“ORGANISED LABOUR lost its influence for two reasons, both of which are global in nature and unstoppable:
Firstly, automation vastly improved industrial efficiency and reduced the need for manual labour. This process continues unabated and will impact generations to come.
Secondly, when China opened up its economy it added 50% to the global workforce, undermining labour rates across the western world.
So if you’re hoping for a change in local politics to halt the demise of union power, you’re deluding yourself. Even if we voted in a true Left Wing government tomorrow, any attempt by it to return to the golden days of union power would snap the economy like a twig. In short order we would become the Albania of the South Pacific.”
The above comment came in anonymously (don’t they always!) but I thought it worth quoting at length. Only rarely are precepts of neoliberalism advanced so succinctly, so eloquently, or, with such superficial plausibility.
That the comment homes-in on the condition of organised labour is no accident. Stripped of all its fine ideological plumage, Neoliberalism has always been about smashing unions.
No other institution has done as much to advance the interests of ordinary people than the trade union. Without the power of organised labour, the historic shifts in political and economic power which characterised the 1930s and 40s could not have happened.
It was the union movement which, by redirecting business profits from the shareholders’ dividends to the employees’ wage-packets, lifted the living-standards of the working-class across the post-war world. Wherever unions became a force to be reckoned with, the power and prestige of the ruling-class (or the “1 Percent”, as we prefer to call them these days) dwindled. The recovery of that lost power and prestige could not begin until the unions were first tamed – and then destroyed.
Look back over the history of neoliberalism – especially at the years in which its key elements were being set in place – and you will encounter a series of epic industrial struggles. All of these were deliberately fomented by neoliberal politicians, and all of them had but one objective: the disarming of the new regime’s most dangerous enemies. The crushing of PATCO by the newly-elected Reagan Administration. The defeat of the National Union of Miners by Margaret Thatcher. These set-piece confrontations were intended to – and did – overawe and demoralise the forces of organised labour.
With the unions safely shackled by draconian anti-union legislation, the neoliberals were free to proceed to the next stage of their programme: the destruction of the unions’ greatest achievement – the Welfare State. Everything that followed; from the privatisation of public assets; to the introduction of student loans; to the sell-off of social housing. The whole sad saga of the 1 Percent’s triumphant resurrection of the injustices and inequalities of a Gilded Age the Left believed to be long dead and buried, was predicated on the destruction of the trade unions.
And so, of course, the neoliberals’ over-riding mission, following the restoration of plutocratic power, was to convince succeeding generations that trade unionism’s demise was not the work of a ruling class whose authority it had challenged, but simply the result of forces that were “global in nature and unstoppable”.
Our anonymous commentator singles out automation and the opening of China to capitalist investment as the two principal reasons for organised labour’s loss of influence. But, a moment’s historical reflection reveals both of these arguments to be false.
The entire Industrial Revolution was about little else but automation – the replacement of human energy and dexterity by machines. Far from reducing the total number of jobs, the wealth generated by mechanisation not only led very rapidly to the creation of more jobs but also new jobs – indeed, to whole new industries. This vast expansion in the demand for labour was what drove millions to emigrate from the impoverished agrarian societies of Southern and Eastern Europe to the Americas and Australasia. It was out of these new immigrant communities that the mass industrial unionism of the 20th Century emerged to challenge the overweening power of capital.
Far from being branded the gravediggers of organised labour, the latest wave of automation and the proletarianisation of the Chinese peasantry should be seen the harbingers of the next great surge of progressivism across the planet.
Of course, such an outcome is, quite literally, inconceivable to our anonymous commentator. In his eyes, any attempt to restore a modicum of justice and decency to the workplace, or pay working people a living wage, can only end in disaster:
“Even if we voted in a true Left Wing government tomorrow, any attempt by it to return to the golden days of union power would snap the economy like a twig. In short order we would become the Albania of the South Pacific.”
In progressive ears, however, those words sound very differently:
Only when we vote in a true Left Wing government, and the golden days of union power return, will the power of the 1 Percent be broken and ordinary working people recover the confidence to snap neoliberalism’s unjust and unequal society like a twig. In short order we will become again the Utopia of the South Pacific – and the envy of the World.
Well under neo liberalism we already ARE the Albania of the South Pacific.
So whatever moron penned the paragraph above your thread post was obviously someone who has vested interests in downing unions anyway.
No thanks….he/she can have a neo liberal utopia – and an increasingly violent one at that. Knock yourself out…all by yourselves. Just don’t affect others with your virus , please.
I prefer social democracy with a primarily Keynesian economic system….such as the most wealthy per capita nations on earth – the Scandanavian country’s , Germany etc….
But then again…I don’t think the individual who penned that paragraph particularly wants people to be wealthy and attain the same level of choices for their lives as that individual enjoys….
Again demonstrating the sheer contemptible greed and disgusting avarice of the neo liberal dogma.
This is why I am quite comfortable calling them maggots and leeches – a more polite term would be troughers – neo liberal troughers.
Strange then that according to the UN Human Development Index NZ is ranked at 7 and Albania is number 95. Of course the UN is a notorious right wing organisation controlled by shadowy forces trying to subjugate the poor and weak. That is why Helen Clark is working for them (/sar)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
The middle class of NZ is still cruising along on the wealth that was distributed by the Welfare State between the 40s and 80s. Have a look at the generation entering adulthood now – they may not be at Albania levels but they’re well on the way.
Poor trolling, next questions please.
Good wrap Chris, On this note a historical refection is timely.
And we in this Key banana republic we have a two tier economy,- one for the rich and one for the 99% struggling vanishing middle class and increasing ranks of poor and disadvantaged.
This will ultimately lead to another global revolution so is it any wonder why the bourgeoisie are clamming to place mass surveillance over us all using our own tax dollars so they have warnings where to use their privatised police force to quell the fires of discontent when it comes again.
Remember the French revolution Shonkey for you are inciting a second round of the same era in your time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
As such, in the Western world, since the late 18th century, “the bourgeoisie” is a social class “characterized by their ownership of capital, and their related culture”; hence, the personal terms “bourgeois” (masculine) and “bourgeoise” (feminine) culturally identify the man or woman who is a member of the wealthiest social class of a given society, and their materialistic worldview (Weltanschauung).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
“Stripped of all its fine ideological plumage, Neoliberalism has always been about smashing unions.”
“Neo-liberalism” has nothing against Unionism. It does have a problem with State imposed restrictions on Labour practices and preferences for Unions over other forms of employment relations. I’d have no problem if Unions stuck to their knitting rather than trying to impose their will across a broad swath of the economy.
” I’d have no problem if Unions stuck to their knitting rather than trying to impose their will across a broad swath of the economy.”
Translation: ” I’d have no problem if Unions stopped advocating for members and a fairer society.”
Fixed it.
By the way, what is your definition of a union’s “knitting”? Do you have any idea?
Nothing wrong with advocating for workers. I have a problem with entrenching Union privledges over other types of employment relationships (e.g. compulsory Unionism or sector wide agreements)
Gosman – are you serious?
What compulsory unionism are you talking about? There hasn’t been compulsory unionism for decades.
Compulsory Unionism was only abolished under the National Government in 1991. Did you support this “neo-liberal” reform then Frank?
No, no, no… stop deflecting, Gosman. You stated that you “have a problem with entrenching Union privledges over other types of employment relationships (e.g. compulsory Unionism or sector wide agreements”.
You made a point that hasn’t been a factor in trade unionism for decades.
I’ve also asked you a pointed question about your initial post: what is your definition of a union’s “knitting”? Do you have any idea?
Before you start throwing your usual scattergun questions all over the place and try to frame the discussion, you can answer that simple question first.
The whole point of this article was “neo-liberalisms” supposed obsession with destroying Unionism. It was back up with a graph that plotted (amongst other things) Union membership over the past few decades. If you look at that graph you will see by far the biggest fall occurred around the time compulsory Unionism was abolished. Since that time membership rates have been relatively stable. I ask again do you support the concept of compulsory unionism?
