John Edmundson The Spark November 2010

Europe has seen a massive upsurge in worker resistance to planned implementation of continent-wide austerity measures. The size and militancy of the demonstrations and strikes should serve as an inspiration to workers in this part of the world, where class consciousness is at an all time low and union leadership has been sorely lacking and misdirected. In New Zealand, the CTU’s national day of action against the proposed extension to the 90 Day Act and other attacks on workers’ rights was morphed into a Labour Party election rally and Christchurch, where job losses due to earthquake related business closures, and earthquake recovery projects will mean workers there will be more exposed than most to the provisions of the 90 Day Act, the CTU decided in its wisdom that “for obvious reasons,” there would not even be a rally.

Compare this with the situation developing across Europe and the contrast could hardly be starker. The Spark has already given some coverage to the massive demonstrations that struck Greece, but huge worker rallies have taken place across many European cities and industrial action has hit several countries, most notable Spain and France. While it would be wrong to read too much into the potential of these actions, they do represent a significant positive development given the relative quiescence of the working class movement.

A huge rally in the vicinity of 100,000 people took place in Brussels, Belgium, where the European Union headquarters is situated. Workers from as far away as Poland and Romania joined local unionists to demand an end to the austerity measures that many European governments are implementing. Unemployment is on the rise and job and wage cuts, as well as attacks on benefit provisions and a proposed lift in the retirement age have spurred workers into action on a scale not seen for years. The rally was planned to coincide with an EU plan to fine governments that run up deficits.

In Greece, where mass street demonstrations took place in May, anger has continued as the Papandreou government has insisted that it will continue with its plan to cut the budget deficit from 13.6% to 8.1%. The plan includes massive cuts in the public sector workforce and sizeable tax cuts for business. Demonstrations have continued but are currently on a smaller scale than those which occurred in May. Still marches numbering in the thousands, and regular strikes are keeping momentum building there in anticipation of another big series of demonstrations. This has not prevented the Pasoc “Socialist” Party government sending in the riot police to dislodge protesters. In Romania thousands of people have marched in protest against government plans to slash the wages of state employees by twenty five percent and a rise in the retirement age to sixty five. Slovenia’s “centre-left” government has attempted to freeze salaries until 2012, resulting in chaos at the border as customs officers went on strike.

The most dramatic events to take place on September 29 occurred in Spain where the first general strike in eight years was held. Thousands poured into the streets and some sectors of the economy, including transport, were paralysed. Confrontations with the police took place when workers were attacked by baton-wielding riot police and rubber bullets were fired at the crowd. At least police car was burned. Fifty thousand marched in Lisbon and another twenty thousand came out in Portugal’s second city, Porto.

In France, the first big nationwide demonstration against the austerity programme occurred on May 27, with an estimated one million taking part. The By the time of the second mobilisation on June 24, numbers had nearly doubled. A twenty four hour public sector strike on September 7 was supported by demonstrations drawing an estimated 2.7 million workers and their supporters. Subsequent marches in late September and early October reportedly exceeded three million participants.

The issue which has brought people out in their millions in France has been the question of pension reform. The Sarkozy government intends to push through changes that will raise the age of entitlement to a pension from sixty to sixty two years, and a “full” pension from sixty five to sixty seven. At the same time, the time worked to qualify will also be lifted, which will impact especially hard on women, many of whom spend a number of years out of the paid workforce raising children. The government has attempted to divide the workforce, arguing that this change is of benefit to younger workers as they will have to pay for the pensions of older workers. This argument has gained little traction however, with secondary students joining the demonstrations in large numbers, and in many cases, stepping up into the forefront of clashes with the police. School students are concerned that it, in an economy with double digit unemployment, it will be even harder for them to find jobs if older workers are compelled to stay in their jobs for another two years.

French workers went out on open ended strikes and occupied fuel depots and blockaded roads to prevent fuel from being distributed. At times, over half the petrol stations in France were experiencing supply problems and France had to import fuel and electricity. Sarkosy responded by sending in the riot police, declaring that “troublemakers” would be dealt with “with no weakness”. Yet in the midst of the strikes and blockades, polls revealed that over seventy percent of French people surveyed supported the industrial action.

It has been a significant development in all the cases of major militant action, in Greece, Spain and France, that the rank and file workers have in many cases been much more militant than the union leadership, which has often endeavoured to negotiate a “solution” and get the protesters off the street. In France for example, Bernard Van Craeynest, the president of the main white-collar union, the C.F.E.-C.G.C., announced that in the face of “excesses” by some demonstrators, “it will be necessary without doubt to pause to reorient the actions” of the unions. By and large, despite comments like this, the struggle has in fact become more militant.

By the time this article is printed, events will have moved on, for better or for worse. But regardless of the outcome of the worker actions in France and throughout the rest of Europe, we should take inspiration from the militancy of the workers there. New Zealand has become addicted to passivity. Ideas like “partnership” with government, and continued faith institutions like the Labour Party have disempowered New Zealand workers. We need to remember that everything we have as workers, from access to hospitals and education to health and safety legislation and whatever wage gains we achieve have been gained by struggle and in the absence of struggle they will be at risk of being lost. Viva la révolution!

Tuesday 10 August 2010 6pm-8pm Trades Hall 147 Great Nth Rd, Auckland

Reading: Peter Harris ctuand critical notes by Don Franks (WP) SOME RELECTIONS ON THE ECA INTRODUCTION

Tony Boraman: “The Myth of Passivity” http://libcom.org/files/The%20Myth%20of%20Passivity1.pdf

Recently released figures from Federated Farmers have shown that although the number of farms with written contracts between the farmer and farm employees grew by 9% since last year, fewer than a quarter of farms have a contract with their employees and only 40% keep records of the hours their employees’ work.

Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson says the federation will be holding ‘seminars’ throughout the country to educate its members on employment-related matters. But the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) is saying that farm workers need to have independent representation to safeguard their rights.
In addition to farm workers often being in isolated locations where it’s difficult to get advice, the rural workforce in New Zealand has a high proportion of migrant workers working under the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme. Last year changes were made to the scheme which the union movement said would “result in more blatant exploitation” of workers. Lina Ericsson, a Swedish political scientist who conducted field work among RSE workers in the rural areas near Tauranga found many stories of mistreatment, unpaid wages and other violations of employment rights.

Research conducted by Massey University has shown that agricultural workers have the highest incidence of leukemia of all New Zealand occupation groups. The cause is expected to be exposure to pesticides. With all these factors, the idea of a farm workers union is one whose time has certainly come, what waits to be seen is if the CTU will go beyond the discussion and put resources into making it a reality.

A Private Member’s Bill introduced by the National Party MP Tau Henare has been drawn from the ballot to be debated in Parliament. The Bill proposes to amend the Employment Relations Act as follows:

“A strike may not proceed under this Act, unless the question has been submitted to a secret ballot of those employees who are members of the union that would become parties to the strike if it proceeded.”

The Council of Trade Unions has announced its “support in principle” for the bill, “as it largely reflects current practice.”

The British experience may be of some use in analysing the effect of secret ballots. Over there, the law has required a secret ballot prior to strike action for nearly 30 years. I asked an official with the Postal section of the Communication Workers Union his opinion on the issue. This is his response:

What the secret ballot does is slow things down and makes it impossible to take spontaneous official action as a response to something immediate. What tends to happen then with our members is that they walk out unofficially. We are required as a Union to formally repudiate this action, which we always do but no-one has ever taken any notice of this.

The problem with strike ballots is the law that surrounds them and the way judges interpret this. Recently both we and Unite have run into trouble with the law concerning the information you have to provide to the employer on who is going on strike. This has become ever more onerous and now requires us not just to provide names but grades and details of workplace. With the best will in the world, this is impossible to get exactly right but judges are becoming less tolerant about errors in the face of injunctions from the employer.

In summary, therefore, it’s not the secret ballot itself that’s the major issue. Most members would probably resist any move to take it away now. It’s the rules surrounding its application and who is in charge of drawing them up. If it’s the Union itself, then no problem. If it’s the state or the courts then they will certainly be designed to make striking more difficult.

