Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 40 No. 6. April 4 1977

The Road to the Right - and beyond

page 10

The Road to the [unclear: Right] - and beyond

Salient interview [unclear: Pat] Kelly, Secretary of the [unclear: Wellington] and Caretakers Union, and recently [unclear: elec][unclear: ent] of the Wellington Trades Council.

Photo of Pat Kelly

Photo of Pat Kelly

Salient: The first question that I would like to ask you is your own background and how you got into the trade union movement?

Kelly: Well my own background is from Liverpool which seems to breed trade unionists. That's understandable if you appreciate just what Liverpool was like when I was a child. It's not all that much better now. But I was brought up in a family that had just two things: trade unionism and their religion, and so it was no great problem at all as far as me becoming really active in the trade union movement. It really took place in New Zealand, more by accident than any plan, because I was forced into a situation in which a group of workers in Dunedin were having problems which they were not prepared to tackle for fear of getting sacked. I was quite astounded, because the picture of New Zealand that had been painted to me, was of a great liberal country, and here I was faced with this situation where workers were not often prepared to open their mouths. The result of that was of course that I got the sack from that particular job. I eventually finished up in Kawerau and it was not many weeks before, again, I was thrust into a situation where there were problems, and they needed someone to do something about them and the job fell to me. I suppose really that's how it started and I've just continued on from there.

I've not been on any job where I've not been a job delegate. I went to Meremere power station and got a job and became the job delegate for the Drivers' Union and at one stage was Chairman of the Combined Unions Committee which was 13 or 14 unions. And from [unclear: these I want to Manage to work on the disposel] of sewage and in between those two jobs I suffered the heavy effects of blacklisting of transport operators. Everywhere I went for jobs and gave my name, which I refused to change, they told me there were no jobs. But people behind me were being employed and thus in time I was pushed out of the Trade Union movement because I couldn't get onto a job where there were other workers and I got onto a one-man coffee delivery job. That did not last long.

".....The employers were completely ignoring the document they were signatories to."

got on the Drivers Union Executive about 1956. I played an active role in the Union which was just starting to come right again after the 1951 industrial disputes.

In 1960 I went on the road full time in Hamilton as an organiser. I spent 13 months at that, but because of my wife's health, we had to leave Hamilton and then we came back here. I went to work for Certified Concrete in Wellington, and I was there from February of 1961 till April of 63. Then the tragic death of Chip Bailey took place, the then secretary of the Wellington Drivers Union. As I had gone on to their executive in 1962, and because of my previous background I was asked to take on the organisers job for them, which I did and stayed in that job until September of 1976 when I became Secretary of this union, (Cleaners, Caretakers etc Union.)

This year I was nominated for Trades Council President having always played a major role in all Trades Council decisions, regardless of what they were about. I'm just one of those people who, when they get into an organisation, I like to know about the activities and have some say as to how they are decided.

Salient: How hard do you think it is to survive as an organiser, given that those who were picked on were the ones in an organising role in the trade unions. Do you think it has changed from when you first started?

Kelly: Well I don't know, but I was sacked 13 times between 1954 and 1959, and 11 times in one year. All I can say is that looking back I made a lot of mistakes trying to go much faster than the workers that I was working with. I was the guy who was getting on the job and kicking up hell. But what I was kicking up about were things that were real, like breaches of the award. The employers were completely ignoring the document that they were signatories to. But I did try to work too fast. . . I used to operate like the charge of the Light Brigade and unfortunately when I used to look around for the troops they were gone.

Salient: Perhaps we could pass on and look at the situation today. How do you think the trade union movement has developed since the since the nil wage order of 1968?

Kelly: It's not right to pick on 1968. Certainly 1968 was a year when there was a qualitative change in the trade union movement. But there was a lot of work going on to bring about that qualitative change, it didn't just happen in isolation. But I think that people tend to see 1968 in isolation.

People had done a lot of work to bring about the situation that happened in '68, certainly since '68 and as a result of '68, the unity of the trade union movement has developed and strengthened. The understanding of the Trade Union movement has developed and in fact, many workers today talk of the great show that we put up in '68 or of the great show that we put up in '70 and because of that, there is a much greater awareness. But as I said, much work was put in to bring about that change.

".... I was brought up in a family that had just two things: trade unionism and religion."

the Trade Unions and the Government, especially with the National Government in power and the way they have acted towards the work force How do you think the trade unions are faring against this assault?

Kelly: Well, assault is the right word, because that's what we have been subjected to since this Government has come into office. I would not want to suggest that everything was love and roses with the Labour Party, but at least we were much closer to the Labour Party and we were able to get them to consider our point of view, although not always to accept it, which is more than can be said about this Government which clearly set out in its manifesto a plank that said it was to destroy the Trade Union Movement.