Actually, you are misrepresenting that graph. Membership fell by over falf after 1991, and has gradually been trending down. Your reference to “relatively stable” is not supported by the data.
As for you question regarding whether or not I support compulsory unionism. I am of two minds on that. A strong union movement relies on a large membership to survive and be strong. Rank and file membership is about the only “clout” that a union has when engaging in negotiation with capital – the latter having economic muscle which makes negotiation stating points unequal. (Something which even you must understand. Hopefully.)
Another part of me recognises that returning to pre-1991 forms of compulsory unionism is a Big Ask, and runs counter to the strong sense of individualism which successive neo-liberal governments have inculcated in the citizenry, until they are more Consumers than Citizens.
My thinking is that we need new forms of trade unionism, which perhaps accomodate a mix between workplace watchdog; employment insurance; and worker’s advocate. But there has to be some measure of legislative protection, otherwise it will always come second to more powerful interests (corporations, etc).
Given a choice, I would choose compulsory unionism. Just as their are several professions which demand membership to a professional body.
That may grate with your hyper-inflated sense of “individual rights” and “me first” attitude – but rights are not absolute. We surrender some rights to belong to a society, and work,live, recreate, alongside others. Anyway, to be honest, I don’t really care if you think your “individual rights” are infringed by compulsory unionism. You care nothing for others in society, so I reciprocate that sentiment to you.
Oh what a shallow response. Of course if you can “get a free ride” ost people will grab it.
As for the “knitting” of the Union movement. That would be facilitating negotiations over pay and conditions for workers, providing support during employment disputes, and advocating for worker related policies on a wider front. It should not include trying to entrench their rights over others.
So you support unions negotiating pay and conditions for workers and providing support during employment disputes.
Did that include supporting AFFCO meat workers and the POAL waterfront dispute?
What “rights over others” would that be?
I support a Trade Union’s right to do that. That does not mean I support the specific negotiating position they have. I presume you support the right of political parties on the right of the spectrum to exist and advocate for their particular brand if policies. That does not mean you think those policies are correct. That is similar to my view on Union’s.
Tut tut Frank, you should know better than to get in an argument with Gosman, he’s not here for a constructive debate and never has been.
If you are comfortable with Unions being politically active then you shouldn’t also have a problem with businesses doing the same. You shouldn’t also tie one sides hands behind their back.
Now you’re engaging in deflection.
Not deflection at all considering I have addressed any questions you have asked me around this topic. This is merely a related subject that I was exploring with you. I want to see if your views are consistent. If you support Union involvement in the political process then I presume you also support business doing the same in their own way (i.e. via the use of capital rather than labour).
The difference is that their union- the Business Roundtable and Employers and Manufacturers union have always lobbied and poured millions of funds into influencing Right wing political party’s.
And might I add…groups who are right wing fundamentalist nutbags such as the Exclusive Brethren among others – have engaged in viscous, underhanded tactics to fuck workers.
Great Christians.
Neo liberalism was a boon to them as temporarily …they have a stay on power.
You obviously have no concept or knowledge of history. Absolutely none whatsoever. It shows.
You feel safe in technology and state apparatus to protect you from harm. You back a state police such as America is developing now…
Let me tell you arsehole – I work in security and I KNOW firsthand what happens to my colleagues out there.
A recent incident involving a criminal gang of 13 armed with ball pein hammers and the plight of one officer at an industrial property that has been broken into 8 times in one month.
While YOU were sleeping your despicable fat fucking arse off in your bed at 02:30…our guy is getting attacked.
People like you make me want to vomit. You are a troll. You know NOTHING of what goes on. You deliberately choose to live in ignorance about poverty and its affects.
What an arsehole you are. What an irresponsible arsehole.