Unite union in Britain (not connected with Unite in NZ) is currently in dispute with British Airways over the employer’s plans to cut 1,700 jobs, impose a two-year wage freeze and get cabin crew working longer for less. When union members were balloted in December for a planned 12 day strike over Christmas, they supported strike action by 92% on an 80% turnout. BA then used the High Court to have the strike ruled illegal on the basis of a spurious technicality relating to the balloting process.

Unfortunately, not all workers have the same level of confidence as the posties, who often defy such decisions. The Unite action was suspended while a second strike ballot was taken. The new result was still impressive, although unsurprisingly the loss of momentum meant that the “yes” vote dropped by around 10%.

This brief look at the situation in Britain indicates that the CTU has been very complacent by endorsing Henare’s bill. Even if the bill does reflect the current status quo, it is far better that the law remains silent on the matter (as it is now), than give the employers an opportunity to challenge strike ballots through the courts.
The CTU also ignores an important point of workingclass principle; unions are workers organisations and should be run by workers from top to bottom. The form of union processes should be a democratic decision for union members, not National party hacks.
We need a movement willing and capable of launching a militant campaign for positive workers’ rights, including the unrestricted right to strike. The CTU has proven once again that it has no intention of leading such a movement.

Recently there have been decisions by companies to make NZ workers redundant while continuing to employ migrant workers on temporary visas. There have been calls by both the Labour Party, National and some unionists for these migrant workers to be laid off first. The immigration service has revoked the work visas of some workers who kept their jobs. Migrant advocates have raised concerns that racist sentiments are being fostered and ask the question why migrant workers shouldn’t have their rights protected. New Zealand-born or permanent residents ask why they should be sacked when temporary visa holders keep their jobs.

 This raises questions on how unions should be approaching migrant workers when there may be conflicting claims for support from different groups of workers who are their members.

 Addressing these questions will be speakers involved in the union movement and in advocating for migrant workers. These include:

 -         Laila Harre, National Secretary of the National Distribution Union

-         Dennis Maga, Migrante Aotearoa

-         John Minto, Organiser, Unite Union

-         Mike Treen, Global Peace and Justice Auckland (Chair)

 For more information contact Dennis Maga,  021 971 070 , dennis.maga@yahoo.co.nz

For some weeks now, top union leaders have been muttering about a possible National government attack on unions’ access to worksites. The present law allows union representatives to enter workplaces to visit existing union members and recruit new members. Union officials must produce identification, tell the employer the purpose of their visit and not take up too much time, or enter at very busy times.

These rights were denied by National’s Employment Contracts Act and restored by the last Labour government. Restoration of right of entry was the one big concession Labour made to the union movement. Now, it is increasingly being rumoured, John Key’s lot will remove unions’ right of entry again.

The rumours came out in the open in Council of Trade Unions President Helen Kelly’s Dominion Post column of February 23^rd. There, in an article headlined; Will Government put the country first? Kelly claimed:

“National still intends to reduce worker’s rights by making union access to a workplace dependant on employer approval.”

The CTU president went on to argue that the existing setup is :

“a proper balance between the rights of workers to belong to and be represented by unions without intimidation and the right of employers to permit only legitimate visits.”

She continued:

“Only eight instances can be found since the legislation was introduced in 2000 where the exercise of these provisions has been challenged- which suggests they work”.

That rosy picture of the existing law could only have been written by a union official who makes relatively few workplace visits. As any busy organiser on the road can confirm, effective right of access is fought out across the country every day and night. Although some employers give no trouble, many, probably a majority, throw up barriers of all kinds against the spirit of the legislation.  Silent half deserted places are said to be “too busy at the moment”. Union officials are then made to wait for ages in the hope that they will get fed up and leave. Or the boss will glare round at staff and say “Anyone want to see the union?!” in such a way that his opinion of unions and workers who want to see them is plain. Other bosses simply state that “I’ve asked them and noone here wants to see you”. The weakness of the existing law means gaining union access to workers is a constant struggle, and the only thing worse would be no right in law at all.