Now they'll deny this: they'll deny that the ballots in the trade unions are designed to destroy the trade unions. They'll say that they are designed to bring democracy into the Trade Unions. That's a load of crap, because for the National Government to succeed in its economic policies it must destroy the Trade Unions, because the trade unions are, as Karl Marx said, the bulwarks of the working class against capitalism.

Now the National Party policy is manifestly clear it you look at the present de registration of the Boilermakers Union and continued attacks on some unions, on the SUP, and individuals in the Trade Union Movement, the support they have been giving to the splinter groups in the trade union movement who have been doing the bosses work in some unions, particularly in the Wellington Drivers Union. People who were trying to take over the leadership of the Wellington Drivers Union were being supported by the National Party, and in fact, there were meetings taking place.

Their whole intent has not been to introduce democracy, but to smash the working class of this country. Now I would like to say that we are making no progress, I think it's a bit of a stalemate.

The attacks by the Prime Minister have polarised the country, the attacks on the Poms in the Trade Union movement have met with some success; and it's not been the Poms, it's been the Corns.

And of course if you are a Pommie Com, then you cop the lot.

The 1913 Waihi strike—one of the occasions in New Zealand

The 1913 Waihi strike—one of the occasions in New [unclear: Zealand]

This whole attack by them is probably one of the most dangerous situations that has developed in New Zealand in the 23 years that I've been in this country, and it's for this reason that I have joined the Labour Party, and in my present position I'm going to urge everyone to join. Not that I believe that Labour will solve all our problems, but I am a political animal, or try to be, and the reality is that the only alternative to National as things stand is Labour.

I believe that the National Party is heading towards fascism in New Zealand. I believe that in this country we have to do everything possible to defeat the present government.

Certainly as far as the Labour Party is concerned, they are going to have to identify with the common people. They tend to want to be nice to all the people and they just can't be that. The present government is not nice to all the people. The present government is looking after the multi-national corporations and big business here in New Zealand and that's who they represent and they make no apologies for it. They tailor all their policies accordingly. What Labour has got to do is to tailor all of their policies to meet the great demands of all the common people of New Zealand, the ordinary people, the people who live here, and not the people outside of New Zealand. That's basically where the National Party is and in fact heading more and more in that direction.

Salient: How far did you see the last Labour Government going in this direction?

Kelly: You mean in terms of coming closer historically to where it started.

Yes.

Well I think that there were some minor moves, but that you needed a magnifying glass to find them. Certainly the noises they were beginning to make and the noises they have been making since they were defeated are encouraging [unclear: the some was] the moment is going through a tremendous upheaval, and I think they are starting to develop a philosophy which they have been devoid of for a long time. I think they are trying to develop a philosophy and I think that we can help them develop it. A principle rule of the trade union movement is to get into the Labour Party and to help them develop a philosophy and a policy that the people require all is not lost but we can't sit around attacking the National Government and not do something positive about it. The workers in New Zealand are not in a state of revolution. They are not waiting to charge up into the hills with guns, although there are one or two sections of the left who think they are.

The reality of it is that there are parliamentary elections and this government will be defeated in the parliamentary tradition and we've got to try and help that happen.

Salient: I take it that what you are saying is that you would not take this action in a normal state of politics, and it's a special case that has arisen, that has caused you to take this definite position.

Kelly: Quite right. If we had had, and it may sound strange saying it but if we had had the government of Holyoake, despite Vietnam, and I don't want anyone to think that Holyoake was a good fellow, there would not be the harshness or the determination to set about what this government has set about doing.

There was a bit more liberalism although it was because of the economic times. The Holyoake Government served capitalism according to the economic situation as it existed in that period, and I think that Muldoon is serving capitalism. The Holyoake administration could afford to be a bit more liberal because capitalism was not in the crisis it is now with Muldoon in government.

".... for the National Government to succeed in its economic policies, it must destroy the Trade Unions."

The velvet glove is now coming off the capitalist class because of the crisis, and the international capitalist class is showing their aggression. It suffering from Muldoonism. The British people could have it tomorrow. There is a tremendous development taking place internationally and the forces of reaction are trying to hold back change and are banding together. The type of legislation that we are witnessing in New Zealand is the type of statement that is being made in many other countries.

However, we are in New Zealand with our great liberal traditions. People still bow when they pass Richard Seddon.

I say this, and I mean it; I've never, ever been frightened for the working class in this country, but I feel frightened for them now. I don't think they appreciate just what this government's intentions are.

page 11

[unclear: ient:] How do you think the working have been affected by the economic [unclear: tions] which go back 10 years, but have snowballing effect on living standard? [unclear: adly] do you think they have been affected?

