Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 41 No. 21. August 28 1978
Labour against the Wall
Labour against the Wall
Will increased productivity hold down unemployment? Does the Labour Party have a policy that is committed, even in the smallest way, to serving the interests of working people? These were the two biggest questions debated at a forum on unemployment organised last term by the Progressive Students Alliance.
The Official Employers' View
The official employers' line was put by Max Bradford of the Employers' Federation, who argued that three alternatives faced New Zealand: adjust to a downturning economy with lower incomes, accept high levels of unemployment, increase productivity through better management and use of resources. It's an old trick to pose two unsavoury options so that your third appears more palatable, but even Bradford wasn't prepared to push it too hard. Even a 20% increase in productivity would not necessarily create more jobs, he told us, because a lot of our industries are under-utilising their machinery.
Nevertheless, the Employers' Federation was against unemployment because it meant a permanent loss of skills to the economy, cause I industrial unrest and a loss of potential and outlook for the individual. Some benefit could come from retraining, subsidised schemes, overseas loans and moderation of wage and salary demands. "No group." he suggested, "can have a greater share of the cake than the economy can sustain".
The Unofficial Employers' View
Graeme Clarke of the Coachworkers' Union look issue with a number of these points. He said he was well aware of the official employers' line on unemployment, but did not consider it bore much relation to their actions. He took Todd Motors as his example. At the time of the layoffs earlier this year there were 1,500 units stockpiled. People just did not have the money to buy cars.
Layoffs occured when there were too many goods being produced and not enough money around to buy them. To increase productivity, and thus flood the market with even more goods could not possibly rectify this situation. Similarly, moderating wage demands, and thus further restricting buying power, was not the answer. Real wages had been falling since 1975, and yet unemployment had been growing.
The unofficial employers' view, he suggested, was that unemployment made people work harder and better. To demonstrate this he quoted from a top level business circular which related how at one car firm output had been increased from 165 to 200 units a week with only 40 extra staff, instead of the 70 that would have been needed last year. The article stated. "In weeding out surplus staff, employers have necessarily added to the unemployment problem, but it is hoped that with higher efficiency ... extra business can be secured."
The figures could only apply to Todds, and it was to counter this sort of attitude that the Coachworkers had initiated an overtime ban. Overtime at Todds was worked right up to the time of the layoffs, and now that the employers were finding it harder to get more from less workers old jobs were being reinstated. Needless to say, the employers were reacting bitterly.
Clarke also related a few other facts about unemployment. He put the current figure at over 100,000 (which is close to 6% in a country used to less than 1%). One of the problems was that the unemployed tended to stay [ unclear: o it] of work, because the policy of last on, first off meant every job they went to they were also first to leave. Workers who became involved in union activities were often blacklisted.
The Real Cause
The real cause Clarke's solution to the crisis differed sharply from Bradford's. Unemployment was caused by the balance of payments deficit which had as a chief contributing factor the importation of materials. For this reason we needed an independent economy. Most employers weren't prepared to work towards this because they relied for their profits on the existing arrangements. Thus a stable economy in New Zealand "may not be possible without a major social upheaval".
National Non-Concern
NZUSA's General Vice President David Merritt also spoke at the forum. He focused on the National Party, stating that at its recent conference no mention had been made of the economic crisis and scarcely any attention was given to unemployment. He told a long story about how difficult it was for students to get the unemployment benefit, how we are one of the only groups in the community to be means tested before we get it, and how students are rapidly approaching the situation where they can only go to university if they have both a holiday job and parental support.
Labour was represented by Eddie Isbey. He began with a perceptive analysis of unemployment as it affects students; ie he said it affected holiday employment and graduate employment. The jobless were growing in number by 1,000 a week, he suggested, and this did not account for married women and the under 16s. Half of all the unemployed were under 21.
Then it was into party politics. Labour recognised the right to work, he claimed, which is why there was low unemployment under the last government. Labour would "never tolerate using unemployment as an economic weapon," he asserted. That was precisely what National had done and now it had run away with them.
Labour Hamstrung by its Track Record
Most of the questions went to Isbey. When he claimed New Zealand would have to make a choice between production for profit and production for use people wanted to know what Labour was doing about it. Isbey said that if it was to be the latter choice a great many people would have to be convinced. What was Labour doing to convince them? These things take time, he replied.
Someone restated the theme of Clarke's' speech: depressions aren't caused by working people, they are caused by the people who run this country, the big businesses, for unemployment is good for business. But Isbey wasn't going to listen to any marxist theories about how to solve everything tomorrow.
What about Comalco? someone else asked. Bill Rowling had actually attacked Muldoon for not honouring a contract, and had clearly revealed the extent to which Labour was prepared to fight foreign control. Other examples were used, and other fields covered. National's policy of not allowing married women the benefit was bad, but was the Labour restriction to women who had worked a straight year that much better?
By this time Isbey was getting the teensiest bit angry. Why don't you criticise National? he demanded. Why don't we talk about something else, like the Southern Africa Scholarship? But people at the forum weren't very sold on the idea that a real choice was being offered them this November. There wasn't much Isbey had to offer which reassured them.
Simon Wilson