Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 36, Number 4. 21st March 1973

Keeping Workers in their Place

page 8

Keeping [unclear: Workers] in their Place

"Wreckers", "disrupters", "attempts to undermine the economy", "F.O.L. bosses running the country", "Peking Parrots" . . . Terms such as these are commonly used by the press, politicians and employers whenever trade unions take industrial action. The use of such emotional language may be designed to cover up the real causes of conflict, and condition people to blame any dispute on workers and trade unions.

Two weeks ago Salient published a short history of government attempts to restrict the right to strike. This week Michael Law, a product of the Auckland University Political Science Department and former student leader, who is now a trade union bureaucrat and part-time law student, shows how the present Industrial Relations Bill is aimed at completely shackling workers and the trade union movement.

Photo of Wellington Waterfront protest

Left: Seamen march along the Wellington Waterfront in a demonstration against wage reductions, January 1931.

Labour The Organ of Unionism front page

Centre: Masthead of a national trade union journal, planned but never published in 1890, the year of the first major strike in N.Z. The small illustrations in the masthead represent the unions which combined to plan the publication.

Photo of people working on a railroad

Right: Hiding a face with a shovel, or turning a head, these relief workers were not proud of their task of levelling sand dunes at Lyall Bay. Useless jobs such as these were very common during the depression of the 1930's.

First two photos courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library. Third photo from Wellington Public Library.

Throughout the western world, economic problems facing the capitalist system have developed to such a chaotic situation that only co-ordinated action against wage and salary earners can restore stability to the world's economies. Because the prewar disciplinary force of sustained unemployment is no longer an option to employers and governments, they have developed 'incomes policies' (i.e. sophisticated union bashing) as a means to keep labour subservient to capital. As the British writer Ken Coates has put it: ". . . international competition demands that margins be considered even more tightly, and basic costs be budgeted over longer periods within narrower limits of fluctuation. Hence the over-riding concern about inflation, and the constant preoccupation with the 'stabilisation' of wage costs. Wages must be brought under control if the cutting edge of capital is not to be dulled to a degree intolerable to its masters". (Essays on Industrial Democracy, 1971, p.22)

All over the western world governments have introduced these 'incomes policies' and developed systems of industrial relations designed to restrict workers' demands. New Zealand has been a little slower than other countries to formalise such policies into long term legislation, but last year the National Government caught up when it introduced the 'Police Offences Act (Industrial Division)', better known as the Industrial Relations Bill. According to a government statement at the time it was introduced, the Bill "is the first major restructuring of New Zealand's industrial legislation and institutions since 1894. It will provide a new charter for the conduct of industrial relations in this country". In fact the Bill is nothing more than a programme of disciplinary regulations for labour, a sophisticated plan for union bashing that is no different from past anti-worker legislation (which was described in Bert Roth's article two weeks ago — Eds).

1930s photo of four men

Hitler Youth or Young Farmers? In 1913 the Government recruited men from rural areas as 'Special constables' to help control the striking workers in the towns. On their way into Wellington the 'Specials' had to pass through the Ngauranga Gorge. Militant strikers gathered on the steep hills above the road and bombarded them with rocks as they rode towards the city. Photo from the Earle Andrew collection, courtesy of the Alexander Turnbull Library.

Changes in World Economy

The post-war era has seen a dramatic transfer of power among the major western powers. In New Zealand, for example, the influence of British finance has diminished in comparison to the influence of American finance. Many of the ostensibly 'British' companies are in fact controlled by American interests. The United States protects its economic and political influence in a number of ways. Stable countries like New Zealand are controlled through international finance institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. Key strategic countries like South Africa are provided with heavy investment from Europe, and protected by buffer states like Angola and Mozambique, where the Portugese colonialists are provided with NATO arms. For countries which do not toe the line there is the lesson of Indochina.

New Zealand's entry into the I.M.F. in 1961 was preceded by a fierce public debate between economic nationalists and the Labour Party on one hand and professional economists and the National Party on the other. In effect New Zealand had no option but to join the I.M.F. The demands of the multinational companies operating in New Zealand could only be served if the economy was restructured. Such restructuring required access to sources of short term and long term loans, and the World Bank was the answer. But once New Zealand joined it had to play the game, and it was the rules of that game which induced a militant response from workers throughout the country.

