At the September rally in Melbourne against WorkChoices, new ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence made these baffling remarks: "I know some people are not happy with recent Labor policy... [but] in the end we all have to focus on the fundamental choice that's in front of us at this election - between WorkChoices and the alternative, which restores all those conditions that have been taken away."

The reason why "some people" are justifiably unhappy with Labor policy is precisely that it doesn't restore "all those conditions". And moreover, Labor's policies, just like those of the Liberals, systematically destroy our right to defend our conditions though union organising and industrial action.

Many people who hate Howard's tyrannical anti-worker agenda see Rudd's policy as a shabby compromise. But in fact, it's almost identical to WorkChoices: a total capitulation to the demands of big business.

Abolishing AWAs?

If you are already on an Australian Workplace Agreement, then your AWA will stay in force until it expires - potentially as late as 2012! Beyond that, the ALP is keen to stress to its big business suitors that their penchant for forcing workers onto individual contracts will not be hindered.

Although its policy prevents new AWAs being signed, Labor favours another form of individual contract: common law contracts. These have always existed, but the ALP will now let bosses use them to undercut award conditions. As Rudd and his likely Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard put it, common law contracts will be made more "flexible".

Under Labor, workers could be forced to trade off overtime pay rates, penalty rates for weekends, public holidays and shifts, rest and meal breaks, limits on roster changes, and other conditions. ACTU ads have highlighted WorkChoices horror stories, like the young woman who received a flat rate of pay to work on public holidays. Such scenarios will still be possible under Labor. No wonder Sydney Morning Herald political correspondent Mark Davis has dubbed Labor's policy "the AWA clone".

Collective agreements?

There is another sense in which Labor's promise to return to a system of collective agreements is limited. You can have collective workplace agreements, but not collective industry-wide agreements. In fact massive penalties will apply to unions that pursue "pattern-bargaining" to get common rates of pay and conditions for all their members across a given industry.

Such equality seems only fair, so why is pattern bargaining unacceptable to Labor? Because it allows stronger, more unionised workplaces to win improvements in wages and conditions, which then flow on to enterprises where workers don't have as much bargaining power. The bosses, and therefore the ALP, prefer the trend to go in the other direction - a race to the bottom.

Bosses who can intimidate their workforce into accepting shoddy deals do so. They then undercut their competitors. The bosses at these other enterprises then demand their workers accept similar deals. If the union refuses, it gives bosses a pretext to engage in union-busting. And Labor's laws will continue to assist in this.

The right to organise and the right to strike?

Every major anti-union measure introduced by Howard will be retained.

Rudd is keeping all the restrictions on the right of union organisers to enter workplaces. The rules outlawing industrial action outside of strict bargaining periods will remain. Any industrial action during the term of an existing agreement will still see workers liable for huge fines. Taking industrial action in solidarity with other workers, known as secondary boycotts, is banned. In fact industrial action in almost every circumstance is illegal. Gillard has repeatedly stated that workers would be "met with the full force of the law" for striking outside of these rare circumstances.

Even if you manage to win a secret ballot for a strike during a bargaining period, Labor's proposed "Fair Work Australia" office can at any time decide to cancel the bargaining period, rendering continued industrial action illegal. And they can then arbitrarily decide to give the bosses everything they want.

The excellent documentary Constructing Fear (reviewed on page 17) exposes the evils of the Howard's anti-worker construction industry attack dog, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). In June, Gillard reversed ALP policy, announcing that Labor would retain the ABCC until at least 2010. Echoing the anti-union rhetoric of the Liberals, she said "We need a tough cop on the beat".

When asked in a Lateline interview, if a Labor government would be involved in strike-breaking, Gillard's response was: "Absolutely". She has also confirmed that stopping work to attend protest rallies like those called to oppose WorkChoices would be illegal under Labor.

Restoring award conditions?

Be wary when you hear that Labor will be "restoring award conditions". Awards used to set out a vast range of working conditions and other matters that bosses could not legally undercut. Even Howard could claim to not have abolished awards - he has just restricted them to covering such a tiny number of matters (five), that they are virtually irrelevant. And he has made it possible for bosses to compel their workers to trade-off even these few conditions using individual contracts.

The same is basically true of Labor. There will be nothing like the old awards. Labor has pledged to slightly increase the number of matters covered in awards to ten, but at present these are broad headings like "family-friendly hours". Who knows what protection we will actually get?

Protection from unfair dismissal?

The importance of protection from unfair dismissal is should be obvious to anyone who has felt pressured by a boss to do something unreasonable. The imposition of WorkChoices means that there is no practical way to respond if you are sacked for asserting your rights. Labor is only restoring protection to workers who have been employed for six months in a business with over 15 employees, and 12 months for smaller businesses. And Labor is doing nothing to stop the increasing use of temp agency staff. These workers may work for a company for years but they are not entitled to any of the benefits contained in the company's collective agreement - or to any protection from being sacked at any time.

Prepare to fight

Labor's defenders can perhaps claim that Rudd's IR policy is marginally better than Howard's extremely unfair, draconian, anti-worker and brutally anti-union WorkChoices package. But they absolutely cannot say with any honesty that Labor's policy is not itself extremely unfair, draconian, anti-worker, and brutally anti-union. Nor can they deny that on all of the fundamental questions, both parties' policies are the same.

This shows why the ACTU strategy of winding back the mass rallies and waiting for Labor was always bunk. Many rank and file unionists have put up with their union leaders refusing to organise an ongoing campaign of industrial action against Howard's laws in the belief that there will be meaningful change if Labor wins the election. It's commonly argued that although the ALP's IR policies are disgraceful, there will be more space to fight back under Labor.

Socialists more than anyone hope that workers do fight back more forcefully should Labor win. But it is sheer complacency to think that a Labor government will give us any more rights at work than Howard, and it is wishful thinking to suggest that they will be any less hesitant than the Liberals to use the anti-strike and anti-union laws against workers. After all, today's ALP is desperate to prove itself a loyal ally to big business.

In reality, workers will face no choice but to fight if they are to salvage any rights, dignity or protection of their living standards. The capitalist class will not cease demanding that more and more rights and conditions be taken from us. With Labor leaders desperate to oblige them, and a Labor victory seeming likely, we must be preparing now to fight Rudd's right-wing agenda.