Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022, made under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, be disallowed [F2022L01007].

Madam Acting Deputy President, with rising inflation, rising interest rates and Australians under pressure from the cost-of-living increases, you have to ask yourself: why would the Albanese Labor government move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission? We all know the answer to that question: it's because they're beholden to the CFMMEU. As we've said, donations come in to the Australian Labor Party and the CFMMEU's policy wants are then delivered to them. But, given the current economic situation and the importance of the construction industry to the Australian economy, in May of this year economy-wide modelling undertaken by EY showed this: there could be an overall economic cost over the next decade should the ABCC be abolished. Why wouldn't any government, given the current economic circumstances, the continuing global headwinds, the interest rate rises that we saw yesterday, and rising inflation, pause for just one moment and ask: 'Is handing over Australia's construction industry to the most militant union in Australia—as said by the independent judiciary time and time again—actually the right move to make? Is that actually in the best interests of the Australian people?'

I want to share this with you because it is very important. This economic modelling was undertaken by EY and handed down in May of this year. Let's just have a look at it. Regarding key economic costs to the Australian people—ultimately, it's to mum and dad, it's to the Australian taxpayer—this is what EY have said:

This is the reality for Australians who currently have a job in the construction industry:

You need to ask yourself, despite the ideological hatred of the tough cop on the beat—and we all accept that, because the Labor Party's position in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission is clear—why would you disregard modelling done by EY that tells you that the whole-of-economy costs between now and 2030 could be $47.5 billion? Not only that but also the lower economic growth that Australia will go through because of the impact on the construction industry will mean 4,000 Australians won't have full-time jobs. Despite every time those on the other side say that that they stand up for the worker and that they need to be doing more to get Australians into jobs, they're about to take out—according to the modelling undertaken by EY—4,000 Australians who won't have a job. And why? Because the Labor Party are beholden to the most militant and thuggish union in Australia.

Then there are the employment and labour cost impacts. Again, this is modelling undertaken by the respected firm EY. The construction industry is, as we know, without a doubt one of the largest employers in Australia. It employs around 1.15 million people. But what we also know is that the construction industry directly supports jobs in other Australian industries—for example, the timber industry, the cement industry, the steel industry and manufacturing. So when you hand over the construction industry to the most militant union in Australia, when you actually take into account the whole-of-economy economic impacts that EY has mentioned, those 4,000 jobs are just the start.

For a government that stands up and says: 'We put the interests of Australians first. We put the interests of Australian jobs first,' they are actually condoning the loss of up to 4,000 jobs in the construction sector. Again, you have to ask yourself: why would a government facing rising inflation, a government facing rising interest rates, a government that openly admits it is facing rising costs of living then move to destroy the fifth-largest industry in Australia, which we know will then have flow-on impacts, downstream impacts, on other industries in Australia? What are you saying to those who work in the timber industry? What are you saying to those who work in the steel industry? What are you saying to those who work in the cement manufacturing industry? This is what you're saying: 'You actually don't matter, because, you see, unless you're part of the CFMMEU, unless you are donating around a million dollars a year to the Australian Labor Party, you do not count.'

But one of the biggest concerns that have been raised with me, with the neutering of the building code and the abolition of the ABCC, is who is going to protect workers in the construction industry from thuggish behaviour. But, what is more, who is going to stop the harassment—and worse—of women by officials within the CFMMEU? That is one of the biggest concerns that have been raised by stakeholders.

What the Labor Party is doing by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission is effectively condoning the CFMMEU's vile record of appalling treatment of women. And I'm going to build on what Senator Scarr has already put on the record, because, as he said, there is page after page after page of vile behaviour that CFMEU officials have been found guilty of when it comes to the harassment of women on building sites in this country. What does the ABCC do? It's dismissed by those on the other side, but it actually takes action. It takes court action to protect the rights of women in the construction industry. And what does the Australian Labor Party say? 'We don't care what the Australian courts say. All we care about is the CFMMEU.' That is the same John Setka that has been found guilty of domestic violence on multiple occasions, including incidents where he bashed his partner's head against a table repeatedly and another where he pushed her down a staircase.

