WHEN A TRADE UNION organising conference advises participants to avoid using such words and phrases as: “Workers”, “Inequality”, “Collective Bargaining”, “Strikes”, “Lockouts”, and even, God help us, “The Union”; it’s a reasonably safe bet that trade unionism is in trouble.
When New Zealand’s trade union “density” – i.e. “the proportion of paid workers who are union members” – falls from 50 percent to 18 percent in the space of just 25 years, “trouble” seems a pathetically inadequate word.
And, when only 9 percent of private sector workers belong to a trade union, the only appropriate word to describe the condition in which New Zealand unionism finds itself is “crisis”.
“Crisis” is not, however, a word which the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU) likes to use. Certainly its President, Richard Wagstaff, did not use it in his address to the Ika Seafood Bar & Grill “Salon” on Thursday night (18/8/16). Called “From Strike To Like” (an exceptionally appropriate title as it turned out) this latest dinner-and-discussion featured, in addition to Wagstaff, two Australian speakers: Mark Chenery from “Common Cause” and Madeline Holme from the service sector union, “United Voice”. Taking their cue from Wagstaff, their addresses were also resolutely upbeat.
The CTU was formed in October 1987 (on the same day the NZ sharemarket crashed). It brought together the hitherto separate peak organisations of the private and public sector unions, the Federation of Labour (FOL) and the Combined State Unions (CSU). Tellingly, the union leaders responsible for drawing-up the constitution of the new body decided to get rid of nearly all the democratic traditions built up over more than a century of trade unionism in New Zealand. The regional “worker parliaments” – known as the Trades Councils – were abolished, as was the tradition of holding large, delegate-based, annual conferences. Decision-making in the new organisation was instead placed in the hands of the leaders of the largest trade unions – about twenty individuals. They, and they alone, would decide the fate of the nearly half-a-million unionists affiliated to the CTU.
That it has taken the CTU nearly 30 years to hold its first organising conference (the reason why Wagstaff and the Australians were in Auckland this week) might strike some as a little strange. The passage of the draconian Employment Contracts Act in 1991 and the precipitate decline in union density that followed, must have suggested to at least some union leaders that a coming together of union organisers from across the country, to discuss what is, and isn’t, working at the shop-floor level, might be a useful exercise.
The sad truth of the matter, however, is that after 1991 many unions were only able to survive by gobbling-up the members of other unions. If they’d been corporations, the process would have been described as a ‘mergers and acquisitions frenzy’. In the grey bureaucratese of Kiwi unionism, however, the process was simply called ‘amalgamation’. It did not encourage co-operation.
That a coming together of organisers has finally happened bears testimony to just how parlous the state of New Zealand trade unionism has become. Perhaps this is why keynote speakers to the organising conference – including Chenery and Holme – were received with such enthusiasm. The Aussie union movement has proved to be considerably more robust than its New Zealand counterpart and has happily embraced many of the techniques of political communication and persuasion coming out of the United States.
Coming up with suitable – i.e. less confronting – alternatives to the staunch phraseology of the picket-line is what inspired the list of “words to not use” with which this essay began. The research of American progressive Anat Shenker-Osorio, in particular, has been drawn on heavily by the Australian unions in an effort to “re-frame” the struggles in which their members are engaged. Holmes’ description of her own union’s fight to retain penal rates (oops, “weekend rates”) was particularly interesting in this regard.
The great risk here is that these purely tactical innovations will be mistaken for strategic imperatives. In its essence, trade unionism is an exercise in coercing a greater share of the surplus generated by a commercial enterprise than the owners of that enterprise, un-coerced, would feel inclined to distribute to their employees. There are ‘gentle’ ways to apply the coercive strength of a workforce, and there are not-so-gentle ways, but applied it must be if workers are to receive anything like their fair share of the wealth they create.
And it is here that we come to the matter which lies at the heart of the CTU’s weakness. In 1990, when the new National Government of Jim Bolger introduced the Employment Contracts Bill, the intention of the legislation was simple and clear: to legally eliminate the ability of workers to successfully coerce their employers.
Scores of thousands of New Zealand unionists marched and rallied against the Bill. At mass meetings across the country, resolution after resolution to stage a General Strike was carried overwhelmingly. At the summit of the CTU, however, the will to resist the bill by direct action was nowhere near as strong. Making full use of their power under the CTU’s undemocratic constitution, the union bosses voted 250,122 to 190,910 not to mount a nationwide stoppage.
At its first and most crucial test the CTU had failed its membership. It wasn’t just the National Party, or the employers, who were responsible for the collapse of unionism in New Zealand. The union leadership of 1991 must, itself, shoulder a very large share of the blame.
Not that any of this toxic historical legacy formed the slightest part of Wagstaff’s speech to the Ika audience. The betrayal of 1991 is not something the CTU ever talks about. Like the Fourth Labour Government’s betrayal of its core beliefs in the late-1980s, the CTU’s not unrelated betrayal of New Zealand’s trade unionists remains both unacknowledged and unexamined. That being the case, all the organising conferences in the world will not avail a trade union leadership that has internalised the logic – and the language – of defeat.
Selling out the membership again! He probably doesn’t want to hurt “their” feelings and finds it a barrier when trying to let “them” screw the membership at the Bargaining Table?? A BLair-ite like fool! FFS!!
“Not that any of this toxic historical legacy formed the slightest part of Wagstaff’s speech to the Ika audience. The betrayal of 1991 is not something the CTU ever talks about. Like the Fourth Labour Government’s betrayal of its core beliefs in the late-1980s, the CTU’s not unrelated betrayal of New Zealand’s trade unionists remains both unacknowledged and unexamined. That being the case, all the organising conferences in the world will not avail a trade union leadership that has internalised the logic – and the language – of defeat”.
Wagstaff and Little were two of the leaders who caved in, which led directly to the absolute collapse of the Trude Union Movement. Wagstaff was one of the movers of the idiotic PSA ‘Partnership’ arrangement pushed at that time, It was said at the time by people like myself that the so-called Partnership was in fact a sham…it was totally one sided. It gave away power and failed in all respects [for the PSA] to maintain at least basic standards and for what…a promise of a better future.
The PSA has totally collapsed, and Corrections, Nursing, Justice, and dozens of other parts of the PSA are not represented by the PSA now days…many public service people / employees feel that the PSA is a joke.
While Wagstaff and others carried out this betrayal, Andrew Little who led the second largest union, [the PSA was first] at the time [Engineers] started the take over of smaller unions. At the time Wagstaff anf Little were deeply embedded in the Roger Douglas camp. And I think still are!
To think that Richard Wagstaff now heads the CTU is both shameful and dangerous… He is simply NOT a union person, he obviously lacks any real backbone and has a history of collaboration and betrayal.
For Richard Wagstaff to replace Helen Kelly was shocking. Helen so brave and steadfast, replaced by someone one so gutless and spineless may take decades to rectify.
“The PSA has totally collapsed, and Corrections, Nursing, Justice, and dozens of other parts of the PSA are not represented by the PSA now days…many public service people / employees feel that the PSA is a joke.”
The PSA has 62,000 members, and is the largest Corrections union in the country. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.
I remember that General strike being mooted ..then nothing.
Its never been explained why faced with biggest threat too its members in its history they didnt take action, there was clearly support for the strike and the issue at stake fully understood by the members of all unions.
Workers already shafted by their own Labour government and about to be gutted by a tory one turned too the union movement that had always encouraged them to stand up and UNION WAS STRENGTH was telling them too wave the white flag and surrender.
I never forgot the betrayal of that decision nor did the membership.
Some one got paid off and it set the scene for the erosion of working peoples rights ever scince.
I recall Ken Douglas saying in an interview with Kim Hill that they didn’t have the power to call a general strike; maybe all those years of compulsory unionism had made the leadership complacent ?.
Fintan Patrick Walsh another unionist copout. Yorkshiremen Arthur Scargill expelled from the coal minners union for embezzling funds. Bit of a pattern here?.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Douglas
Something that Scargill was completely exonerated for.
Douglas and Walsh on the other hand ….
Chris if you think the CTU and its affiliates don’t talk about 1991 you’re obviously more out of touch than I thought.
