
Issue No 1		19 February 1999

Interview

Michael Costa

By Peter Lewis

The new Labor Council secretary explains factions, frictions and how to save the union movement.

First, thanks for supporting Workers OnLine. You have been advocating the need for the union movement to embrace the new technology for some time. It finally appears to be happening. Do you feel vindicated?

No, in many ways we've missed the boat and we're now playing catch- up. During the Accord period, when we were operating in a friendly environment, we had an opportunity to embed ourselves in the emerging information revolution. Unfortunately, we were preoccupied with other strategies like amalgamations. In effect we were trying to sort out the consequences of the Industrial Age, rather than position ourselves for the Information Age.

Where does this leave the blue collar workers who have been the union movement's traditional constituency?

Nobody's talking about abandoning our blue-collar base. To the contrary, that base is changing as a consequence of the information revolution. One only has to look at the engineering sector to the see the impact of new technology on the nature of work. We are seeing everywhere a merging of traditional work and new technology. Production processes are being "infomated" (I hate the term), the consequences of this are contradictory. If information technology is applied without concern for human factors it can create very unhealthy workplaces with a diminution of skills. If the technology is applied with due regard to the needs of the workforce, it can be quite liberating, leading to more fulfilling work and new skills. Our blue collar base will always be important, but we cannot survive exclusively focussed on that base.

Let's look into the crystal ball 50 years. What will your average trade union look like?

I don't think there will be an average trade union. One of the consequences of the changes we are seeing is that trade unions will more and more resemble the characteristics of the new sectors of the economy. This means we will be more likely to see diverse trade union structures with a greater niche focus. Unions, like every structure within the information age need to be flexible and adaptive. I would like to see greater professionalisation of service delivery in the unions through dedicated and highly trained staff; in short, we need to look at a model of trade unionism that limits the role for internal politics to hamper member service delivery. Perhaps we should look at a corporatised model, where appointed trade union managers deliver services independent of the elected stream which would establish policy. Of course, we can't be prescriptive and the change has to be evolutionary.

What policy issues do unions need to confront in the short term?

In the short-term we need to stabilise membership. I believe retention to be as important as organising. On a simple cost-benefit basis it is cheaper to retain what you have than to go seeking new members. Organising is important, no doubt, but there's no point organising new areas if we can't deliver the sort of services that will keep people with the union. All of our surveys have shown that nearly half the union membership doesn't believe we communicate effectively. This is disturbing. That's why I've put so much emphasis on supporting the activities of TUTA in improving the skills of trade union management. A consolidation of TUTA both financially and strategically is the key short term strategy.

What about social policy, do unions have a role in promoting issues outside the traditional industrial agenda?

Absolutely. Unions cannot survive if they have a narrow industrial agenda. In any case many of these issues have become blurred. Take, for instance, work and family issues, with an increased need for two incomes to support family units a whole range of social issues come into play which weren't there in the past. Take childcare, stress -- even sex life according to our survey!

You've been secretary of Labor Council for just over six months, what have been the biggest challenges?

The biggest challenge has been to put together a team that reflects the diverse views in the labour movement to position the Labor Council as an open institution that has important ideas to contribute to national debates and specific state policies. We need to focus NSW unions on recruitment, organising and training as survival issues. And importantly, we need to manage the relationship between trade unions and a Labor Government which does not always have the same outlook as the unions.

One of the first things you've done is review a lot of the Council's assets. You've sold 2HD, you've progressed the development of Trade Hall and you're trying to secure the lease of Currawong. What's the motivation behind these reforms?

If there's a common theme it's to ensure that the Labor Council's resources are targeted to get the biggest bang for our buck in terms of the issues and strategies that are most important to us. In my mind, that's organising and service delivery. I have always been a reformer and believe you should always question the way you do things and never assume that there isn't a better way. For example, with Currawong, while it made a lot of sense for the union movement to provide low-cost holidays in the wake of the extension of annual leave, it doesn't make much sense at a time when we are struggling for resources to guarantee our survival.

So its a case of the union movement trading itself out of trouble?