But let's also go to some of the behaviour that the courts have found repulsive that those on the other side are effectively condoning by abolishing the ABCC. These are just a few examples. A CFMEU official jailed for assault once told a female inspector she was an 'F-ing slut', asking her if she had brought knee pads, as—I quote—'you are going to be sucking off these F-ing dogs all day'. The Australian Labor Party effectively condones that behaviour. The Courier-Mail revealed a CFMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site and said this: 'Go on, off you go, you F-ing dog C, go get your police.' He then allegedly called her an 'F-ing dog C' twice more that day.

Some of the sexist incidents recorded in the files of the Australian Building and Construction Commission include a CFMEU official threatening to gang-rape a woman after she inspected their site. One of the union officials also spat at a female workplace inspector during one visit—a female workplace inspector, someone who was just doing her job. She was called an 'F-ing slut' and a 'dog' by the union officials. And do you know what she was doing, Deputy President? She was just doing her job.

It gets worse. CFMMEU delegates, when they picketed a worksite, were accused of harassing the daughter of a builder. Why would you harass the daughter of a builder? Why? The picketers were accused of harassing the daughter of the builder, when she entered the site in her car, by commenting on her breasts and her bottom. Seriously? Young girls have enough issues today—let alone having a thug from the CFMMEU commenting on her breasts and her bottom.

It gets worse, though. A CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. The last call logged at 11.23 pm. An anonymous flyer was then circulated referring to the woman as a dog who wanted to become a pole dancer. The flyer gave the name of the woman's husband, her home address and her home phone number. A number of threatening calls were made. One caller said, 'You're an effing rat.' Another caller said, 'Me and my seven mates are going to come and eff you.' A former Fair Work Building Commission employee was subject to intimidation by John Setka and another CFMMEU official. Mr Setka and Mr Reardon made a number of sexually derogatory remarks. She found three missed phone calls from Mr Reardon and one missed phone call from Mr Setka, who left a sexually derogatory message on her telephone. So that's just a snippet of the behaviour that is condoned by those on the other side.

Let me follow up on what Senator Scarr was referring to, in the recent case where the CFMMEU and two of its officials were given the maximum penalty, $151,200, following right-of-entry breaches—get this—which included disgusting slurs on an individual on the $5.4 billion Queensland Cross River Rail project. The judge in that case said—and it was Judge Vasta—he had 'absolutely no doubt' that CFMMEU official Luke Gibson called the safety adviser 'a pumpkin eater', which was meant as a homophobic slur. And guess what? Senator Scarr was right; they had to add an annexure to the judgement to explain what that term meant. Any person who reads it should be utterly disgusted at the words that were uttered by CFMMEU official Luke Gibson, saying that to a safety adviser. What an absolute disgrace! Where is Anthony Albanese in standing up and fronting the Australian people and actually saying the words, 'I condemn CFMMEU official Luke Gibson for saying those disgusting homophobic slurs'?

The judge also says this:

The belligerent response and subsequent behaviour of—

Mr Blakeley and Mr Gibson—

speaks of a sense of entitlement and a recalcitrance to behaving as ordinary decent human beings.

He goes on to say:

The behaviour of uttering quite disgusting homophobic slurs has been consigned to the chapters of the dark history of Australia where the hurling of vitriolic insults which targeted a person's sexuality, race or religion were unfortunately tolerated as if such belittling and bullying was something that a victim just "had to cop". Those days are thankfully gone and only troglodytes would attempt to resurrect them.

For Mr Blakeley and Mr Gibson, who are—get this—allegedly:

… fit and proper persons to hold an entry permit pursuant to s 512 of the FW Act) to utter such slurs to bully and belittle a person simply must be deterred by all means available to a Court.

