dispute over the Secretary refusing to not smoke during negotiations for the benefit of an asthma sufferer was one major issue. I am aware that someone from the Union, not the worker's on the picket line, did superglue the locks one day. I believe it was the Secretary Frizziero but I am not 100% sure on that, but this is the only act of vandalism by the Union that I am aware of. Mr Costello is not being truthful in his document about this dispute probably for his own personal and leadership reasons at that time.

There is a lot more information that I supplied to ALL Unions about this dispute. I became aware at a much later date that several Union officials were getting secret payments. These payments were made from a secret account held by the Secretary of the Union. I have copies of the signed receipts they kept for this secret fund. The receipt stated as payments for attending the Picket line at Dollar Sweets.

I am aware that those officials never even went near the picket line at any time. I was never paid and attended on numerous occassions as a moral support to the workers who lost their jobs and wanted them back. These secret payments therefore made it in the interests of several Union officials of other Unions that the dispute continue as long as possible to reap their own personal rewards. These receipts were given to me by a disgruntled employed organiser of our Union who later left.

This may well be the reason the Unions do not want to discuss this dispute. I was also a Trades Hall council delegate for over 8 years.

I was threatened with defamation action by the Union for trying to disclose this information. I had to forgo a claim for 6 months of wages the Union owed me to overcome this action. There is a good reason that I was not aware of this at the time and how I got this information. At the time of the dispute I was the Union Vice President and worked at Red Tulip chocolates. I was victimised by the factory manager because of my support of the workers at this dispute and for raising money to help the picketer's survive without any work or government payments. The Factory manager at Red Tulip also nearly got sacked because of a mistake he made that cost the company a lot of money.

I was the one responsible for his reprimand. He put me on a job that eventuated in my back injury causing me to have a Spinal fusion operation.

I was ready to retire from my Union position but still tried to be active when I came out of hospital. This is when the information about the Dollar Sweets dispute and the secret payments to Union Officials, etc. came into my hands. The then female Assistant Secretary at the time, Eileen Jenkins, was ready to retire at the next election of the Union and she was distraught about the Secretary's behaviour in the office relating to sexual harassment of a female Muslim work experience employee of the Union. This woman threatened to take the Secretary of the Union to the Equal Opportunity Board for sexual harassment. I later learnt that the Secretary then got one of his employed female organisers to try to find some dirt on this Muslim woman to get the sexual harassment threat stopped. This organiser followed this woman to the park during her lunch and saw her meet with a man who she knew from her own country. Her husband was obviously not aware of this and the Secretary made sure that the husband of the woman was informed. You can imagine the consequences to this Muslim woman, and after she had been beaten by her husband she withdrew her sexual harassment threat. I am aware of this because the female organiser told me this after another incident by the Union Secretary.

This is not the organiser who gave me the copies of the receipts of the secret payments at Dollar sweets. That was another male organiser who gave me this information.

The female organiser who spied for the secretary on the Muslim woman worker had been a friend of the Secretary's family for 15 years. The work experience woman left after heer husband beat her and the Secretary of the Union then employed the 15 year old daughter of the Organiser who helped him as a work experience employee.

The Secretary of the Union drove this 15 year old home after work one night and the Organiser stated that her daughter complained to her that the Secretary had asked her for sexual favours on the way home. This is when I was given all the information about the secret payments and the sexual harassment claims against the Secretary. The female Organiser told all and so did the other male organiser with all the receipts of the secret payments at Dollar Sweets.

I was asked to stand for the position of Assistant Secretary to clean this mess up. The previous Assistant Secretary retired. I was properly appointed by the Committee of Management at that meeting because there was less than 12 months left on her term. I was locked out of the office for 3 months by the Secretary refusing to accept my appointment until the matter was dealt with in the Federal court.

I won the case and the Secretary had to let me into the office. I was isolated in the office in an empty room except for a chair and desk with no access to any union documents. I was constantly assaulted within the first week of getting into the office. I had to be taken to hospital and required to have the cartilage removed out of a knee because of an assault by the Secretary.

Before this attack I had to endure hot cups of coffee thrown in my face physical attacks by the Secretary. I did claim for the injury sustained for the operation on the knee. The Secretary of the Union tried to oppose the claim. The matter was heard by the Worker's Compensation board.

I still have the reasons of judgement which were very scathing of the Secretary and said that I had to work in Draconian conditions unacceptable to any worker, let alone the Assistant Secretary of a Union. I was then denied access to the Union membership by the Secretary and had no chance in winning the coming election for the position. The Secretary put up another Union organiser he had employed but promised his support to an elected position if she supported him. This was the daughter of John Halfpenny, the then Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council.

Employed union organisers could be sacked by the Union Secretary but elected officials could not be removed easily. I didn't stand a chance and this was the beginning of the demise of the Confectioner's Union. These were the preceding events that arose out of the Dollar Sweets dispute.

During my period as Assistant Secretary is when I distributed the 30 odd page document to all of the Trade union leaders regarding the behaviour and secret false payments to other Union officials during the Dollar Sweets dispute. I was not paid for six months and I was then threatened by the Union and the Officials of the other Unions I named with defamation.

To this day the Union still owes the 6 months wages not paid to me due to the defamation action. They were going to use the Union funds against me personally to keep this quiet and I would have had to use my own funds and under defamation law I would have been forced into bankruptcy even if I proved every bit of my article to be 100% true, due to legal costs.

With the Dollar Sweets dispute there was a lot of fault on both sides. I was an innocent party but I was one of the people getting sued by Costello for the Dollar sweets dispute and also threatened by the Union to be sued for disclosing the truth. I had a major back injury and operation which has greatly affected and due indirectly to my support of trying to give moral and financial support to sacked workers at Dollar Sweets.

In short all these incidents relate to one man being pig headed in not wanting to put out his cigarette at a meeting. It facilitated in the Political drive of Peter Costello and to some degree Michael Kroger, at any cost, and led to the demise of the workers who lost their long term jobs to an employer they had been loyal to, but were innocent victims.

The workers on the Dollar Sweets picket line were innocent and did nothing wrong except follow the democratic principles of a majority vote. The one's who returned did so in minority and at the demise of the majority of their workmates. If they had not returned when they did then the dispute would have been finished within a few weeks at most. The actions of the Hawke government facilitated this to happen. This is not the first time Hawke had betrayed those most loyal to him, as he had a reputation as a strike breaker in his ACTU days.

We can all remember the Pilots dispute several years following the Dollar Sweets dispute where Hakwe sold out the Pilots to lose their jobs to look after his mate Sir Peter Abels. Ironically I became a flight Instructor in Civil aviation and then started Aerial Photography as a Sole Trader. It was Hawkes action in the Pilot's dispute which made it impossible for me to look at a career in an Airline as a lot of the experienced Captains who lost their jobs went to work in the Civil Aviation flying Schools.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|--101.170.134.60 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)comment added by 114.75.170.59O (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dollar Sweets dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719125131/http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol5/vol5-5.php to http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/archives/vol5/vol5-5.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)