There are significant labour struggles going on with firefighters and port workers. Firefighters have been taking industrial action since August 5^th. “They are still carrying out emergency response work, firefighter safety work and public safety work but not general duties.” Auckland union president Mike McEnaney told Stuff.co.nz. The professional fire service is strongly unionised- with 99% of New Zealands paid firefighters.

While no ones saftey is put at risk by the industrial action being taken, it has had an impact. The Herald reported a “media black out on emergency news” as reports from the control room are not being sent to media organisaions. Reports are also not being supplied to insurance companies and bills related to fires are not being sent out.

At the time of writing, the Maritime Union had issued its fourth strike notice, a 48 hour work stoppage timed to coincide with KiwiRail shutting down its rail network for electrification works. Union president Garry Parsloe described strikes as “the only weapon a worker has is to take industrial action in pursuit of a collective”

While the company has ageed to a payrise the workers are still waiting for progress on other issues such as transparency around redundancies and the re-hiring of non-union labour. Industrial action so far has disrupted pre-Christmas trade worth $630 million, and cost Ports of Auckland a $20m shipping line service.

The workers have recived intimidating letters from the CEO, one of the letters stated “POAL also intends to review the desirability of contracting out some or all of its container terminal operations and support services to third party contractors. Again, this could result in redundancies from the container terminal workforce.”

“You can imagine the effect on a young family struggling to pay a mortgage when their employer says that he is considering total outsourcing of their families main income earner’s job.” said Maritime Union National President Garry Parsloe. “Behind all the corporate gloss about caring for their employees, the mask is beginning to fall away and revealing the ruthlessness and the dictatorial attitude.”

The company also leaked letters relating to negotiations to right wing political blogger Cameron Slater of Whale Oil , who uploaded the letters and used them as the basis for vituperative attacks on Ports of Auckland workers.

In repsonse the union issued a challenge to CEO Tony Gibson “to immediately release all documentation regarding his salary and perks, and that of all senior management at Ports of Auckland, into the public domain for open discussion.”

“Let the public decide whether he is worth his wages and special benefits. Considering the unfolding disaster he has created at his workplace, they may be surprised at his generous remuneration.”

The crew recently used what little money they have to appeal their looming deportation. Not currently working and not eligible for welfare in New Zealand the workers are reliant on donations of food and money. Workers Party Christchurch branch organiser Byron Clark and branch secretary Kelly Pope met with the crew on Saturday (Aug. 13) and delivered 20kg of rice donated from the Christchurch Workers Party branch and a bag of vegetables donated by the Okeover community garden.

“These young men- and I was surprised by how young they all are- really demonstrate the way migrant labour is exploited in New Zealand” said Clark. “These sailors suffered beatings, overwork, sexual harassment and inadequate pay while working in this country’s economic zone, and now the state wants to deport them before those grievances have been addressed”

The Workers Party is planning further solidarity work with the Indonesian crew. The Canterbury Indonesian Society is collecting donations for food and other expenses incurred by the crew, such as accommodation and the school fees of their children in Indonesia. they can be made to the account 12 3147 0278609 00 with the reference ‘Fishing Crew’.

On June 25 Unite and other progressive organisations, as well as socialists, sent a message to the government that any attempt to reintroduce youth rates will be met with resistance. These protests were very much the beginning and will be intensified – up to and including strikes and high school demonstrations – if the government does pursue a reintroduction. The Auckland and Wellington demonstrations went ahead successfully, with the Auckland demonstration being focussed on the head offices of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, whose CEO had in a radio interview justified the gendered wage gap by claiming that women are less productive because of ‘monthly sick problems’. The Auckland protest drew the connection between unequal pay for women and the potential for discriminatory rates to be applied to young workers. Below is a summary of activities in other major cities.

Christchurch

Christchurch
A short-notice a picket was held outside Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson’s office in Rangiora. Car pools left Christchurch loaded with activists who brought the North Canterbury town the first protest it had seen in some time. Fifteen people gathered and chanted “no youth rates” and “working for nothing really sucks, what do we want? $15 bucks”. Open mic speeches were made by Matt Jones (Unite organiser), Jared Davidson (Beyond Resistance) and Byron Clark (Workers Party) highlighting the need for ongoing action against youth rates and other anti-worker laws. An impromptu march down the main street took place, and even in this predominantly conservative and mainly National-voting town the picket got a lot of support, especially from young people.