I would also argue: by all means available to any Australian government, and that includes by ensuring there is a tough cop on the beat. Where is the Prime Minister in standing up and saying any person, in particular a CFMMEU official who utters disgusting homophobic slurs—you have no right to be found a fit and proper person and given a right-of-entry pass, which, quite frankly, is a privilege, to go onto building sites in this country. But what does Mr Albanese do? Nothing. Crickets. I dare him to stand up and condemn and say the name of this official in the same sentence.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

tor ROBERTS () (): The sanctity of work. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I want to make a plea to support workers. I've worked in canneries, in manufacturing, in restaurants in the kitchen. I've worked in the vineyards, I've worked under the sun, I've worked underground, I've worked in open-cut coal mines. But my greatest joy was working underground as a coalface miner. That's where I got my proudest time at work.

People spend around eight to nine hours, on average, per day, working. It's an extremely important part of our lives. The sanctity of work is extremely important. That is being destroyed by negligent managers across sectors, but also, sadly, by rogue union bosses in some large unions.

I've been a member of the coalmining union, the predecessor to the CFMEU. I've dealt with them, as a manager. Not only was I a member, as a coalface worker, underground, for three years, I also dealt with them later—and I enjoyed dealing with them, because they treated miners with respect back in the seventies and eighties. And I dealt with the CFMEU later, as a general manager, when they took over the coalmining union. But, sadly, today, many union bosses do not look after workers. Miners, I found, were great people—are great people—and I loved that work underground, but I have become disgusted with some union bosses in some very large companies. I'm very proud to support unions in this country. They're necessary. I'm very proud to support workers in this country; they are fabulous people—the salt of the earth. But I am disgusted with some union bosses in some large unions—not all; 'some'.

I have concerns particularly with the CFMMEU. The CFMEU was one of the founding donors of the GetUp organisation. Imagine that: the CFMEU at the time donated $1. 3 million to the foundation of GetUp. And what's GetUp's No. 1 project, their No. 1 campaign? To shut down the coal industry. So the CFMEU, supposedly representing miners, was paying GetUp to shut down the coal industry. I'm disgusted! They want to kill coal.

Then I became aware of the Hunter Valley CFMEU and what it was doing to miners, not for miners—working against miners. I've spoken about that for almost three years now—well, it is three years now. I introduced into the Senate in the previous parliament, and reintroduced, just last week, my bill for equal pay for equal work, because union bosses have done grubby deals with multinational labour hire companies—including an offshoot from the largest labour hire company, a foreign-owned multinational from Japan—that have gutted workers' pay in the Hunter Valley. Miners in casual employment are being paid 40 per cent less than miners in permanent work at the same mine, right beside each other, doing the same job with the same responsibilities—paid 40 per cent less, thanks to union bosses agreeing to enterprise agreements that do not favour the miners.

Miners have lost their basic leave entitlements and basic protections. We know of miners who've been almost killed and have been totally and permanently incapacitated—disabled. They've no workers' compensation—none. And the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley knew about it. I know that the CFMEU in the mining industry and the CFMEU in the construction side merged. Then I think they split apart again very quickly because they couldn't see eye to eye with each other. Safety has been neglected; pay has been neglected; leave has been neglected; basic entitlements have been neglected—and not only neglected but exploited and stolen from these workers. The Labor Party neglected them for many, many years. It wasn't until I came along that we pushed their case. And we have had some wins for those miners. But I was staggered that the CFMMEU, which used to protect miners in the eighties, is now exploiting miners.

Then we saw construction workers in Melbourne attack John Setka and the other union bosses in the CFMMEU construction division in Melbourne late last year because they didn't stand up for workers who were being mandated with an unproven injection. Then we saw the Heydon royal commission, around 2014 or 2015, come up with all those comments about the thugs operating at the senior levels of the CFMEU construction division.

Unions were formed, back in the late 19th century, to protect workers' pay rates, security, seniority, safety, retirement, benefits, entitlements and protections. And they were absolutely necessary. One of the things that has destroyed some unions is that they have become monopolies, and when you have a monopoly you have people not willing to face up to competition. They no longer have to provide a service that's competitive.

