The construction union says its latest report into a bridge collapse in Canberra's north raises more concerns about how workers were employed at the site.

The Ginninderra Drive bridge over the Barton Highway collapsed in mid-August during a concrete pour. Fifteen workers were hurt.

The Barton Highway is expected to reopen this weekend.

The site's principle contractor has previously said it would not have done the work if it had any doubts about safety.

The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) will release its report about the site's industrial relations today.

Branch secretary Dean Hall alleges some workers on the site were being paid cash-in-hand, causing uncertainty about entitlements.

"They were vulnerable to things like not having superannuation, long service and most importantly workers' compensation," he said.

Mr Hall says injured workers are unsure if they are covered by insurance. dur 35

He says the workers did not receive a proper safety briefing.

"We have evidence that workers were not properly inducted on the day of the work because of the rush again to get the workers onto the site to do the concrete poor," he said.

"Workers were visited in hospital where documentation was asked to be produced and photographed so they could prove that they did induct them when they hadn't.

You wonder why it costs so much to do any type of construction in this country when the system is so shonky, third world standards for first world costings. Who's getting the money?

By the evidence of your hundreeds of threads about industrual matters, you are obviously fascinated by the concept of what we call....

WORK

Maybe you could try it sometime?

Unions don't make workers safe. Nor do government workcover insurances. Nor do governments. The blokes on the job keep themselves safe. An induction will never make a worker safe.

If a builder is dodgy in the first place then no one is safe. Get them out of the industry. It is government wanting the lowest price every time which contributes to industry trying to cut corners to make the economics work.

Philby wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 10:07am:

Unions don't make workers safe. Nor do government workcover insurances. Nor do governments. The blokes on the job keep themselves safe. An induction will never make a worker safe. If a builder is dodgy in the first place then no one is safe. Get them out of the industry. It is government wanting the lowest price every time which contributes to industry trying to cut corners to make the economics work.

One of the most sensible posts I have read here for some time.

It looks like this raises more questions than answers.   It appears a lot of the workers on this site were getting cash in hand payments,  causing uncertainty about entitlements.  They were vulnerable to not having things like superannuation,  and most importantly workers compensation.

wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 10:10am:

It looks like this raises more questions than answers.   It appears a lot of the workers on this site were getting cash in hand payments,  causing uncertainty about entitlements.  They were vulnerable to not having things like superannuation,  and most importantly workers compensation.

Seems they were happy to take their cash in hand with no tax payments until something went wrong.

Philby wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 10:07am:

Unions don't make workers safe. Nor do government workcover insurances. Nor do governments. The blokes on the job keep themselves safe. An induction will never make a worker safe. If a builder is dodgy in the first place then no one is safe. Get them out of the industry. It is government wanting the lowest price every time which contributes to industry trying to cut corners to make the economics work.

Absolutely clueless, another right wing extremist taking absolute pride in their position of uninformed ignorance.
Is anyone surprised at that?

Now if you had pointed to weaknesses in how unions, workcover, or indeed governments, perform some of their duties, then everyone would happily agree with you, but no, you take the position of the idiotic fanatic, that safety is all down to individuals, which is such a laughably ignorant position.
Because of that, it is a bit hard to know just how basic an explanation would be required for you to comprehend the enormity of your error.

So let's start with a little history, prior to unionisation, workers were horribly exploited, and safety was only ever considered from the point of view of cost minimisation fro the business owner, meaning if it it was cheaper to have workers suffer and die, than implement systems that would improve their safety, then that is what happened.

Over time, both unions, and governments got involved, and safety standards were first demanded , and set by unions, then later on, legislation was introduced which made safety a responsibility that all employers had to consider.

This changed the equation, because punitive damages could be applied if employers were found to be negligent in their safety protocols, and so safer worksites became more cost effective work sites.

In the aussie building industry alone, this has saved many thousands of lives, and if it is carried across all industries, many, many more.

I have had my share of disagreements with petty, ignorant bureaucrats, including some from workcover, and so I do understand the frustration of trying to work with public servants who have little concept about productivity, and the need to maintain it, or go out of business, but it has not made me ignore the most important aspect of providing a safe and healthy worksite.

Unions back in the late 1970's through to the early 1990's destroyed the credibility and reputation of the union movement, when self interested thugs ran their unions along the lines of personal fiefdoms, but that does not mean we should ignore the work done by previous generations, or the improvements they delivered that have benefited us all.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 10:37am:

Now if you had pointed to weaknesses in how unions, workcover, or indeed governments, perform some of their duties, then everyone would happily agree with you, but no, you take the position of the idiotic fanatic, that safety is all down to individuals, which is such a laughably ignorant position. .

I don't think it helps you to regard anyone who has a different opinion to you as 'extremist' you know.

I personally think Unions overstep the mark far too often in the workplace these days.

They have their place, though that is slowly diminishing in Australia as we remove our manufacturing base and shift it to more economically suitable nations, but a lot of the time Unions step beyond their place.

I personally have seen the roughend of the Unions in my last role in Australia.
The AMWU turned up to demand the reinstatement of a worked fired for negligence.
I was in the room as the Finance guy but was witness to the appalling tactics and obstructionary threats they took to get a worker re-instated.

It was really pretty poor to see it actually.

Yes perhaps you are right, sometime unions could be seen as overstepping the mark.  (As so do some employers).  People have every right to belong to a union, and to be represented by a union if they wish.  Oh yes it can work both ways, not all employers are angels either.    

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 10:04am:

By the evidence of your hundreeds of threads about industrual matters, you are obviously fascinated by the concept of what we call.... WORK Maybe you could try it sometime?

Your definition of work is to profit from doing NO work by speculating in a property bubble. You are comfortable with this concept and think  that a property ponzi scheme which achieves nothing except to send a nation into massive amounts of debt is preferable to manufacturing or adding value to anything.

Maybe you libbos should try the later and see that there is really no free lunch.