Hamilton
National MP David Bennett is the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee. Around 30 people from Unite, Greens on Campus, Young Workers Resource Centre, WP, NZNO, and Out at Work protested outside his Hamilton East electorate office. Present were Unite delegates from McDonalds and Starbucks, as well as RMTU and EPMU delegates. The protest outside his office went for 40 minutes before protestors decided by a vote to march over the Bridge Street bridge to a nearby convention centre at which the Young Nats were having their annual national policy-setting meeting. The protestors chanted and disrupted the event from an outside balcony with nothing between the protest and the conference other than ranch-slider doors. Protest chants were focussed on equal pay for women and youth, and much of the megaphone talking was focussed on the point that no section of working people should pay for the crisis.

Hamilton

Dunedin

Dunedin

Activists and others in Dunedin concerned about the possible reintroduction of youth rates staged a demonstration. It was a good turn out for an event with such short notice, with around 50-100 being present at different times. The protestors marched from the Octagon down to a National Party office in Princes street. It was the best turn out in the country. The Unite membership know youth rates would impact on them. Chris Matahaere, Unite’s organiser in the area said there is no such thing as youth rent or youth power, so why should there be youth rates, and emphasised that youth rates create a higher level of exploitation. Other groups represented at the demonstration included the ISO and The Green Party.

By Mike Kay

The comments made by the head of the Employers and Manufacturers Association that pay discrimination against women was justified because they may take sick days when they have their period has rightly provoked widespread outrage. It seems hard to believe that Alisdair Thompson thought he could get away with spouting such crap. But the fact is that he has the arrogance born of someone who has been getting his own way for years. His comments have to be seen against the sustained attack on the working class for a generation. Even under the so-called “worker-friendly” Labour led government of Helen Clark, inequality spiralled and union membership stagnated.

Over its term of office, the National/ ACT/ Māori Party coalition government has instigated a number of anti-worker laws. The 90 day “sack at will” law was initially brought in for the benefit of businesses employing 20 or fewer staff. That law has now been extended to be available to all employers. Other negative changes for workers include the right of an employer to demand a sick note after a single day’s absence without reason, restrictions on union access to the workplace and the removal of reinstatement as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal. Tau Henare’s privatemember’s bill on Secret Ballots for Strikes is currently before select committee. All these assaults have gone hand in hand with attacks on beneficiary rights, thus squeezing the working class at both ends – both in and out of work.

National’s plans to further restrict workers’ rights are currently being kept under wraps, although John Key warned that unions won’t like the changes. Key has also refused to rule out ACT’s “back to the future” policy of reintroducing Youth Rates for the minimum wage. Youth Rates were all but abolished in New Zealand following a campaign spearheaded by Unite Union that involved militant actions including strikes against pay discrimination.

Other unions failed to fight as hard as Unite, and that situation barely changed with the Tories coming to power. Some union leaders may have talked a good fight about standing up to the government, but apart from a couple of tokenistic rallies, there has been very little action. For the most part, union leaders have no answers to the current attacks other than to implore workers to vote Labour.

It’s not surprising that Key and his cronies have been so confident about continuing to ratchet up the exploitation of the working class another notch every few months. The only potential spanner in the works is the formation of Mana. If Mana manages to mobilise a movement of low paid workers and beneficiaries, the government may finally face some serious opposition.

An anti-budget protest organised by Rotorua People's Union took place on the opposite side of these buildings. Eight police intervened in this area and confined protestors for some time before releasing them. Two of these protestors recieved tresspass notices.

We have seen a few isolated, elementary protest actions recently. For instance, on Budget Day, the Rotorua People’s Union staged a rooftop protest at the offices of the local National Party MP, Tom McClay. What’s currently lacking is a co-ordinating centre for such dissent. Workers Party members will be participating in upcoming hui organised by Mana to help shape a programme that workers and oppressed people need to confront the latest capitalist crisis.

In 2007 the Service and Food Workers’ Union (SFWU) and the Public Service Association (PSA) took cases against two major residential service providers in the intellectual disability sector, attempting to gain minimum wage pay for hours spent on sleepover shifts. After a decision by the Employment Relations Authority that considered sleeping over to be work, the issue was appealed to the Employment Court by IHC in May 2009. A support worker who was employed by IHC’s IDEA Services, Phil Dickson, was the individual applicant in this case.

Since then, the Employment Court has found the existing payment of sleepover rates to be in breach of the Minimum Wage Act, ruling in favour of Mr Dickson and the union. A subsequent case taken to the Court of Appeal by IHC has resulted in the same outcome. Since this decision on 16^th February 2011, the case has been taken further by IHC and will now be considered by the Supreme Court with a decision expected sometime after this year’s general election. While this long legal process has been unfolding, the PSA has filed additional legal proceedings against more than thirty health and disability support employers also currently paying below minimum wage sleepover rates, including Barnardos, Hawkes Bay DHB, Spectrum Care and Healthcare NZ.