I'll take you back to my experience as a general manager in Central Queensland, dealing with a CFMEU vice-president, Jim Lambley. We were negotiating, and eventually agreed on, a landmark business enterprise award—the first of its kind in the coal industry, the first radically different. We protected workers with that because we lined up what workers wanted and what shareholders wanted. We had a fabulous agreement. We had the lowest turnover of any mine in Central Queensland at the time. We weren't paying excessively or less; we were paying what was about typical of the industry in Central Queensland but we had the lowest turnover, one per cent, despite vigorous recruiting of our miners from other competitors. Why? Because we had that agreement in the interests of the workers and the shareholders. Both are needed to provide security and performance for a business and for ongoing employment. We also had the best safety performance of any large underground coalmine in the country, way ahead of any other mine in the country, because we worked with miners as managers. It is no longer; as Jim Lambley told me back then—this was back in the nineties—the CFMEU had lost sight of the workers and the CFMEU needed to get back to providing a service.

But it does haven't to provide a service when it's a monopoly. That's what is hurting workers in this country. Workers are being shafted because union bosses in some large organisations, including the CFMMEU, are looking after their own interests. They're feathering their own nests, they have political ambitions and they have control of money and control of a whole industry sector. We know that's what's going on with the Construction Division of the CFMMEU, and it is disgusting.

I've been told by miners in the CFMMEU and I've been told by construction workers in the CFMMEU that they are tired of giving their money to the union to give to the Labor Party, because the Labor Party doesn't stand for workers anymore. The CFMMEU doesn't stand for workers anymore. The CFMMEU stands for control. The Labor Party has lost sight of workers. The Labor Party is against workers. I had to beg and plead with the Labor Party in the Hunter Valley and all they did was misrepresent what I was doing. But we persisted and persisted. They weren't interested in supporting the workers. I look across at Senator Sterle, and I'm in admiration of his genuine concern for workers, his genuine service to workers and his genuine support for workers—I really am. Senator Sheldon and the late Alex Gallacher: impressive people, doing their job. But some other unions are not doing theirs.

The problem is that we have found unions were formed to protect workers but they've lost sight of it because they're monopolies—no competition, no accountability—and so we have exploitation of the people they're supposed to protect, their members. I'm very strongly in support of unions and union members, and very strongly in support of workers, whether or not they're union members. But I'm against thugs that run intimidation rackets and control rackets, and that's why we need the ABCC to remain.

I point again to the Labor Party's lack of consultation on this topic. They just abolished it, with minimum consultation. I've listened to small companies in the construction field and I've listened to workers in the construction field, and they don't want to go back to the lawless jungle. They do not want that, they want protections and some security. I serve the people of Queensland and Australia, and thousands of workers all over this country. That's who I serve, and that's why I want to retain the ABCC.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a lot I could say, but out of consideration for the other speakers who I know want to speak on this, I'll keep my remarks quite brief. I won't go on at length, as I could, about the utter shamelessness of Senator Cash, of all people, coming in and lecturing anyone about consultation, about lawlessness and about courtesy—or, for that matter, anyone from the former government wanting to lecture anyone about sexist behaviour and homophobia. I think everyone understand the utter shamelessness of anyone from the former government lecturing anyone about those matters. There are any number of judicial comments I could refer to—and I referred to some in question time yesterday—which point out the trivial nature of so much of the activity of the ABCC, run up at taxpayers' expense.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trivial, is it?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do think it's trivial to pursue building companies over the fact that they allow their workers to put stickers on their helmets. I think that is pretty trivial. I think it's a waste of taxpayers' money, to spend half a million dollars pursuing construction companies over matters like that or about flags that they display.

As I said in question time yesterday, and I repeat now: there is no place for thuggish or sexist or homophobic behaviour in a workplace, whether it be a parliament—something that certain people might need to reflect on—or a construction site. There is no place for that kind of behaviour in any workplace. But that is not what this motion is about, as much as the opposition might try to make it about that.

Let's be very clear what this motion is about. With this motion, Senator Cash and her coalition colleagues seek to lock in low productivity in our construction industry, introduce more red tape for employers and workers, and remove freedom of expression—things that I thought were hallmarks of the modern Liberal Party. They want to bring down productivity. Anyone who looks at the statistics about labour productivity in the construction sector since the ABCC was introduced can see that it has actually fallen. It's about tying firms up with more red tape—things like whether union posters can be displayed, and whether stickers or flags can be put up. It's about banning companies from coming to agreements with their own workers about the employment of apprentices.

Opposition senators interjecting—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear this chorus yet again from the opposition who, all of a sudden and despite everything we know that happened before the election, have this confected outrage about the position of women in workplaces. What this code that the opposition wants to keep in place does is it stops employers and employees reaching agreements about things like women's participation in the workplace. If you want to be serious about how women are treated in workplaces, why would you not get rid of a code that tries to stop employers and employees coming to arrangements with their unions about how women are treated in a workplace? I note the utter hypocrisy—the rank hypocrisy—of the opposition, who despite everything that we know that happened before the election in terms of the treatment of women in this very building, have all of a sudden become converts to the idea that women need to be protected in workplaces. They are trying to do this by keeping a code that stops companies and employees coming to agreement about women's participation. There is so much more I could say in response to the opposition senators, but out of respect for my colleagues I'll make sure that there's enough time for them to add to it as well.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we see on display the highest example of a protection racket that has been run for the thuggery, the abuse and all the examples of the worst parts of the union movement. As my colleagues have said, and as Senator Roberts said, there are some wonderful examples of unions that are organising appropriately, that represent their workers and that, frankly, do a good job. My wife has worked as a nurse for many years, and she was part of the nursing union over there in Western Australia. She was represented well by that union, I must say.

But we're hearing no mention at all—or even the utterance—of the CFMMEU. You can't bring yourself to recognise that organisation because you're ashamed of it. Any time there's a photo put up you say, 'Quickly, hide it away, I don't want to be seen with these people.' You don't want to be seen with these sorts of people. The utter shame of the examples that are being set here in this place is absolutely terrible. The lack of shame on this topic is genuinely unmatched.

I thought that we might see the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, slowly stripped of its powers, maybe over a few years or even a few months, Senator Brockman—through you, Chair. But what we're seeing is rapid progress towards its abolition. They are getting rid of this cop on the beat that would have served an important role in preventing the incidents that Senator Cash was speaking about. Those examples weren't just anecdotes; they were found to be true, having come through the courts. Even the highest court in our land has found that these cases of gross thuggery, abuse and intimidation in workplaces are real. These are not just anecdotes brought up by sectional interests. This has actually been found to be true by the High Court. We thought we might see the ABCC slowly stripped of its power, bit by bit and be quietly whittled away to become a much smaller body over time. How wrong was I?

The members and senators involved in the ABCC—senators and members among those opposite—want to strip the ABCC of its power and of its role in ensuring that workplaces are safe in our construction industry. They don't have a plan to deal with inflation. They don't have a plan to deal with the cost-of-living pressures. We heard from Minister Watt, the agriculture minister last week—and he tried to explain his way through it this week—that they have no plan to deal with the FMD situation which poses a real threat to farmers across our country. They have no plan for FMD, but they do have a plan to allow lawlessness to continue in this country on building sites. They have a plan to have lawlessness continue to occur on building sites, where thuggery occurs and where there's abuse of workers. That continues to go unfettered. That can continue to go on in workplaces because they want to strip away the powers of the ABCC and, in fact, abolish it.

They don't have a plan to deal with the economy or a plan to deal with inflation, but they've got plan to get rid of the ABCC. They have a fully formed plan to hand the CFMMEU a free rein on building sites again—an unbelievable, yet somehow totally unsurprising, set of priorities from the ALP. When it comes to the union movement, it seems that crime really does pay. What we know is that the CFMMEU, in particular, is one of the biggest donors to the ALP, feeding their election campaigns. Is this why we're seeing that crime does pay? You've got an example here of a protection racket that's being run.