[unclear: eily:] We're carrying the whole burden on this question of the economic restrict-one doesn't look to the National Party on it. We've been suffering from wage [unclear: mts] since 1971 under both administrations. [unclear: one] Industrial Relations Bill which the [unclear: e] Unions are most bitter about at the [unclear: ent] was given birth by the Labour Party, can say that it was predictable but all the [unclear: mal] Party has done since it's been in power [unclear: een] to refine it. The foundations for the [unclear: k] on the Trade Union movement were introduced by the Labour Party, and unfortunately [unclear: rsed] by the FOL.

[unclear: e] that as it may I think that the Labour is now recognising that it has to alter situation.

That question of de-registration of the [unclear: Boilerers] Union—the Labour Party de-registered [unclear: i] first at Kawerau. On this question of [unclear: gistration] the Labour Party is not in a very position to attack the National Party. The [unclear: e] conciliation procedure which we [unclear: urdened] with where the employers become applicant parties in the proceedings, which [unclear: ite] ridiculous, was Labour Party legislation, Going back to the question of economic [unclear: hard-] . . . we've got a new poor developing in New and, particularly in the union that I work even today, despite the longer hours, the basic of pay is only $84.20 plus the cost of [unclear: ulous.] It's got worse and will get worse. The vences in standards of living are more [unclear: ply] portrayed today than they were ten or [unclear: ty] years ago.

We've got to change that. The Labour Party that they are going to change that—so if intend to change it then we have got to them.

If they succeed in getting back into office: [unclear: ey] don't tackle some of the causes and just [unclear: rinue] to deal with the effects—then they [unclear: t] be in office very long.

Salient: How important is it to raise political [unclear: rtions] in the Unions and how will this be [unclear: cted] by the new Industrial Legislation?

history where class struggle has erupted into open violence.

[unclear: history] where class struggle has erupted into open violence.

Kelly: I think that the Trade Unions will ignore the legislation. Look—they can write all the legislation they like—it will not stop trade unions making political statements carrying out political resolutions and encouraging them to take political action. If the Government chooses to use its legislation, we will meet that situation at that time. But this is the thing that we're up against—the Government are either complete idiots or complete fascists, because it won't succeed. I have started to look at Amin and recognising there are different economic circumstances. But the legislation will just not work. It's not worked in the case of the Boilermakers Union. Mr Gordon thought that with the stroke of a pen, that by de-registering the Boilermakers Union, that he had removed the problem. It didn't of course. Their attempt to use the political legislation fell down badly. .

Salient: However, the Boilermakers are a very strong Union. What will happen when the Government starts attacking the weaker unions?

Kelly: I think what people outside the movement do not realise is that when we get into a confrontation with the Government over the political legislation, if they touch one union—they touch all of them.

If they attempt to use the political legislation, then the upheavals of 1951, 1968 and 1976 will seem like a picnic. One's got to realise that they are not only dealing with NZ workers, but that they will find that they will be getting embroiled in an international conflict both with the ACTU and the TUC. I don't know if this Government given the state of our trading relations, for which [unclear: the dependent at the can engaged] that kind of thing. Of course—they are mad enough to do so.

We've got people leading this country, that with some of the things that they do—could mentally certify them. They're crazy enough to do them.

Salient: Do you think that the FOL is a strong enough body to unite trade unions to resist the assaults by the Government?

Kelly: Let's use a practical example—the visit to Wellington of the Truxtun. The Government threated hell-fire and brimstone. What they were not going to do! But the Combined Waterfront Unions and Transport Unions did not back off on the Truxtun.

The whole matter of the Truxtun was why the Boilermakers got de registered. The Government, because of the way that it carried on, had to give the public something. It had made so many wild statements—and they de registered the Boilermakers.

Con Devitt expressed it very well when he said, "the Lion roared and they kicked the cat." There wasn't an industrial dispute in existence when it happened. There was a lockout at Cables—there was no dispute on the BNZ site. People got confused and thought that there was. The BNZ site was working—the trouble came some weeks after the de-registration.

Getting back to your point. Whether it is the Shop Assistants or any Union—if the Government tries to use its political legislation then there will be a stand by the whole Trade Union movement. And I think that we will be surprised, despite the fact that Government may be operating on the basis of thinking that there is an apathetic mass out there, if this Government attempts to restrict the freedoms that we have had to engage in politics, although some have not done this; if that Unions see those rights being taken away from them, there will be a stand-up fight and as I said earlier, the Unions will fight as a mass.