Life under International Capital

Anyone who has lived in New Zealand in the last decade will have experienced the effects of life under the I.M.F. The Welfare State has been systematically dismantled. In the areas of Health, Education and Social Services, the state has steadily pulled back and placed greater reliance on private medical schemes, school bottle drives, voluntary child care centres etc. More and more women have been forced into the workforce because of the drop in real family income. For the upper middle class and the rich however, life has improved. Reductions in company tax and in the upper levels of personal income tax have provided them with increased funds to speculate and profit. The government actually established a climate that was conducive to massive speculation, especially in land and housing. The rich did not suffer from the rundown in social services. A very careful subsidy scheme meant that those who had money could obtain further government support. Tremendous amounts of money were made available to private hospitals with rates of interest of less than 2%. But no worker could afford to take advantage of this. Nor could he afford to live in the suburbs where there was sufficient initial capital to earn a government subsidy for primary school libraries, pre-school centres and other educational facilities.

It took workers a long time to wake up. In 1968 the Government and employers made their first big mistake when the Arbitration Court gave its 'Nil Wage Order'. The uproar was such that the employers quickly realised that they had blundered and rushed back to the Court to hand out a palliative. But the damage had been done. Rank and file unionists demanded that their organisations reject the arbitration system and rely instead on direct action and collective bargaining. The Government had another problem. The western economic system wasn't operating too well and a series of financial crises, coupled with worldwide inflation (attributable in part to the Vietnam War), began to place pressure on New Zealand's economy. The short term benefits of the 1967 devaluation had been dissipated, while the costs, rising import prices, began to be felt. The Government found that Mini Budgets were not enough to 'stabilise' the economy and in 1970 the first round of union bashing took place with the introduction of the Stabilisation of Remuneration Act. The purpose of this Act was clear. Wages were to be held, prices were to rise, and rents were ignored. From the outset people saw that it was a farce, but the Trade Union hierarchy declined to challenge the legislation and dampened down the demands of those unions who wanted to fight.

Unionists left in the dark

In late 1971 the Government dished out a strong lesson to militant opponents in the unions. Taking advantage of public resentment that had been whipped up by politicians and the press against the Seamen's Union, the Government introduced a provocative piece of shipping legislation. It was a forerunner of what was to come, but a cowed F.O.L. and Labour Party again refused to fight and the Seamen were left to fight alone. It is now common knowledge that they were forced into a trap and were accordingly belted. The effect was to drive the F.O.L. into the arms of the Employers' Federation. An F.O.L. subcommittee and Employers Federation officials submitted a draft Industrial Relations Bill to the Government, most of which became the Industrial Relations Bill.

Within the trade union movement the reaction was one of shock. Throughout the negotiations only a select few union leaders knew what was going on, and even after the Bill had been submitted to government some members of the F.O.L. Executive didn't know what was in it. One is known to have telephoned the Employers Federation to obtain a copy. At Trades Council level there were questions about the Bill, but no answers. The draft was a victory for right-wing union leaders. Since the 'Nil Wage Order' in 1968 they had wanted to get their members back into an Arbitration Court system, which entrenched their authority and transferred power out of the hands of the rank and file and back into the hands of the leadership. But even the right-wingers got a shock when they saw the final draft of the Bill. The Government had taken advantage of the weakness of the F.O.L. and included a number of new provisions designed to completely shackle workers.

Power given to Small Elite

The new arrangement will be headed by an Industrial Relations Council, with members from the F.O.L., the state page 9 [unclear: e] Employers Federation, the [unclear: oying] authorities, two [unclear: govern-trtment] heads and the [unclear: Minister.] It will be a fairly [unclear: nebulous] authority to make [unclear: recommen-] manpower programmes, codes [unclear: ial] practices, industrial [unclear: legisla- he] promotion of industrial [unclear: rela- industrial] welfare. The danger [unclear: ngement] is that it entrenches [unclear: he] hands of a small elite of [unclear: epresentatives] who, once [unclear: ap- hall] serve for three years [unclear: regard- ther] or not they continue to [unclear: support] of their sponsoring [unclear: org-] Furthermore the Council will [unclear: weighted] against the employees [unclear: e] interests of Government and [unclear: are] fundamentally in harmony.

[unclear: day] problems, disputes, award [unclear: ns] etc., will mainly fall within [unclear: ction] of an Industrial [unclear: Commis- idustrial] Court. The [unclear: Commis- versee] the operation of the [unclear: Con- nd] Mediation services. In the [unclear: ections] dealing with these [unclear: pro- e] just been rewritten from [unclear: gislation].

[unclear: ike] Justified'?