Helen Kelly writes that should a law change be imposed to remove or restrict right of entry:

“unions will be forced to hunker down and campaign in other ways to ensure workers are aware of their rights to collective bargaining”

Unions should be getting out right now and planning exactly what these “other ways” might consist of. If the CTU leaders have any good ideas about how to do this they are keeping them to themselves. Helen Kelly’s own public strategy is to argue that National should cooperate with unions for the benefit of the country. According to her, unions can “work with employers to understand the issues they face” and ” unions can help with transitions where saving jobs is not possible.”

She concludes ” Workers will be watching closely to see whether National is big enough to put the country first on this one.”

Offers to facilitate redundancy and nationalistic  piffle may do to fill Helen Kelly’s newspaper column, but they don’t help unionists prepare to force locked gates.

In reality, “the country” is not a single happy entity. The country is populated by two main classes comprising employers and workers. These two classes have competing interests. Most employers would rather have no union to bother about.  That way they have complete freedom to run their business. With union density in the private sector now down to 9% employers are well on the way to this state of affairs.

Most workers, when given a chance to see all the facts, would rather be organised on the job in a collective, because that delivers more money and better conditions.  Proper unionism does not blather on pointlessly about the “good of the country” but puts workers’ interests first, every time.

Restricted as it is, the existing right of entry is a relatively modern condition, as is unionism itself. When the first unions were formed, all their activities were illegal. Still, unions managed to battle on and win gains. Union activists today need to prepare to defend and extend the right of entry and to discuss ways to work if the right is removed.

Continuing with the New Zealand employers’ labour-flexibilisation drive, Prime Minister John Key has announced the introduction of a 90-day probationary employment bill that will allow new workers to be sacked without appeal, and it will come into force in March 2009.

What it means for workers

Those whose conditions will be directly attacked are the employees who are or will be in their first 90 days of employment at firms employing less than 20 people.

Slightly more than 30% of employees are employed in firms with less than 20 employees. The Council of Trade Unions has observed that of all employees, approximately 100,000 are in the first 90 days of employment, with a small employer, at any one time.

At the introduction of the probationary period slightly under one-third of new workers will have lesser conditions imposed on them. New employees will form a greater proportion of the workforce as a result of the higher labour mobility created by the probationary period.

While this is significant in terms of loss of rights, lowering of workers expectations over time, and the production of more class differentiation across the workforces of different sectors, other
sections of the workforce are being indirectly attacked as a collective. The probation period will produce a general downwards shift in an environment that already has a low level of job security.

What it means for employers

While the majority of workers are employed by firms with more than 20 employees, the majority of enterprises employ less than 20 workers. Over 90% of enterprises employ less than 10 people. At the expense of workers employed by small firms, the probationary period will hugely benefit these small capitalists who have increased their influence in the employers’ associations.

Due to the competition that exists between capitalists it is likely that larger firms, including monopolies, will soon move into lobbying for the probationary employment periods to be extended to their own list of anti-worker rights. They were defeated when National’s former Industrial Relations spokesperson Wayne Mapp failed to pass the original version of this bill in parliament in July 2006. It may not be until National’s second term that an extension to 90-
day coverage is sought, but the new `softer version’ 90-day bill is likely to be the thin end of the wedge. The left cannot be lenient on small capitalists. With larger business interests, they have a common interest in driving down workers’ conditions.

The Labour Party’s role

Inside and outside of government the Labour Party has shown a general opposition to the introduction of a 90-day probationary period. Correctly, Labour Party opposition leader Phil Goff has criticised John Key for putting parliament into urgency in order to pass the 90-day bill and other legislation.

However, the left should not help translate Labour’s position into political support for them. There has been a proliferation of casualisation/flexibilisation during the last nine years of Labour
government. Unregulated franchises and temping agencies, for example, have flourished. Restructures, partial redundancies, and closures have characterised the last period of the fifth Labour government, so much so that they had to enter debates with National over schemes for laid-off workers. When in power, Labour kept many of the features of National’s Employment Contracts Act and it is likely Labour will either completely fail to repeal future National Party legislation, or will only make minor amendments.

Left intervention

The passing of the 90-day bill should help cement broader ideas for the workers’ movement. Sections of the working class that are not directly affected by changes must, in their own interests, defend the sections that will be affected. There should be no political leniency for the section of small capitalists that can function as the Trojan horse for bigger interests. There should be no cultivation of support for Labour despite its better position on this particular issue.