On the day after the announcement of the ABCC's abolition, a CFMMEU official was called out for appalling abuse and intimidation of workers, yet they're persisting. You might think they would check themselves. After making an announcement about getting rid of the ABCC, you would have thought they might check themselves, but no. It becomes clearer and clearer that the ALP doesn't stand up for workers. They stand up for the unions—unions that cover less than one in 10 private sector employees. Workers don't want to be physically intimidated and abused at work. They want to go about their jobs safely and, importantly, without intimidation. Imagine going to a job and thinking: 'Is today going to be the day when I'm going to get abused again? Will today be the day when I'm going to be confronted by someone who will intimidate me, pull me down, ridicule me and make me feel unsafe in the workplace?' That's what, sadly, too many of our workers across this country have to put up with, particularly on construction worksites.

The Labor Party is stripping back the very watchdog that is working to prevent this thuggery and these shameful acts that occur on these worksites. Do you know who is standing up for workers? It's the ABCC. While the unions run around racking up fines and disrupting workplaces, the ABCC, since it was re-established in 2016, has recovered over $5 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for construction workers. Funny—you'd think that would be the something a union should be doing. But, no, it's actually the ABCC, and this is only since 2019. Since 2019, over $13½ million in progress claims for subcontractors have been recovered.

Prime Minister Albanese and Labor talk a big game. They come in here and talk about wage theft. They voted against our bill when we were in government to criminalise wage theft and now they want to abolish the ABCC, who have recovered millions of dollars in wages and entitlements for Australian workers. I don't have time today to go through every egregious example of the CFMEU's abuse of power and people. Even if I only focused on the last few weeks, I wouldn't have enough time to uncover all that. I'd have to come in here with volumes to be able to cover the full extent of what we're seeing. We know that some of these unions are prepared to do anything; in fact, they'll justify breaking the law.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anything it takes.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anything it takes, in fact, that's what we know—Sally McManus, thank you.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, actually my darling friend Graham Richardson. Anything it takes.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, you're being disorderly.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection. You can justify a law. Sally McManus, the head of the ACTU, said that she doesn't see a problem with breaking the law if the law is unjust. It doesn't matter that it might be the law of the land, but if, in their opinion, it's unjust, you can break the law. The union movement sees legal fees and fines as a cost of doing business, not to mention the thuggery that happens on site.

In recent years over $16 million in fines have been imposed on the CFMMEU. Judges have observed that these penalties are not enough for a union that treats them like parking tickets. Of the 1,661 contraventions of industrial law brought against the CFMMEU, 91 per cent were upheld. Clearly this body is not being frivolous but is playing a genuine role. Those opposite want to remove this body that's actually playing a genuine role in ensuring that workplaces are safe, and people can go to work and do their jobs and be happy about their work.

We talk about the cost of living and the impact that this would have. Studies by EY and the Master Builders Association found that the economic loss from the ABCC's abolition is estimated to cost $47.5 billion as the cost overrun from the construction industry spills over into other sectors. There is pressure on the economy, and there's a lot going on globally. We accept that. There are a lot of international pressures. So why would you want to impose a greater hit to the Australian economy? The construction industry makes up 10 per cent of the economy and you want to impose even a greater cost and a greater impact. That's not just for the workers but, importantly, for those paying for construction projects to be delivered. Whether it's taxpayers, employers, customers or mums and dads, those seeking the services of that industry end up paying for it. Ultimately, the Australian taxpayer pays. That's not to mention the misery, shame and difficulty that is caused to an individual who has to go to work and face the intimidation and thuggery of unions and officials. It might just be sections within it, but you need a cop on the beat to make sure that there are protections there, that someone doesn't need to go to their workplace and be under any threat of their livelihood and their enjoyment at work.

Debate interrupted.