The following article is reprinted, slightly abridged, from the rank and file building workers' journal Back on Track.
When Juan Antonio Samaranch announced, "The winner is Sydney" on that Friday, September 24 1993, New South Wales rejoiced. And building worker had the best reason to celebrate because it meant jobs.
But after all the political and media beat-up and the predicted $7.3 billion windfall, what's the real story? How many jobs will the games create? What will be the social, environmental and financial costs to NSW citizens? What is the truth behind the hoopla?
$1.6 billion will be spent on the construction program for the Olympic-related venues and facilities in Sydney. It is hoped private sector finance (developers) will finance the $691 million villages for athletes and the media at Homebush, Pyrmont and Rushcutters Bay (venue for sailing events).
The international accounting group KPMG Peat Marwick predicts that 156,000 full-time and part-time jobs will be created between 1991 and 2004. The October 1993 edition of Unity (Building Workers Industrial Union newspaper) claims that at least 14,000 construction jobs will be created.
Under stage l capital works, two major facilities, an international aquatic centre and an international athletics centre, are well advanced. Road works, telecommunications, landscaping and remediation of contaminated areas are also being carried out.
Other facilities at Homebush to be constructed later include an 80,000 seat Olympic Stadium, a sports hall (20,000 seats), a baseball centre (10,000 seats) and a cycling velodrome (6000 seats).
The Fahey Liberal government has attempted to create the atmosphere whereby anyone who raises any question or criticism about the games is to be virtually considered a "traitor". (The leadership of the BWIU have pretty much the same position.) But despite this attempt to impose a fear-motivated silence, some serious concerns have been raised. And one of the main concerns has been over the question of cost.
The Sun-Herald reported on August 16 1992 that "... every modern Olympic Games, except Los Angeles in 1984, has left the host city out of pocket". It's this history that is one of the major causes of concern and the fact that any budget forecast of revenue and expenditure seven years ahead could provide at best an "educated guess" Perhaps it's for this reason that the figures seem to change so often.
In the Financial Review, columnist Peter Robinson wrote, "if you look at the hangover the residents of Barcelona are suffering today as they realise they will be paying off the Olympics for the next five years you realise the cost involved will be too great for Sydney to handle. It's as simple as that".
Senior economic columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, Max Walsh, wrote on June 25, 1993, "For the sake of clarity it should be pointed out that there are three separate budgets. The first is the bid marketing budget. The second budget is the one we hear most about. This is the IOC-based budget for staging the Games. According to the Sydney organisers, the cost will be $1.697 billion. Revenue is expected to be $1.703 billion, resulting in a $6 million profit. Any shortfall in this budget will be met by the NSW taxpayer.
"The third budget is any additional cost associated with staging the Olympics on a new or upgraded infrastructure. It's this particular budget that led to a loss of more than US$l billion at the Montreal Olympics in 1976. Barcelona has also been left with a very large bill for this budget. So far, the NSW government has been busy telling everybody no expenditure will be required in this area — a proposition that anybody who has tried to drive from the CBD to the Olympic site in Homebush knows to be ludicrous."
Walsh indicated in this article that the Sydney Games budget has serious problems in raising the target revenues for television rights, sponsorship fees and merchandising. In summing up his article Walsh wrote "... the whole Sydney prospectus when compared with the targets of Atlanta (1996 host city) and what has been actually achieved so far is outrageously optimistic. There are potential shortfalls of hundreds of millions of dollars and that's before we come to the hidden agenda of the third budget — that for infrastructure."
Under the heading, Cuts to pay for Games, Mark Coultan reported in the Herald on January 11, 1992, "State Government ministers have been warned that capital works such as new hospitals, roads and schools will have to be reduced because of the money required to fund Sydney's bid for the Olympics in 2000". According to the Herald, the letter from a senior treasury official, and signed by then Deputy Premier Wal Murray, reveals, "... that the Olympics have been included within the Government's self-imposed freeze on capital spending. This in effect means other areas will suffer".
On the Homebush site stage one, the Sydney Morning Herald (October 24, 1990) reported, "... the Labor Council of NSW has pledged to sign a no-strike agreement ... the Secretary of the Council Mr. Michael Easson would be seeking to make sure that the union movement cooperated with an agreement that ensured the project had the 'best' possible industrial relations."
On March 12, 1994, NSW Premier John Fahey said on radio station 2BL that 1 million man-hours had gone into the Olympic venues without one hour being lost due to industrial stoppages. And from the union itself, the front page of Unity (October 1993) stated, "The sustained construction effort at Homebush Bay has rightly been regarded as a model for the rest of the building industry". Note the wording.
There has been a lot of talk in recent times about "a new culture in the building industry", "an end to confrontation" etc, which all sounds very nice but masks the reality of the situation.
The conditions on any given job are almost always a direct reflection of the relative strength of the workers on the one hand and the bosses on the other. Given that the entire purpose of "free market" or capitalist production is to maximise profit, it is inevitable that disputes between workers and bosses will arise. The right of a worker to withdraw their labour is the most basic and fundamental industrial right that a worker has. If the worker loses the right to strike, it places them in a very weak bargaining position.
In theory, the union leadership know all this is perfectly true, and when questioned they have categorically denied signing no-strike deals. Yet despite the denials, it's clear that's in effect what they have done.
Some of the more honest of the leadership's supporters admit that to be the case, but say, "It was the Olympic Games, a political hot-potato. We had no choice." But even if you accept that argument, where does it end? What about the rest of the industry? What's to stop a boss on any job now arguing, "If you can have a no-strike agreement at Homebush, why not here?". But what's even worse is that the union seem to be very much pushing that line themselves!
Contrary to the silly innuendo of the leadership, Back on Track have never been opposed to the Olympic Games. However, where we are different from them is that we have attempted to look at both the positive and negative aspects of the question, rather than approach it from a "Games at any cost" standpoint, which is a very irresponsible way of considering the question.
The Games will create jobs, that is clear. However, it will also possibly throw NSW into debt, which workers could ultimately end up having to pay for. Any such attempts to put the burden onto the backs of workers must be strongly resisted. Big business has had a dream run over the last decade in terms of tax breaks, "wage restraint", corporate profitability and so on.
It's high time they started putting back in, instead of just take, take, take. Furthermore, there is the threat of scarce resources being diverted away from hospitals, roads and schools etc. Any attempts by the government to follow such a path must also be stridently and publicly resisted.
And finally, should it become necessary to take strike action, then that right should not be denied the workers on the games sites. The present leadership simply does not have the right to secretly give away our most powerful means of self-defence of the last 150 years! If the facilities that are being created for the games are expected to be the best in the world, then surely the people who create those facilities have a right to expect the same in terms of conditions.
In addition to being a terrific spectacle, the games will hopefully provide work for some of our members, who've been doing it pretty tough in recent years.
[Back on Track can be contacted at PO Box 710, Cronulla NSW 2230.]