That's a bit too managerial, I'd like to think of it as allocating our resources in the best way to support our current strategies. If a business kept performing the way we're performing, they'd soon have the receivers in. If we are going to use the business analogy, I see the union movement as re-engineering itself to meet the challenges of the next millennium.

The other issue you've been vocal on is the need to de-factionalise the Labor Council and the broader Party. What do you mean by this?

I'd draw a distinction between the Labor Council and the ALP. The Labor Council consists of many unions that are not affiliated to the ALP and have not been part of the traditional faction system. Those unions have always sought one thing from the Labor Council and that is support of their strategies. The process of defactionalising at Labor Council is in my view well on the way to completion. The new line-up of officers at Labor Council and the way the Council operates clearly indicate that. The Labor Party, unfortunately, has institutionalised factionalism, both in its rules and operation, which will make it more difficult to defactionalise. Factional systems in the Labor Party made sense when there were strong ideological divides. It was a sensible way of managing those divides. Since the end of the cold war it has become less relevant. I think this has been recognised by those who think across the traditional factions. The key challenge is to bring these people together to come up with alternate models which protect the rank and file's involvement in the Party, but also provide Party structures that keep policy relevant and produce good candidates.

More importantly, how can this be practically achieved?

First, by raising the issue and I'm pleased to see that many people are now doing this. Secondly, by being open to the change and showing in practise that you're prepared to operate in a non-factional manner. This is a very slow process and requires people to suspend their disbelief and a great deal of trust. This always takes time. What needs to be done, practically, is to convene a national conference of those key people from across the factional divide who are interested in the future of the Party to develop models and strategies for change. I would plan to do that later this year.

What would a de-factionalised labour movement look like?

It would be a labour movement that would be less concerned with who holds a particular position or view and more concerned about that person's competence. It would have party branches that had a life and a vitality that unfortunately the factional system has squeezed out of many branches today. I'd like to see a Party where every member of the party was there because they were committed to the Party rather than because they were asked to by a friend or sponsor.

How would policy be set?

Policy would be set in a dynamic manner. There always needs to be a process where the leadership can advance policy and the rank and file can have an input with the ability to modify if the policy is too out of kilter with their expectations. This requires a dynamic Party, a Party that is focussed on skilling its membership in policy issues. If the Party is not dynamic policy will always be old shibboleth confronting pragmatism.

So how would a power privatisation debate have been played out differently under this set up?

Under this sort of set-up, more time and more detailed discussions with all of the stakeholders would be required and, at the end of the day, there may be groups who can't agree with a particular policy and that would have to be accommodated.

On a broader level, how would the Party select candidates?

My preference would be for a system which had a mixture of rank and file and central involvement. The key thing is to ensure that competent people who will advance the interests of labour are the ones who will end up in Parliament. Rank and file involvement is needed as a guard against a loss of direction by the centre. By the same token the centre is often in a better position to understand the specific electoral requirements.

Can you understand the suspicion towards you from some on the Left given the policy positions you've taken in the past -- I'm thinking particularly of your book with Mark Duffy which advocated a move away from the central wage-fixing system?

You've got to understand the context of that book. Many of the ideas in it I wouldn't hold to today. We advocated a move away from a rigid centralised system for very good reasons. The system had become too centralised. The policies on amalgamation, for example, were policies being imposed on the union movement -- and many would now agree with us that they didn't provide all the benefits that were claimed at the time. My view is that there will always be a need for a social safety net, but that the form that safety net takes should be open to debate and discussion as should the nature of bargaining and wage-setting. The Labor Council has had a tradition since Michael Easson of encouraging ideas and discussion. It's something I don't apologise for, I think it's healthy. I do not believe that there is one strategy for all the trade union movement. Strategies evolve and ideas evolve as circumstances change. What we always need is the people who have the courage to advance new ideas and an environment that doesn't penalise them for doing so. The quickest way to stagnation is to try and suppress dissenting views. In terms of the 1991 book, there are many bits that I still believe stand the test of time, particularly our critique of the ACTU's directed approach to trade union development. Other bits of the books are no longer relevant.

