LaborNET

  Ask Neale

  Tool of the Week

International

The Not-So Shakey Isles

NZ Council of Trade Union secretary Paul Goulter looks at life for the workers under a Labour Government.

	NZ CTU's Paul Goulter

**************

After 15 years of new right politics in New Zealand we have elected a centre-left Government.

The Labour-Alliance coalition has been in place for 18 months. We are officially mid-term.

The change of Government occurred just in time for the trade union movement, which was increasingly at risk of extinction.

Over the nine-year period of the anti-union legislation, the Employment Contracts Act, union membership plummeted from around 45% to 17%. of the workforce.

There is always a temptation to grizzle about how bad it was under the ECA (and it was bad!). Under the ECA we lost awards, union rights, conditions, bargaining power, jobs through restructuring, penal and overtime rates, and job security through casualisation.

We lost health and safety standards, and workers' comp rights. Many workers lost pride and dignity.

Most of all we lost the density of union membership we need to be strong voice for workers. The movement was in crisis.

Did the crisis vanish with the advent of a centre-left Government? No.

The union movement did not transform simply because we have a sympathetic Government.

The change of Government does not turn back the clock. What the Labour-Alliance coalition has done is put in place the framework for the movement to rebuild itself.

By October last year, the ECA was consigned to the dustbin, replaced with the Employment Relations Act.

The ERA is not a radical piece of legislation by international standards. It does not return compulsory unionism, awards, arbitration or closed shops.

It does support the negotiation of collective workplace agreements between workers in their unions and their employers. It provides some real opportunities to organise around.

The issue for unions now is not ridding ourselves of anti-worker law and replacing it with fair legislation.

That is done and we are still face significant threats.

The real issue for union leaders in New Zealand is to understand what enabled unionism in New Zealand to survive the attack and to build on those features. If we lose them and revert to our old ways we really have gone backwards and arguably do not deserve to survive.

This is not a claim of support for the ECA as some sort of virtuous cleansing process or for its return. The goals of the ECA - to remove unions altogether along with their friend the Labour Party, to ensure the transfer of wealth from labour to capital and to cement in individualism were very close to being realised.

Working people and their families suffered as a result of the ECA and the other components of the new right program. We do not want to go back to that.

Some Lessons We Have Learnt

While there is no proper empirical research there do seem to be some features that are common to those unions that not just managed to survive but got stronger in the ECA period. These are not universal and are present to a greater or lesser extent depending on a number of factors.

Firstly, there is a clarity of focus in those unions. They know where they are and where they want to be. This focus is clearly accepted throughout the union and is strongly supported. This clarity often includes a removal of the bullshit factor - those shibboleths of unionism that have little real value to the continued existence of the union.

Secondly, they are assertive. Not afraid to take on the battle and far more aware of the tools of war. There is strength of purpose and unity. The prospect of a loss under the ECA certainly had a clarifying chill as often it was quickly accompanied by de-unionisation but rather than make those unions conservative in their struggles, it just made them wiser.

Thirdly, those unions became more flexible, more quick footed and more strategic in their thinking. If it was not going to work then stop and move onto another target. To do this successfully requires troops who are solidly behind the union and understand what is happening and why. It also requires the leadership to be more creative, long term in their thinking, ready to take the risk when the time was right and knowing when the time to change had come.

Fourthly, the linkages between members and their unions became much stronger. Or put another way members became more responsible for their union and their bargaining outcomes. Ownership of the union developed making the unions as a third party employer strategy, more problematic.

Lastly, there is a view that no one owes us a living. Put another way, there is a view that while the future belongs to them, they have to create it. The Government will not give it and certainly employers are reluctant. Allied with this is a certain confidence in the union - it has survived, we got it right (or not terribly wrong) and we can go on from there.

There is also another lesson that the movement as a whole has learnt.

That is, we can never afford to again be so dependent on the law, for our existence and our work. We have learnt that there are just too many risks in that. This lesson has strongly guided our view of what should replace the ECA.

Role of the law

There were extensive debates inside the movement about what should replace the ECA. However we did settle on a concluded view.

We wanted a framework that promoted collective bargaining through unions along with some basic organising rights.

This is essentially a very modest demand especially in most civilised countries. It is based on a view of the political realities within New Zealand and our experiences.

Of course if this is all we wanted (and got) then it represents a real challenge to unions. It says that unions cannot take a breather, just because the Government has changed. The underlying instabilities and threats still exist. Unless we keep moving forward we will go under just as quickly as we did under the ECA.

But it does represent a real statement of confidence from New Zealand unions. It says that we do have the ability and the capacity to succeed, we do not rely on Government for our existence. It says give us the framework and we will do the rest and we will do it sufficiently well to withstand the next onslaught. The way forward is quite clear - we will take what we have learnt under the ECA and with this knowledge, these skills and that capacity we will prosper in the new environment.

This, to me, is a powerful statement from the New Zealand trade union movement. No wonder employers think we are winning.

Our Threats

Having said all that, we do face some serious threats and these are matters we need to get to grips with urgently. There are real challenges for union leaderships.

We are chronically under resourced. Our capacity to take advantage of the new environment is severely limited. This is a real challenge to the movement and has led directly to the creation of our Organising Centre, focussed on reunionisation.

We have to get to grips with the new unions that are allowed under the Employment Relations Act. Do we welcome them and engage with them or do we hold them out?

As always, we face demarcations. 81% of our workforce is non union and we face demarcation disputes!

The new areas of the economy are growing, but they are difficult to organise.

We face the threat of too many organising opportunities. How do unions deal with the debate on whether to chuck everything at it now or taking a more measured approach and run the risk of opportunities disappearing. Do we work to maximise membership where we are or do we agressively chase new sites? Where does the balance lie and what drives that decision?

We have to work out the nature and the content of our relationship with government. We have a sympathetic Government with many close ties to the movement - but it is still a Government. How do we engage and about what?

Utilising Our Experiences to Make a Stronger Movement

There is every indication that unions and the movement at large, are utilising those experiences to rebuild the movement.

Through the CTU, unions are coming together around common programs and supporting each other in those programs. Some that come to mind include a project re-unionise construction and a corporate campaign to turn around Carter Holt Harvey's poor record in industrial relations.

In the latter two projects we have been greatly assisted by Australian unions.

We have our Organising Centre up and running with a full education program and now the centre is working directly with unions on their unionisation programs.

The challenge is immense - to reunionise New Zealand. But it can work. The trick is to retain those good features in our task of rebuilding the movement, so that we are strong and prepared for a time without a sympathetic Government.

   Visit the NZ CTU

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 97 contents

»	Spotlight on HIH�s WorkCover Link
»	Construction Industry Faces Safety Crisis
»	Statewide Strike Off But Della on Notice
»	David and Goliath Battle at IBM
»	Natasha�s Democrats Face Senate IR Test
»	Howard Abandons Working Families
»	City Councils Recognise Birth � Now for the Bush
»	BHP Forced to Back Off Kembla AWAs
»	Impulse Bores Workers Into Submission
»	Coach Drivers Win Permanency
»	Boss Pockets Compo Payment
»	Union Wins Battle in AWA War
»	Publicans Want to Reduce Bar Pay
»	Abbott Agrees to Ban Asbestos
»	Union Acts to Save Leichhardt Refuge
»	Trade Union Choir Turns Ten
»	Activists' Notebook

»	The Soapbox
»	The Locker Room
»	Trades Hall
»	Tool Shed

»	Thanks from Indonesia
»	Hester Spot On
»	Fuelling Voter Anger
»	May Day - The Debate Continues
»	Not a Chaser Fan

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW