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. Vol. 37, No. 17. July 17, 1974

Up Against the Law — Unionists Confront Students

page 10

Up Against the Law

Unionists Confront Students

Cartoon strip about the education system

The forum on trade unions in the Union Hall centred on three aspects of the present controversy over the use of injunctions. The three speakers, boilermakers' national secretary Con Devitt, Irving McKechnie, a rank and file member of the the Seaman's Union, and President of this Union, Dave Morgan, spoke on the rights of unions, the anomalies of the judicial system and government, and the prejudice against unions showed by the media.

Con Devitt spoke first amid cries of "commie" from a vocal minority who had come to heckle. Devitt said that the question, the use of injunctions revolved around, was whether employers have the right to force a worker to work against his will. He reiterated what unionists have been saying for the last two weeks, that an inherent right of workers is to withdraw their labour. He compared the present situation and that of the Tolepuddle Martyrs, who were transported from Britain in the mid18th century when a law relating to seamen, the Admiralty law, was arbitrarily imposed on farm labourers.

Workers must take action, he said, but while the injunction law was still on the statute book, it would be "return to work or go to jail".

The second speaker was Irving McKechnie, who outlined the Dromgoole case. The injunction was put on the unions involved in March this year, although the dispute extended back into 1973. The Shipping and Seamen Tribunal had ruled that Dromgoole must employ a seaman on his ferry in January 1974—an order that has since been defied for six months, in which time the Tribunal did nothing to enforce their decision. However when a decision went against the Union in a case with a ship whose crew refused to work, the Tribunal issued writs on every crew member. Like Parliament, which was one and half hours in passing an emergency act to shore up the sagging Cornish 'Empire' but hesitated to assist Unions, the Tribunal is a bosses court. In fact the government was very quick to stand threateningly over a union—as in the case of the Engineers' Institute over the weekend of July 6—7—but did not afford the same treatment to Dromgoole. Thus injunctions work in the interests of the boss.

Dave Morgan, President of the Seamens' Union, began by saying that the injunction issue was one of the hottest facing New Zealand people since 1951. He described as nonsense the old argument that if trade unions were above the law and if government didn't act responsibly, then anarchy would result. There is enough debate and democracy in unions to stablise situations, he said. But struggle and demand from below is necessary for progress to be made.

Morgan also commented on the dubious neutrality of the courts, particularly in the Andersen case, where the judicial system's class bias was exposed. Justice Mahon had appeared, in Morgan's opinion, to have brought the issue down to personalities; Andersen being a symbol of "the machinations of union officials." However the struggle had come from the rank and file members of the unions.

His conclusion was that the union's right of bargaining power had been infringed and now their right to withdraw their labour was gradually being restricted. "The struggle (against this) must stay on the street and on the job."

On the subject of restraints on unions and the argument advanced for the retention of injunctions, that unions should not be above the law, Dave Morgan said that if a law is oppressive, then it would only be changed by active struggle. He believes the only way history could be affected by the working man was when that man took his destiny in his own hands.

The views of the speakers on the bias of the courts was exemplified by Irving McKechnie's response to one question. He said the hecklers—'the ra-ra boys'—who were gathered around the main doors and made no constructive comment during the whole meeting, would be the lawyers and the judges, etc. of the future. This, he said, spoke for itself.

Peter Wilson also commented on the "mythical" impartiality of the courts. He cited the example of Heath's Tory government which, he said, used the courts as "battering-rams" to attempt to break the miners' strike in Britain earlier this year. When a law was unjust, then unions should oppose it.

At this point the most offensive incident of the forum occurred. The majority of trade union officials were described as "pommy stirrers", by a speaker from the floor, in a piece of blatant chauvinism. McKechnie responded angrily, saying Bill Andersen was born in New Zealand, and although he, himself was of Scottish birth, he regarded himself as a New Zealander. Someone in the audience wasn't satisfied by this reply and yelled out "The Poms have ballsed up England and now they've come to New Zealand to do the same."

Dave Morgan's response to this juvenile xenophobia was to say that it was high time that workers in all countries recognised the necessity to participate in an international movement. Business was transcending national boundaries and unions had to follow suit. Morgan said he regarded himself not as a member of a national group, but as a member of the working class.

Peter Rotherham made several points. The accusation of "foreign domination" of unions was merely a diversion by politicians to confuse people. Unions, Rotherham continued, are the best guarantor of democratic rights, being an organisation at shop floor level The real power in society, however, lies with big business. Unions represented the phenomenon of ordinary people struggling against this overt predominance.

Rotherham's question related to the mystification by government and the media to the injunction issue. He advocated a massive publicity campaign to explain the real issues.

Devitt agreed with this, but said that the unions did not have access to the media, that oversimplifies the issues.

The daily newspapers in New Zealand are controlled by people equivalent in social status to the bosses. But Devitt pointed out that within some unions, and he gave his own as an example, workers had been made aware of the issues. "Nobody was under any illusions." The most active areas had been those where the problems were known. Unions are introverted, he admitted, making communication on a broad scale difficult. Thus unionists were grateful for opportunities to speak at forums, to get their side of the story across. Particularly in middle-class domains such as Victoria University.

A question was asked relating to education in schools about trade unionism. McKechnie replied that the existing education system was inadequate in this respect. To ensure that the view of unions wouldn't be too slanted in favour of the bosses, unions would have to be consulted. The failure of the existing system to do so had been shown by the education development conference, to which working class people had not been invited.

Dave Morgan said that at present the only education was on the shop floor. The emphasis here had to be on the need for organisation.

Neal Andrews, who chaired the forum, commented that the working class movement was under continuous attack with wages not keeping up with inflation, the power to bargain evaporating, and legal injunctions being used. The contradiction was that the government at present is a Labour one, which ostensibly stands for the rights of the working man.

Morgan replied that the Labour Government had only said that they could run the capitalist system better than the 'Tories', because the Labour Government had the co-operation of the working man.

For this reason the panel considered that last month's march on Parliament by Seamen and Drivers and the action taken earlier this month reflected not only opposition to the injunctions, but also a growing discontent with the inability of the Labour Government to fulfill its promises.

"The country's going to the dogs. Happily, it's the top dogs"

"The country's going to the dogs. Happily, it's the top dogs"