Demonstrator displays socialist tattoo

by John Edmundson

What is going on in Iran? The recent outbreak of massive demonstrations and subsequent repression by the Iranian state, in particular the Basij militias, has left many people confused. For all of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s faults, he has stood up to US imperialism over the years, refusing to bow to hypocritical US and international pressure over Iran’s nuclear programme. He has established close links with progressive governments in Latin America. Perhaps most importantly, he has stood firm on support for the right of the Palestinian people to fight for their homeland. And now he has become the subject of huge demonstrations, accusing him of rigging this month’s presidential elections, which he won with a landslide vote of over sixty percent. 

Supporters of the Iranian regime, both within Iran and around the world, have accused the demonstrators, who have adopted green as the symbol of their movement, of manipulation by Western interests, the same interests who sponsored the other “colour revolutions”, such as the orange revolution in Ukraine and the rose revolution in  Georgia. Certainly there is no doubt that the same Western interests that orchestrated those “revolutions” in Eastern Europe would like nothing better than the demise of the Iranian revolution and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They would like nothing better than the replacement of the current theocratic state by a pliable pro-Western leadership that would open up Iran to world capitalism and give imperialism (and Israel) a free rein in the Middle East. So what should the left make of the latest developments? Are we watching the latest case of a CIA engineered “colour revolution”, intended to roll back thirty years of Iranian revolution; are we seeing a new and genuine revolution of the Iranian working class and peasantry; or are we seeing something else? 

To make any sense at all of the latest events in Iran it is important to know something about the nature of the Iranian state itself, and its somewhat mercurial relationship with global capital and imperialism. The Iranian revolution that overthrew the US sponsored Shah in 1979 was the outcome of a huge mass movement that had been building for years. Key actors in that revolution were were the Iranian revolutionary left, the Mujihadeen, and the religious forces under the leadership of the Mullahs, or high ranking leaders in Shi’a Islam, focused around the leadership of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then living in exile in Paris. The common interest of the clerics and the secular left did not survive the triumphal return of Ayatollah Khomeini. The religious forces within the revolution were able to eliminate the left in a series of murders and arrests, with the remnants being forced to flee into exile or sent to the front to die in the US sponsored war against the invading Iraqi army. The hopes of the Iranian people for an end to the tyranny of the Shah were dashed with the emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a state with an elected parliament and president presided over by an unelected supreme council of religious leaders.  Democratic workers’ shura councils, likened in some ways to the Soviets of the early Bolshevik period, were destroyed and replaced by Islamic shuras. Revolutionary left organisations were banned and independent trade union organising outlawed. Strict Islamic law was instituted and women have experienced humiliation and denial of rights. Homosexuality, traditionally tolerated to a degree in Iran in the past, was ruthlessly repressed. At the same time, Iran took a strong and vocal stand against US imperialism in the region, although this too was less principled than it might have been. Suspicion of the Taliban in Afghanistan meant that Iran’s relationship with the US thawed when Iran offered to cooperate with George Bush’s Operation Enduring Freedom – the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. 

At the same time, the revolution did free Iran from the direct influence possible under the rule of the Shah. Iran’s economy was freed to a degree from its previous subjection to the West. Ahmadinejad himself has been described as a populist in touch with the interests and needs of Iran’s rural population. But the rhetoric and the reality have not matched. Rural Iranians have not seen the benefits Ahjmadinejad promised in campaigning before his first election. Increasing numbers have migrated into the cities, meaning that Iran is now sixty five percent urban. Iran’s economy is a modern capitalist one, with local capitalists protected to a great degree by the nationalist policies of the Islamic Republic.

The elections may well have been stolen, as the demonstrators claim, but in fact they were stolen well before they were even held. The banning of secular politics devalued the elections and ensured that the results would be no threat to the status quo. Of over two hundred prospective presidential candidates who were nominated, including forty two women, only four men passed the scrutiny of the unelected religious authorities. All four met strict religious criteria and were deemed loyal to the existing state structure. None represented a significant break with the theocratic nature of the Iranian state, or offered a promise of real change. 