This week Alisdair Thompson of the Employers and Manufacturers Association asserted that the gendered wage gap is justified because women have periods. This clearly illustrates the role of the employing class in holding back women's equality and also exposes the class nature of women's oppression.

Though the lawyer for IHC, Kit Toogood QC, argued that the service was not in breach of the Minimum Wage Act because Mr Dickson’s pay averaged out to pay the minimum hourly wage, this argument was rejected by the courts. This means that if IDEA Services and IHC are unsuccessful in the appeals process, workers effected by the ruling will receive minimum wage for each hour of a sleepover shift in addition to the $15 to $20 per hour paid for day time hours worked.

Andrew Geddis, an expert in constitutional law fromOtagoUniversitybelieves it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will reach a different finding to those of the three preceding hearings. If the Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with the previous hearings, to comply with the law as it currently exists, IDEA Services will be required to pay at least minimum wage for each hour worked in a sleepover shift. The finding in the IDEA Services case is significant because it sets a legal precedent for future cases of the same nature. Considering that large numbers of similar cases are now being filed by unions such as the PSA, this could have significant implications for the health and disability sector on the whole, its service providers and their funders.

In a December 2010 publication by the SFWU, IHC chief executive Ralph Jones was quoted criticising the union for not considering the impact legal action would have on the organisation and its staff. Jones estimates that changes made to staff pay could cost $176m in back pay with wage costs rising up to $30m a year. Based on the PSA’s action against more than thirty organisations, costs associated with the replacement of sleepover rates with the minimum hourly wage is expected to cost up to $500m in back payments. Because the community sector receives almost all of its financial resources from the state, this cost can only be met with increased government funding.

In a publication on the sleepover rates issue, the SFWU notes the continued underfunding of IHC subsidiary companies IDEA Services and Timata Hou by the government as a barrier to securing higher sleepover rates for workers in the past. The limited liability status of IDEA Services means that the company is under statutory management and payouts would have to be covered by the government, not out of service funding.

Service management staff have commented on the government’s unwillingness to increase funding, with Philippa Sellens, spokesperson for IHC, saying the organisation wishes to be able to pay workers more but “the money we have to pay our staff is what the government gives us”. Unions have also noted that “the reason that IHC has been forced to put its trading companies into statutory management is because the government, as the funder, has sat on its hands and refused to acknowledge that disability support workers have been ripped off for the last 20 years”. In response to the estimated additional funding which will be required if the Supreme Court ruling sets a precedent that results in all sleepover staff gaining hourly pay, the government is considering changes to current minimum wage legislation to once again exclude health and disability sector workers from reasonable hourly rates for sleepover work.

Provider organisations have insisted on the necessity of sleepover pay at a lower rate than hourly wages to continue providing de-institutionalised care in the community. Resultantly, support workers and the unions who represent them have been framed as self-interested and willing to compromise the care of their clients. However, what the court cases and following media attention has highlighted is that sleepover work is real work deserving real pay. Articles with titles such as IHC sleepover staff not slumber party attendees (this was the title of an Alliance Party press release published by Stuff) have challenged the perception that sleepover shifts are good money for a good nights sleep.

In relation to Phil Dickson’s role working for IDEA Services the court noted that sleepover staff could not leave the facility without organising cover, have visitors, or engage in any activity which might disturb service users and would need to be available to be woken any time during the night to manage incidents. Employees in the sector whose work is largely made up of sleepover shifts with few daytime hours, primarily women balancing work with caring for their children, can expect to work five sleepover shifts a week with rates which amount to roughly a third of the minimum wage per hour.

In my job as a mental health support worker many people I’ve talked to who work in the field feel that the current sleepover rates are not adequate recompense for the work that is required. Some staff working in residential units estimate they manage about four hours of broken sleep during a sleepover shift, and when staff who sleep well at work mention this to their managers they can be told that they do not deserve sleepover work if they cannot sleep lightly and stay alert for the night. The response from providers and the government to sleepover rate challenges suggests this will be a long struggle but one worth following and getting involved in. Up to date information and links to news articles can be found on the Facebook page “New Zealanders who do Sleepovers Discussion and Poll” for those wanting to find out more about the issue. As the PSA has commented, the government has been getting employees in the health and disability field “too cheap” for too long. This is one of the key struggles relevant to pay equity in New Zealand today.