And YOU believe a violent society because of shit wages , and shit conditions is good because it helps you grow [Comments deleted. Unnecessarily abusive. Please tone it down, Katipo. – ScarletMod]
You should be glad there are people like me and my colleagues in the security industry to look after your obese , bloated fat disgusting fatbody arses while you sleep- on minimum wages as well.
You disgust me totally .
Your opinion counts for shit.
And one other thing , moron – in case you were wondering a fair percentage of our guys are ex police, and ex armed services – and a fair percentage of them did their stint as junior officers and communications officers in Afghanistan .
And they’ve seen REAL WAR – AND REAL POVERTY – AND ALL OF THEM ARE CYNICAL ABOUT THE WEST AND ITS NEO LIBERALISM.
And to think wimps like YOU get to sit around pontificating on your fat lard arses about the benefits of keeping LARGE SWATHES of the population poor and spew out your troll garbage day after day after day on this forum…..
That just shows you are as braindead as the pet dogma’s you try to peddle.
Yes ….my apologies…I admit I overstepped proper decorum and forum rules .
The only thing I was feeling at the time was livid white hot anger at what had happened to a colleague….And then being juxataposed by a twerp posting in such a trite manner regarding what really goes on .
But yes. Deserved the reprimand. Point taken .
What has the current government been doing if not “imposing restrictions on labour practices” by allowing employers to bargain in bad faith, keep unions out of their business premises etc. It is by unfettering the negotiation processes that unions can re-emerge to help improve pay and conditions.
For “stick to their knitting” read “shut up and go away”.
Interesting read.. along with the threads. Have you checked out ‘The Rise and Fall of the Working Class’?.. although focussed on England, the story has paralells in NZ.. and elsewhere.
One thing neolibs fail to address.. in order to have a functioning capitalist society, society must have disposable income.. to buy all the shiny baubles and extravagances advertising says we need to make our lives complete. With the real shrinkage of wages and increases in fees, there ain’t nothing left to keep the wheels of capitalism spinning ..
There is a vague stirring of disquiet worldwide .. and hopefully it will result in a more just and equatible society…but to get there – there’s the rub.
Yet many people in capitalist countries it seems are still able to afford the new products that are being produced. You just need to see how man iPhone 6’s were sold to confirm that.
What does it prove when we observe that many people can still afford to go shopping? Absolutely nothing.
It’s like citing the existence of fat people as an argument against the need to help starving children.
Typically pointless arguments from Gosman but the flurry of activity is a sure sign that the article is right on target.
Gosman, your 12.37 statement is utterly moronic. You justify attacks on the trade union movement and workers’ wages and conditions simply because we have iPhone 6s?!
In effect, slavery is good as long as it produces cheap, plentiful consumer goods?
Honestly, you really need to engage your brain before putting pixels to screen.
What a bizarre leap of logic you made there. Where you got tgat i support slavery I have no idea as that wasn’t even being discussed.
The point of my comment was to suggest that the living standards of people haven’t been falling as suggested. People are in fact buying consumer items that were unthinkable 10 to 15 years ago. That is the definition of economic progress.
If you think this is just a few people I ask you to look at the Millennium Development Goals and specifically the poverty reduction target. Are you able to explain why poverty rates across the world are falling?
The decline of the Union movement is one of the great tragedies of the late 20th century. While I agree with the bulk of Chris’s analysis and conclusions it may be worthwhile to fill out the information. While Regan and Thatcher were the public face of the assault on a broad-based compassionate society the neo-liberal agenda was set earlier by academics such as Mise, Hayek the members of the Mount Pelerin society and well funded before these two took power. The initial program focused on the academic world with a goal of creating theoretical justification for the dismantling of the mixed / social welfare economies. Sadly a number of events favoured the agenda. i.e. The cold war and final collapse of the command economies / theories, the misapplication of Keynesian theories, stagflation, the rise of alternative / developing economies etcetera and, this is where I will get shot at, the irresponsibility of sections of the union movement.