The demonstrations that followed the announcement of the election results have moved rapidly though from simply demanding a recount of the vote, to a demand for greater freedom and an end to “dictatorship”. Factories have gone on strike in support of the demonstrations. Critics of the demonstrations have expressed suspicion at the use of English on placards and in the movement’s contact with Western media, with their use of a colour to brand their movement, with their support for a “pro-Western” candidate in Mousavi, and with the alleged predominance of privileged students from North Teheran. They have been branded the Twittering classes due to their use of instant messaging to report on their demonstrations. But these characterisations are simplistic. The demonstrations have drawn much broader participation, with urban and rural, young and old, student and worker support. This does not mean that a new Iranian revolution is nigh. It does not mean an end to theocratic rule is coming soon. But it does mean that this movement must be taken seriously. It must be seen as more than simply the creation of Western agents. It is just possible that what it does represent is the beginning of a shift in Iran, a country with a much repressed, but traditionally strong and militant working class; a shift towards the rebuilding of a revolutionary movement that can complete the tasks left unfinished by the Iranian revolution of 1979.

On Sunday June 28^th, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was awoken by the sound of soldiers kicking in the door of the presidential residence. He was abducted, still dressed in his pyjamas, and bundled into a waiting vehicle. The soldiers took him and put him on a flight to Costa Rica. With Zelaya out of the way, his opponents set about justifying their actions and attempting to establish control over the country. 

Manuel Zelaya was a strange target for a rightist putsch. A wealthy banker and rancher, he was the preferred candidate of the Liberal Party which, along with the more conservative National Party, formed the political establishment in Honduras, a country which has been ruled by a mix of military dictatorships and right wing governments of the elite; what Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez would call the oligarchs. The ruling classes in Honduras was comfortable with his election. Throughout the 1980s, the country had been turned into an armed camp for Reagan’s war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Decades of death squad operations and a stifling political environment had ensured that the left in Honduras was extremely weak. But conditions in Honduras are extremely hard for the poor. It is one of the poorest countries in the Americas; like many Central American countries, its main source of income is income repatriated from workers overseas. The life expectancy is only 66.2 years and literacy languishes at 76.2%. Approximately seventy percent of the population live beneath the poverty line. 

After being elected, Zelaya began to shift away from traditional Honduran politics. He raised the ire of his own party by raising the minimum wage by sixty percent. He welcomed Cuban doctors into the country to work amongst the poor majority and applied to join, and was accepted into ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. This put him beyond the pale for the oligarchy in Honduras, including in his own party. Zelaya became an obstacle to business as usual. 

The final straw came when he proposed a non-binding referendum to gauge support for a process of constitutional reform. This has been consistently and dishonestly reported as an attempt to allow himself the possibility of reelection. In Honduras, a president is restricted to a single four year term. The constitution also contains a clause barring from political office any politician who advocates   repeal of the one term limit. The referendum question actually read: “Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?” Teachers’ groups, unions, students and indigenous groups (ninety percent of Honduras’ population have some Indian ancestry) organised large rallies in support of the referendum. 

In the initial stages of organising the poll, the military accepted and cooperated with the process. In Honduras it is traditionally the military which distributes the ballot papers during elections. However only days out from the poll, due to take place on Sunday 28^th, the Supreme Court declared the referendum illegal and the army decided to withhold the voting forms. As the constitutionally appointed Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Zelaya ordered the military to comply and issue the papers. When the army chief refused, Zelaya sacked him . The Supreme Court declared the dismissal to be unconstitutional and, according to their own version of the events, ordered the army to arrest Zelaya. 

Following the arrest and banishment of Zelaya, the new administration ordered a forty eight hour curfew and cut off internet access and electricity. Congress was presented with a document which was claimed to be a letter of resignation; Zelaya has denied signing any such letter. Also arrested was Honduras’ Foreign Minister and close Zelaya ally Patricia Rodas, seized while being physically defended by the Cuban and Venezuelan Ambassadors. She has subsequently been released and will attend the ALBA meeting in Managua. 

The coup is far from secure. Soldiers are reportedly nervous and there have been many instances of their being punched and abused by women in the streets. Two battalions of the army (the 4^th and 10^th) are reported to have declared their support for Zelaya. No nation has come out in support of the coup administration. The US however has carefully avoided referring to the events as a coup, a step which would require them to withhold aid to the country, including aid to the main parties of the oligarchy. A general strike is spreading across the country and the social, indigenous and workers’ movements, while facing risk of arrest, are organising to resist the coup government. Ironically, if this coup is defeated, it is possible that Honduras will emerge from this coup with the forces of the left stronger than ever.