Coupled with the crisis in the financial sector, the introduction of legislation such as the 90-day bill forms a basis for genuine and immediate socialist and left-union intervention in the industrial arena. Heightened awareness amongst working people, and the inability of bourgeois parties and many top union leaders to fight it out on the pavement, makes it possible for the socialist left to play a key role in a generalised fight-back against sackings, partial redundancies, and closures. Pickets, strikes, and occupations are being put on the agenda.

National plans to introduce a sacking bill before Christmas. That would mean that employers with fewer than 20 staff could sack in the first 90 days of employment without legal recrimination.

National has its 90-day sacking bill on a list of legislation it wants passed in the next 100 days.

This bill is an overt attack on workers’ rights. Workers in small job sites currently enjoy few rights as they are mostly not unionised and the employers consequently have a great deal of power.

The CTU is responding with a petition and looking at putting adverts in the major newspapers. This falls well short of what is needed.

Direct action by workers is the way to respond to this attack.
Unite union is taking the lead by saying that any worker can join Unite for $2 a week and get phone advice and back up where needed. If workers are wrongly sacked in the 90 day period Unite will organise pickets in defence of these people. Any employer who sacks under this legislation could find themselves confronted by a rowdy picket line and Unite’s 20 foot rat.

Employers plainly want to put the pressure on workers; it’s time to push back.

During the 1990s under the National government union membership fell by 50 percent. In 2000 just after Labour came in to office 69 percent of the public sector workers were covered by collective agreements and 21 percent of workers in private sector jobs.

Did that situation improve during nine years of “a worker-friendly government”, as the CTU leadership describe Labour?

Not at all. This year 59 percent of public sector workers have collective agreements, and a mere 10 percent of private sector workers.

The table below shows the grim reality.

And while the public sector collective agreement coverage declined, it is still significantly higher than the private sector.

A really serious trade union movement would look at assisting the private sector through subsidies from the much better off public sector. We need a union movement that takes the interests of the whole of the working class. That’s the sort of solidarity that would help build up unions in the private sector, which is where exploitation of the working class originates.

When the Contracts Act was repealed in 2000 it was hoped that not only would collective bargaining flourish, but multi-employer agreements (MECAs) would be rebuilt.

But with strikes outlawed except around bargaining, collective agreements can be a device for employers to lockdown wages and prevent strikes for years on end. A multi-employer agreement can do that too on a big scale.

There have been very few MECAs introduced in the past decade in the private sector. The Engineers Union Metals Agreement existed before the Employment Relations Act, and nearly all other MECAs have been public sector agreements.

One exception is the Service and Food Workers Union’s Cleaners’ MECA. With just 10% of the staff employed by the property services companies Spotless (7000 workforce) and OCS (4,000 workers) and ISS (several thousand) the union was not in a strong position. So how did they get the bosses to agree to a MECA?

In this case it was a deal that suited the employers. The cleaners on the agreement are paid just $12.55 (and $13.10 if they are experienced). In a period of labour shortages when it is possible to push for higher wages, the workers have been locked into a pay deal that is barely above minimum wage. For the employers at Spotless, OCS and ISS this MECA has been a means to put a stop to any competition among themselves over wages. And they got it very cheaply – at the expense of the staff.

Why are only 10 percent of cleaners in the private sector unionised? For a start it might have something to do with high union fees – $6 a week, and that members rarely see a union organiser. Many complain that when they call the union office their calls are not returned.

In contrast Unite union has a policy of regularly visiting sites where it has members and has a $2 a week union fee for places where people are on low pay. Unite’s focus is on leading struggles to win improvements. The results are apparent in all the areas Unite organises with significant gains.

The SFWU got good increases in the public sector where it was legislated for but this hasn’t transferred to the private sector where their members are locked into a shabby MECA.

The Clean Start campaign which lasted  two years has failed to lift the wages or to recruit significant numbers to the Service and Food Workers Union. It was a campaign that aimed to get building owners and employers to sign a piece of paper saying they supported “a better cleaning industry … with good jobs… fair pay, reasonable hours and safe conditions”.

Words are cheap. And so was the deal for the bosses.