TCF tariffs

TCF tariffs

"It is designed to give people a greater sense of job security", John Howard said of his government's decision to freeze tariffs on textiles, clothing and footwear for five years from 2000. The prime minister chose his words carefully. What he said was that the decision might make some people feel better — which, with sufficient hype, it might for a while — not that it would save jobs.

It won't save jobs. Indeed, Robert Hershan, managing director of Pacific Brands (the largest employer in the industry), immediately predicted "modest job losses".

The tariff freeze will keep prices, and therefore profits, higher. In addition, Howard has promised TCF companies industry assistance of another $200 million a year. With these indirect and direct handouts, TCF companies are supposed to increase their investments and become more competitive.

If the companies just take the money and run, as some will, jobs will be lost. If companies do increase investment, it will be to increase automation, and jobs will be lost. Either way, the only beneficiaries of the tariff decision are the bosses.

The unions that combined with the employers to pressure Howard for a tariff freeze have been wasting the time and money of their members. Protecting jobs requires a campaign to win for workers some of the benefits of increasing productivity — in other words, a shorter working week with no loss in pay.

From GLW issue 290