The neo-liberals correctly recognised that “self interest” is the stronger human motivator and then set about demonising collective movements and social welfare. What they failed to recognise is that the relentless pursuit of this principle leads down the path described by Marx – though Marx was equally remise in rejecting the necessary role of the self as we all know.
The need for collective / sociality in humans is not just an economic or political or philosophical / ethical theory but is well recognised by socio-biologists and other scientists as being intrinsic to our species. Denial of this is why the west is currently having an existential struggle.
Mmmm favourite topic of mine so I will restrain myself and not go on forever – the anonymous contributor is completely wrong however the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY rebirth of strong collective / union movements must be accompanied by responsibility, no more feather bedding, no more ridiculous value destroying demarcation etcetera or the bastards will keep us down.
And by bastards I hope you are referring tot those treacherous neo liberals.
Incidently in reference to the above Mont Pelerin society …which was founded in the late 1940’s…..if one goes to their website , and looks up a list of Mont Pelerin society members….
You will find none other than Roger Douglas ( minister of finance during Lange;s tenure and generally accredited as the man who started all this for NZ …) and Ruth Richardson….who was minister of finance for Bolger administration.
So you see how devious they were in placing plants in both major political party’s to ensure that the neo liberal agenda’s would be carried out.
Disgusting subversives.
I most certainly do mean the neo-liberals and one could also include the “right-libertarians”.
I did not know about Douglas’s membership, but it comes as no surprise. While the initial restructuring was necessary the “mans” true colours became clearer as time went on and he was fully revealed as a rabid “let the devil take the hindmost” type with the birth of that society hating farce the ACT party. Met Richardson briefly over drinks at a consultants get together – sorry girls but what was the saying about the female being the deadlier of the species. What is interesting about the Mount Pelerin society and ACT (buggered if know how that Whyte chap got a PHD) is their bastardisation of Adam Smiths works. They “cherry (or is it sour prune) pick” from “Wealth of Nations” and totally ignore what Smith believed to be his better work “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Therefore this gaggle is not only bereft of any ethics they also are bankrupt scholastically.
It is also important for workers and unions to realise that the neo liberal ideology cannot exist in an environment of the collective. …ie : it is inherently hostile towards any form of unionised collective and will always seek to dismantle and subvert that collective.
And to do this it needs to first replace academics in universities expounding Keynesian economics with neo liberal / Austrian school /Hayek style economics…..
Which they did.
They then need to popularise neo liberalism by such public faces as Milton Freidmann..and establish think tanks designed to influence govt’s….
Which they did. In fact over 200 think tanks globally.
– Of which one of these characters even had a posting right next door to Margeret Thatchers number 10 Downing St , would you believe !!!???!!!
The virus was introduced to the USA – which was fertile grounds for its global spread due to the old Laisse Faire economic system…and from here we had the buffon Reagun making it (neo liberalism ) ‘ official ‘….
And hence the’ trickle down ‘ theory that spread to places like NZ.
Enter the Lange govt and Douglas and the rest is history.
Ummmm…. You realise that a joint stock company is a former of collective don’t you?
“It is also important for workers and unions to realise that the neo liberal ideology cannot exist in an environment of the collective…”
It is also important to remember that they relied on people to take earlier collective gains as background conditions that would not be significantly altered by the introduction of neo-liberal ideas. E.g., individual contracts will allow you get get what you are really worth (without the unions that will be considerably less than you think), people with serious psychological problems are better off in the community (we are dismantling the community), to save on costs we will rely on volunteers (potential volunteers are now forced into low-paying jobs), etc, etc. It is worth bearing this pattern in mind as it applies to so many of their innovations.
Very interesting and comments too.
So the neo-libs have both sides of the house covered and most people would think National and Labour are in opposition to each other….
I’m thinking that New Zealand needs another political party that will actually represent us….because apparantly now the Greens are thinking about joining National as well????WTF !!!
I have never for one moment, since the arrival of the neo liberal agenda with Roger Douglas, ever thought the Natz and Laybore were in opposition to each other. They are simply different facets of the same ailment.
Comments are closed.