For the sake of the public interest Mr. Steve Bracks forced power workers to end their strike. In setting this precedent he put himself in a very difficult position. Should he or should he have not pre-empted the commissions’ decision. In this essay I intend to discuss the events of the past weeks and explain how Bracks has got himself into this position.

Paul Robinson, writer in "The Age" believes that the industrial conflict in Victoria is as a direct result of Reith’s radical new federal industrial relations laws. Under Reith’s Federal law-the old enterprise agreements come to an end, and the new negotiations have begun "individual contracts". These new laws gave the employers the power to stand up to the powerful state unions. On the other hand the unions may take legal actions against the employer.

Robinson believes that these cyclical actions have produced a situation without a solution and have turned the Supreme Courts into a battlefield between the employers and unions. The Yallourn workers ended their strike after the Premier, Mr. Steve Bracks invoked Victoria’s Electricity Industry Act ordering the workers to resume duties at the La Trobe Valley plant. His motive for this action was in the public’s best interest. But in the article "Anger as Yallourn workers end strike" the State Secretary of the Electrical Trade Union stated, "These workers feel betrayed by Bracks . By ordering workers to return to work Bracks ‘ decision made the workers, their family and the union movement very angry and disappointed."

The Building and Construction Union campaign for a 36-hour week is another issue which has troubled Mr. Bracks. First the Government tried to distance itself from the trouble, but after the disputation became violent, the Premier declared that the union claim was unacceptable and also he said "the 36-hour week did not represent value for money". In the article "Bracks attacks the push for a 36-hour week " written by Gabrielle Costa and Paul Robinson, the State opposition leader Dr. Denis Napthine said "Mr. Bracks should have intervened much earlier in the dispute".

Mr.Bracks’ actions were a direct result of the controversy surrounding this issue, and by changing his position he left himself vulnerable to criticism. Despite all that he chose to protect a small and a big business and at the same time looked after Melbournian’s comfort. He knows that violence and industrial instability could drive business out of the state. In order to protect the state’s welfare he did not accept the demands for a 36-hour week. Again moves like this angered the union. Some of his actions are politically motivated where he is trying to deflect criticism from the opposition party, but any path he chooses the opposition party is never satisfied - in their opinion it is all "too little or too late".

Literally, the outcome of his action made one group happy - for example the employers and the federal government, while others were disappointed. But after some time when the contractors granted shorter hours to plumbers and electricians and fifteen big employers had conceded shorter hours Mr. Steve Bracks said "the key to the 36-hour week was a compromise on salary, conditions and productivity. This would occur on government sites". By stating this he is in favour of the union and will get opposition from the federal level.

Indeed Mr. Bracks put himself between a rock and a hard place, and by defending the economy boom he tried to get out of an uncomfortable position, but the question still remains whether he should or should not have acted as a mediator or as the premier of Victoria should he or should he not have intervened where a federal law is in place?