But if they do, what is they say?
Is it:
Rule 1. Don’t talk about 1991.
Rule 2. Don;t talk about 1991.
Rule 3. Don’t talk about 1991.
Rule 4. Don’t ………………………….
Chris, that was an interesting piece of history I missed. Thanks.
You described the Employment Contracts Act in 1991 “draconian”. I double checked the meaning of the word and google said it meant “(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.”
I suppose it depends on your worldview but I would called that Act as liberating rather than draconian because it encouraged individual tradesmen to become contractors and from there businessman. Under this regime they have prospered.
The losers were the unqualified labourers and those with narrow or limited skills . Market forces have dictated that benefits for these roles have declined because of automation and competition from Asia. It is the way of the world and one that no amount of trades unions will halt
“Liberating” for who? Employers?
Well, that didn’t work out well in practice for tradespeople, when Fonterra unilaterally changed it’s terms and conditions for contractors;
ref: Suppliers accuse Fonterra of unfair demands, http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/298354/suppliers-accuse-fonterra-of-unfair-demands
ref: Contractors scared to speak out over Fonterra payment changes, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/74686959/Contractors-scared-to-speak-out-over-Fonterra-payment-changes
You may think that “fair”, Andrew, but I think contractors would differ. Being screwed by more powerful business interests is only “fair” when you’re the Powerful Business doing the screwing or, you’re not affected and can afford to pontificate.
As usual Frank, you’ve run around looking for a straw man and found an irrelevant issue to attack.
Who was talking about suppliers to Fonterra???
You’ll find people with trade qualifications in NZ are generally doing extremely well. Doing so well in fact that they’re out-earning many of the salaried professions and they also able to make best use of tax deductions as part of their business.
They would laugh at a request to join a union – after all, they’re their own boss. (I know tradies with with their own yachts and aircraft!) By comparison I know lawyers who cannot find job and regret having wasted their time doing law.
Well, actually, you did, Andrew;
Contractors are service-suppliers to Fonterra.
You’re going around in circles, Andrew.
Such simply thinking you do don’t you Andrew. Who do the contractors employ and what do they pay them?
Here’s an example
Widespread employment breaches have been unearthed by an investigation into labour contractors servicing the Marlborough wine industry.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/83352411/employment-breaches-wakeup-call-for-marlborough-wine-industry.
And that’s how said contractors get to buy their own yachts and aircraft!
Oh sorry, you didn’t mean THOSE sort of contractors did you.
My bad.
BRIGID:
Those are labour hire contractors, not trades.
Are you trying to nit-pick out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself, Andrew?
Here’s a thought – stop digging.
If collective action is to have any value in a deunionising world, then whatever the history, the collective of all unions – maybe even including teachers have to act in concert. Unions can no longer relate uniquely to some trade groupings and have to take their brief from all workers – unionised or not. The only way forward will be the power that speaks from the current 15% of the work force, but for 100% of the workforce.
Like with on-line start-ups, sometimes it is better to get your audience first before you try to monetise them. Although it can be said that in a world of individual contracts, it is hard for the government to insist that the non-unionised be paid the same as unionised, I believe this is something a. executive CTU should offer for free, if they are genuinely intent on rediscovering the power of the collective.
The trouble is that for younger people, the individualistic mythology of the internet and dreams of “going viral” in some financially (and socially) empowering way, make the attractions of collective action pale by comparison. Often in the face of logic and self interest. The term “Self-exploitation” was used recently to describe the plight of Uber drivers. It might also describe the plight of many, many workers today.
“…the CTU’s not unrelated betrayal of New Zealand’s trade unionists remains both unacknowledged and unexamined.”
YChris, you are over 20 years too late and with all that hindsight don’t get to the root of the problem.
The revolutionary socialist group Workers Power wrote a pamphlet “Smash the Act” about the betrayal at the time.
https://www.scribd.com/document/39626867/Smash-the-Act
I can’t believe the CTU engineered the controlled demolition of the NZ trade union movement in 1991 by letting Richard Wagstaff talk about language and framing in 2016. Those tyrants.
Comments are closed.