Would you describe yourself as an economic rationalist?

No. I'm an economic realist. Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. It blinds one to the complexity of the world. This is particularly true in the social world which economics is a core competent of. Economics matters, but economics is undertaken within a social and political context. The best economists have always been good social scientists as well.

Another criticism coming from some on the Left is that it's only after you have used the factional system to claw your way to power that you have begun speaking of de-factionalisation ...

First, I reject the notion that I have clawed my way to power, I am probably the person in the best position to initiate the process because I understand how both factions work and whilst it's true that I have been identified with the Right, I have never been a traditional right-winger. On many issues, particularly social policy, my views would be regarded as more to the Left. On other issues like economic policy, I would be regarded as being in the centre. It's very difficult in the world we are in now to categorise people using traditional labels. Power and influence is only a tool and like any tool its only useful if it is used for the right task.

Why is now an appropriate time to pursue defactionalisation?

Because there is a general consensus that the factions are devoid of the ideologicial content which was the basis of their creation. The challenges facing the union movement, that is survival, is common to all no matter what traditional factional grouping they were originally aligned to. Factions are a luxury we can no longer afford. The ordinary members of unions wouldn't have a clue as to what faction their union was aligned to and more importantly, they wouldn't care less. What they are interested in is services that protect them and their families.

There's a lot of new theories about what Labor should be doing in the 21st century floating around. How do you rate the various policy prescriptions?

I welcome the debate, though sometimes I wonder who some of the ideas are directed at. Take the notion of a "Third Way". I have always believed the Labor Party was the third way. To me to talk about the Third Way is to misconceive the debate that's required. Policies have always evolved to meet changed circumstances, this is natural and should be seen as natural. To talk about the Third Way is to imply that there is a choice between fundamentally antagonistic approaches which require some sort of reconciliation. Nobody sensible believes in laissez-faire capitalism or extreme state intervention any longer. The real issue is to transcend that limited debate, not by developing a Third Way, but by prioritising what is acceptable to a civilised society in terms of things like the social safety net, economic growth and levels of inequality. Policy has always been about trade-offs and balance and it's becoming even more so as the ability governments at all levels to influence national economic development is constrained by the emerging information revolution and its globalisation. The InterNet is a classic example of technology which by and large will not be able to be regulated by one government acting alone. Lindsay Tanner's approach, that is his focus on the requirements to maintain an open Australia in all its manifestations, is closer to where I think the real debate should be.

Does that mean that the only thing we can aspire to as a labour movement is informed pragmatism?

The problem with your question is the word 'informed'. I would argue that people who don't support a social safety net and a sensible set of policies to ensure economic opportunity for all are uninformed. So that debate still remains in any society. As to pragmatism, I do believe we have to be pragmatic in the way we implement policies to ensure that they are relevant and evolving.

How will you gauge your success of your term as Labor Council secretary?

That's a difficult question. I would rather others judge my success. I personally don't view my position as an individual position. If the labour movement doesn't grow and re-invent itself in a way that maintains its relevance, it doesn't matter how successful or unsuccessful I have been. In other words, my role is inextricably linked to the challenges the union movement faces.

  Do the factions have a future? Have your say!

  See also Labor Council Who's Who

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 1 contents

Interview: Michael Costa
The new Labor Council secretary explains factions, frictions and how to save the union movement.

Unions: Getting Under The Skin
The cash-in-transit industry - known for it's vulnerability to violence and theft - comes under scrutiny as the industry moves to a new "soft skin" operation

History: Remembering the Labor Press
Workers Online is just the latest in a long tradition of publishing by working people and their organisations.

Review: Powderfinger's Political Power Pop
We look at a band who still reckon they can mix music with a bit social commentary.

Campaign Diary: Hartcher Chokes On His Own Uglies
No-one would have been more surprised by last week�s announcement of the Coalition industrial relations policy than its spokesman on the issue, Chris Hartcher.

» The Overworked - We're Sick, Anti-Social and Sexually Frustrated

» Geeks Blow Up

» The Greatest Act on Earth

» Museum of Contemporary Art calls time

» MEAA Goes Country!