[unclear: tention] on the Bill in recent [unclear: s] been focused on the provisions [unclear: th] allegedly unjustified industrial [unclear: ich] reveal the real purpose of [unclear: r] more clearly than other [unclear: sec-] Speaking in Parliament when [unclear: s] introduced last October the [unclear: ter] of Finance, Mr Muldoon, [unclear: the] Government will be seeking [unclear: from] the people on the [unclear: prin- his] Bill, and if the people want [unclear: les] in this Bill they will cast [unclear: s] accordingly". The principles [unclear: d] to bear a marked resemblance [unclear: ndustrial] legislation under [unclear: Mus- ost] all industrial action was [unclear: de- e] illegal or undesirable. While [unclear: al] Government concentrated [unclear: ention] onto 'political' strikes [unclear: ole] against French bomb tests [unclear: ingbok] tour), the legislation [unclear: n] heavily on all strikes.

[unclear: a] strike was redefined to include [unclear: ceivable] form of industrial action [unclear: go] slows, rolling strikes, refusing [unclear: or] reducing either output or [unclear: work]. Secondly, it was deemed [unclear: each] of the award to take action [unclear: putes] procedure existed. As it [unclear: ntion] of the Bill to ensure that [unclear: ocedures] do exist, the right to [unclear: fectively] removed. A union [unclear: iable] for prosecution unless it [unclear: ve] that all its officers took every [unclear: ep] to ensure that the disputes [unclear: was] complied with. This means [unclear: officials] must under the Bill [unclear: be- ts] of the system, rather than [unclear: tives] of their members. [unclear: Further- nus] of proof is on the [unclear: defen- he] prosecution.

[unclear: tion] of Union Members

[unclear: case] the above provisions left [unclear: oles] the government added two [unclear: tions]. One gives the commission [unclear: to] insert an uninterrupted work clause into awards where there is a history of industrial action. Such a clause would prohibit ". . . the engaging in conduct that would hinder, prevent, or discourage the observance of an award or collective agreement or the performance of work in accordance with the award or agreement". The second provision relates to the 'public interest'. If the court feels that the 'public interest' is affected by industrial action it can order a return to work. Again penal provisions apply. Finally there is a special provision for a large number of 'essential industries' (including electricity, freezing works, railways, airways). Under this section any worker involved in the designated industries must give 14 days written notice of intention to strike within a month before striking. The penalty for this 'offence' is an individual fine of $ 150. The Bill also covers employers who may suspend workers affected by a strike, including those not on strike.

If all this doesn't work to the benefit of the employers or government, the Minister of Labour can deregister the union. This power, which has existed since 1939, shows that unions are not free organisations at all, but are dependent for their existence on the whim of government. The Bill also gives the Minister of Labour the power to cancel the membership "of any specified class" of members of a union. This clause had its origins in the seamen's dispute of 1971.

Labour Must Control Workers

As several unions have told the Labour Bills Committee, the Industrial Relations Bill is completely obnoxious and should be thrown out. But the Government ean-not do so unless it is prepared to bring about fundamental structural changes in the economy. In the sixty-two years of its existence the Labour Party has always been a reformist party which exists to protect the capitalist system by alleviating grievances through social welfare schemes etc. Some of the early Labour politicians, like the party's first leader Harry Holland, did believe in fundamental social change, but they quickly became irrelevant to the main course of Labour's development as an electoral force.

What this means is that the Labour Government and its cousin, the Federation of Labour, have a vested interest in reasserting order and control over rank and file trade unionists. If they cannot do so their reason for existence becomes very questionable. Therefore while the more obviously fascist provisions will no doubt go, much of the Bill is likely to become law.

For the revolutionary however, it is unfortunate that the Industrial Relations Bill will not be enacted as drafted. Recent experience in Britain proves that Government and management cannot force punitive legislation on workers and expect them not to react. If the present draft Bill was to be introduced it would go further than any other single act towards educating workers about the real nature of our economic system. It would inevitably produce bitter conflict, especially in the so called essential industries, which include the transport industries, traditional the home of the more militant unions.

Photo of a protesters running from police on horseback

Top: Police armed with batons, disperse a meeting of the unemployed in Cuba Street in 1932, at the height of the depression.

Photo of police and protesters during a 1913 strike

Bottom: Soldiers with fixed bayonets in Buckle Street during the 1913 Maritime Strike. As both the Tory Government and the militant strikers prepared for a showdown, there was an atmosphere of Civil War in Wellington. Photos from the Alexander Turnbull Library.