(For latest figures on income and employment inequality on the basis of gender, visit http://workersparty.org.nz/2011/06/22/women-still-coming-off-worse-under-capitalism/)

This weekend there will be demonstrations in a number of cities to oppose the re-introduction of youth rates and to oppose any extension to the new entrant rate provisions.

National has already attacked working people and unions by changing union access rights, introducing new conditions for access to sick leave, and introducing a probationary employment procedure which provides employers with the power to sack workers without reason in the first 90 days of employment.

John Key and National’s Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson have not ruled out a return to youth rates and are clearly putting youth rates back in the frame for discussion. Wilkinson, for instance, has cited high youth unemployment as a reason for the government to take a close look at policies that will give work experience to youth.*

The ability of employers to legally pay youth rates below the adult minimum wage for 16-18 year-olds was brought to an end in 2007. This victory was a result of a combined industrial campaign by Unite Union, street campaign by Unite Union and Radical Youth, and parliamentary campaign led by then Green MP Sue Bradford. This was one of the more significant offensive campaigns waged by the labour movement over the past decade. For a whole generation of younger workers it was certainly the most significant.

We will fight any attempts by the bosses and government to roll back wages and conditions of workers of any age group.

We encourage everybody who can make it to attend one of these demonstrations on Saturday June 25:
Auckland: Assemble at Holy Trinity Cathedral, 446 Parnell Road, Parnell, 11:30am
Hamilton: Assemble at National MP David Bennett’s office, 510 Grey Street, Hamilton East at 12pm.
Wellington: Assemble at the bucket fountain, Cuba Mall, at 12pm.
Christchurch: Assemble at National MP Kate Wilkinson’s office 130A Percival Street, Rangiora at 12. Car pool from Christchurch meeting at Riccarton Ave side of Hagley park (opposite Hospital near Parkside bus exchange) at 11.15am – look for the Unite flag.
Dunedin: Assemble at the Octagon at 12pm, followed by a march to National MP’s office.

*http://www.unite.org.nz/youthrates_unemployment (this article written by Mike Treen in 2010 dispels the myth that lowering wages serves to lower unemployment).

“One family got upset with us and decided to bring the union in, and as a company I can tell you that this has put a wall between me and my Kiribati people, and it’s a real problem.”

The Union Secretary, Ray Bianchi, has replied with the advice:

“Exercise your legal right and join the Union and ensure you get protection from manipulative Employers. Unionised Workers are treated better than non-Unionised and predominantly earn more.”

In Wellington alone, KFC sales increased 100% on the first day of the new promotion, and the product sold out for the first two days running. However, crew-members say the increased productivity has not paid off. Throughout the country there have been instances of customer abuse resulting from sold out product.

“The company’s making massive profits but it’s just making our lives harder,” KFC cook and Workers Party member Ian Anderson says.

Because of the hugely increased demand, many workers are giving up their breaks or working on their day off. “I’m used to being overworked and underpaid,” Ian says, “But when the work-load goes up the poverty wages stay the same.”

“The burger’s also not that amazing.”

Bring Back Pat

Unite has launched a Facebook campaign for Pat Bidois, a union delegate at St Georges Language School who was unfairly dismissed. The page reads:

Management have been trying to get rid of Pat for years as she is an effective and passionate defender of workers rights on her site.

In this video Unite organiser John Minto speaks to a class of St Georges students about the dismissal and encourages them to take action.

A more detailed article on the Pat’s sacking and the campaign can be read here.

The waterfront lockout of 1951 was one of the most important events in New Zealand labour history. For 151 days the men who worked the waterfront and those who supported them fought back against the combined power of the ship-owners and the state, determined to force cutbacks upon them and destroy their union. Seen as an historical defeat by some, an inspiring fight-back by others, the waterfront lockout holds important lessons to those who struggle for workers rights today.

In this first of two articles about this pivotal moment in the history of the working class of this country, we will look at the history of the Waterfront Workers Union and the events that led up to the lockout. In the second article, to be published in the April issue of The Spark Magazine, we will examine the way the lockout ended, the repercussions of that conclusion then, and the relevance of these events for working New Zealanders today.

Lampblack to Lockout

The Waterside Workers Union (WWU) was one of the most militant unions in New Zealand, at a time when union membership was compulsory, and unions were a lot more willing to fight than they are today. The WWU had been a fighting union for a long time, taking a militant and often highly principled stand on a number of issues over the years. In an inspiring show of international solidarity, the wharfies refused to load ships with scrap iron bound for imperial Japan in 1937. The first Labour government, despite the fact it still espoused a socialist political project tried to force the men back to work, only accepting their stance when they wouldn’t back down.