Salient: For the benefit of students, do you think that you could outline why you see the democratic right to organise in Trade Unions as such a crucial one?

Kelly: If we haven't got the time in the workplace to discuss collectively the problems of workers then we have got nothing. We just haven't got anything at all.

Students for instance have the right to attend meetings when things are bugging them, whether it is bursaries or political meetings. I know that the University is a different world from the factory floor, but our only defence is the right of our workers to organise themselves in the workplace and to collectively bargain for wages and conditions.

What I would suggest to students, in all due respect, because I have had a working relationship with students, that when they go to work in the holidays, that they make sure that they know who the Union is, what the Union's policy is, help if they can—and if they can't-don't get in the way.

Too I often I have had situations where students have come into the Unions and played quite a reactionary role. Voted against correct decisions of workers because it had affected them. If workers voted to stop work, then some students would vote against the stoppage.

Salient: Apart from this, what is the best action for students to take, given the present state of the country?

Kelly: Where possible students should identify with the struggles of the Trade Union movement in as much as carrying resolutions. Shopping study I don't see as a workable proposition Certainly if they see such things happening as the de-registration of the boilermakers, they should recognise the attacks that are being made on democracy.

".... I've never, ever, been frightened for the working class in this country, but I feel frightened for them now. "

If the Government succeeds in smashing us, then the students will be next. If the Government attacks the student movement, the trade unions will be right in there with the students, because we would see very clearly that they would be doing so, because students have played a very active role in the protest movements. If the Government did attack students organisations or movements, then the Trade Union movement would step in and start taking action. We see clearly that if they smash the student movement, then where next? Students should see the reverse—that if they succeed in smashing the Union movement, the students will come under attack because of their strong role in protesting against these restrictions, and other issues.

It would warm my heart to see a massive demonstration of students against the industrial legislation. To get down to Parliament and demand that the Government observe workers' rights as under the ILO conventions—to organise ourselves, to have bargaining rights, to be free of wage regulations, to be free of state interference.

Other ways that the students can assist, are that when they see a strike, by getting in touch with that Union and asking. "How can we help? "

Worker-student participation is very important and I have been saying this for many years. I think it goes astray because of the conservatism of the Trade Union movement in the first instance, and on the other hand, the students going way out. With both parties accommodating and respecting each other the relationship would be much better.

The Universities have changed. There are not as many workers' kids going to University as I would like, but there are a damn site more than there were in the last century and even in the last 30 or 40 years. Students have acted as strike breakers in the history of this country and they could do it again. They probably will do it again. If the trade union movement ignores the students, then in turn the students will ignore the trade union movement. So it's a matter of fostering and developing fraternal relationships with NZUSA for instance at the national level, and on the local level with the local student union executives. This has a very important place because if there is a major stoppage we might be able to stop the students knifing us in the back.

Salient: How well do you think the unions protect the women workers in particular?

Kelly: . . . Well I wouldn't tackle a question like that and I wouldn't answer for all unions, and I don't think it would be right for me to answer it.

All I can say, is that I protect workers—male or female.

".... if you are a Pommie com, then you cop the lot... "

I honestly think that this whole matter of females in the labour force and some of the things that are being said on the periphery isn't really useful in getting development in the Trade Unions. I honestly believe that unless the women's groups stop and have a hard look at where they are going with the present situation in New Zealand in which it will not be a matter of wanting to go to work, but having to go to work; that instead of being able to exist on one wage to keep the family, it will be mandatory for man and wife to keep the family.

I honestly believe that the best ways of protecting females in the work force and protecting the family is to make sure that the bloody movement is galvanised into getting a living wage based on a 40 hour week, with one breadwinner. Lots of women are working because they have to. They'd much sooner be at home; they'd much sooner be bringing up the kids. They are not demanding creches at work, because they'd much sooner be at home, but they are out at work because the old man is not earning enough to keep the family. And it's not helping their situation in my opinion to be pushing in this direction for creches at tactories.

Every woman should be able to work—but it should be on the basis of choice, not because they need to supplement the family income.

Some of the workers in our Union start work at 7.30 at night and get home at 5 00 in the morning. If anyone tells me that they want to work, then they're off their heads. Those women would sooner be at home with their kids. I see dangers in this whole thing.

The boss class - their desire is to have Mum working, have Dad working, and if you can get the kids into the creche at the factory they might be able to get a couple of hours out of the kids as well.

My general position is that I protect workers, and that I do not favour any, except I make the exception in the Drivers Union where women were driving with too heavy a load then we would ask the bosses to give her some help. If there was something that she couldn't do then we would get a man to help her. But she still gets equal pay.