This determination and sure sense of right and wrong animated the men of the WWU, especially under Auckland branch and then national president Jock Barnes, who would rise to prominence for this leadership in the hard months of ’51. The wharfies were often seen stopping work to refuse to work ships with unsafe gangplanks, refusing to move toxic chemicals like lampblack without extra pay and safety equipment, or to demand the application of hard-won workplace rights. In these struggles the men often ran into opposition from the Waterfront Authority, a supposedly impartial body much like the employment court today, one which usually ruled in favour of the shipowners. Even a pro-wharfie ruling was no guarantee of fair treatment, as one ship’s captain could always ignore the ruling. The Authority often stood idly by such action, leaving it up to direct action of the men to get their legal rights respected by shipowners.

The NZ media, in particular the NZ herald and their cartoonist Minhinick, invariably took the side of the bosses in any dispute over wages or conditions at the waterfront. Even when the shipowners position was untenable, in obvious breach of labour law, The Herald always jumped to blame the wharfies and never retracted or corrected articles when proven wrong. Jock Barnes was often accused in later years of misleading his men to follow his grudges against this or that Waterfront Authority member or government figure. In reality it was the media, the shipowners, the government and many former comrades of the WWU that took actions against the union and its members to the level of Vendetta.

The Lockout Begins

As with most great industrial struggles, the events which started the dispute were small, while the rights and freedoms at stake were of massive significance to the lives of the people involved.

In 1950 the employment courts ordered a 15% pay rise across the NZ workforce. This pay rise would start to compensate for years of pay restrictions during and after the Second World War. The shipowners confederation, knowing full well the wharfies were paid far less than workers in similar branches of skilled labour, refused to honour this ruling. The wharfies called a work-to-rule strike in protest, insisting no overtime would be worked without a guarantee of decent pay.

In response, the shipowners locked out the waterfront workers on the 19^th of February, 1951 and refused to let them back unless they accepted overtime and presented their grievance to the Waterfront Authority. The shipowners felt safe in the knowledge the Authority would probably rule in the shipowners favour.

All branches of the WWU voted to resist this ultimatum. Within two days the National government under Sid Holland declared a State of Emergency and soon sent troops to work the wharves. On the 26^th of February Holland passed a set of Emergency Regulations, draconian and far-reaching, which made it illegal to be involved in any strikes, to support strikers, to publish material critical of the regulations or supportive of striking, or to engage in picketing or protest.

The people had no legal recourse against the regulations, which also allowed the government to seize union funds, send the army to strike-break and gave the police unlimited power of search and arrest to enforce the law, with a maximum penalty for breaching the law of 100 pounds fine, 3 months hard labour or both.

In many ways the regulations are themselves as interesting as the lockout. They showed the speedy willingness of the New Zealand ruling class to sacrifice democracy and workers rights for the sake of waging class war. In essence, the ship-owners and the Holland government set out to destroy the WWU. A general attack on all workers’ wages and conditions would only militarise the working class more and be likely to fail, but a directed attack on one vanguard union, backed by a vitriolic propaganda campaign, might isolate and neutralise some of the best working class fighters and leave other, weaker unions, open to coercion and restriction.

The mainstream media, ‘the voice of the people’ responded to these massive restrictions on freedom of speech by folding overnight, publishing insulting cartoons and editorial diatribes against the watersiders and especially their leader Jock Barnes.

Negotiation and betrayal

The Federation of Labour (FOL), a forerunner to the TUC, showed its collaborationist nature by deregistering the WWU and seizing their union funds. They continued by attacking the WWU leadership as communist stooges and calling for their removal, as well as rushing through the registration of scab unions up and down the country.

The Minister of Labour refused to acknowledge Barnes and National Secretary Toby Hill as the wharfies’ representatives because the WWU had been deregistered.

The Minister also gave conditions to the WWU for return to work (including “open” employment, an anti-union condition which would have seriously endangered unionism on the wharves). The WWU refused at first, but when Barnes accepted their conditions, the government added another: separate port unions with no national wharfies union. It became clear the government had no intention of letting the WWU make it out of this strike alive.

In the next issue of The Spark Magazine, we will look at the way working people came together to oppose the Emergency Regulations and support the wharfies, the way the government of this country attempted to crush this support, and the way the lockout ended. Most importantly, we will see the importance of these events for modern New Zealand, what we can learn today from the men and women who stood up for their rights in 1951.