On Wednesday, July 1 at 7pm the Workers Party’s Christchurch branch will be hosting the local launch of our national campaign of material support for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The event will be taking place at the WEA, 59 Gloucester St.

The film “Leila Khaled: hi-jacker”, about one of the leading figures of the PFLP, will be shown and there will be a couple of short speeches about the situation in Israel/Palestine and a message from the PFLP will be read.

“This film about a Palestinian woman hijacker challenges our assumptions
about those who resort to violent means in response to oppression and gives us access to the politics of one of the most troubled regions of the twentieth century. It also complicates the current discourse on Islam and terrorism by its deliberation on the meanings of terms such as “terrorist”, interrogating and asking if one person’s terrorist could be another’s freedom fighter. Especially relevant in the context of today’s highly polarized conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine”

The new solidarity t-shirts which we have produced to raise funds for the PFLP will be on sale. All profits from the t-shirts, which will sell for $30, are going to the PFLP.

The PFLP is a secular socialist movement for the liberation of Palestine. It’s the second-largest component of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation). Unlike Fatah, the largest group in the PLO, the PFLP doesn’t receive funds from western governments to sell out the struggle; unlike the Islamist groups, it doesn’t get funding from right-wing Arab regimes to promote an Islamic republic in place of the existing state of Israel. Instead, the PFLP fights for the emancipation of the Palestinians and a society in which Jewish and Palestinian people can live on an equal basis, advancing to socialism.

We support the PFLP calls for:

1- A demand to the international community for the immediate lifting of the PFLP from the so called “terrorist list “in the EU and North America. This is an important and historical task for all progressive movements, for our resistance and it is a battle that we must win against capitalism and imperialism.

2- The immediate release from an Israeli jail of comrade Ahmad Sa’adat, General Secretary of the PFLP. Sa’adat has been held in Israeli prisons since March 14, 2006 and he was transferred to Al Majdal (Asqlan) prison where he is in solitary confinement.

In April, we reported on vote for industrial action at VT Fitzroy Devonport, Auckland. Workers were adamant that they could do better than the company’s “best offer”, and put in place an overtime ban. (They are members of  the EPMU, PSA and Amalgamated Workers Union). After just two weeks, they recieved an improved offer which was acceptable to the majority of the union membership.

Although there was no change in the pay offer of the first year of the Collective Agreement (3.3%), the second year
offer was increased to 4%. The claim for reinstatement of the historic Confined Space allowance wasn’t won this time,
but there were gains in other areas, such as enhancements to the “Working on ships not along side” allowance.

The lesson is clear: A little bit of militancy gets us a little bit extra!

The Spark June 2009
Alastair Reith

 The last time The Spark carried news from Nepal, the story was positive. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) had been elected to government with just under forty percent of the seats (more than the next two parties put together). Its leader Prachanda was Prime Minister. Previous to this, it had waged a decade long People’s War that liberated eighty percent of the countryside and radicalised the workers and peasants of the country in support of revolutionary change. Under the slogan of a new Nepal, the Maoist-led government attempted to bring about land reform, build national industry, empower and improve the lives of workers, and fight against the domination of foreign imperialism, and Indian expansionism. However, this article describes events of a much less positive nature.

Over the past months, the Maoist government has been almost completely unable to advance its revolutionary programme due to the resistance of its coalition partners. At every turn, it found its progressive efforts blocked by the non-revolutionary parties it had formed a government with.

Confrontation and conflict

One of the main areas of conflict was the question of army integration. Under the terms of the peace process the People’s Liberation Army and the Nepalese Army were to be merged. The head of the army, Army Chief of Staff General Rookmangud Katawal, refused to cooperate with this process, and continued the tradition of the army operating as a law unto itself free from civilian control. In several cases, he defied the democratically elected government. In direct violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreements, Katawal oversaw three recruitment drives to the Nepalese Army, all of which were tolerated by the courts. When the PLA carried out a similar recruitment drive in retaliation, it was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court! When the Maoist-led government refused to extend the terms of eight generals who had reached mandatory automatic retirement age, Katawal ignored the Defence Ministry’s orders and reinstated the generals. Katawal also withdrew the army from the National Games, held between branches of the security forces, because of the PLA’s participation – a move obviously designed to provoke the government.

The major struggle however is over Katawal’s opposition to the integration of “politicised” PLA fighters into the regular army. He has stated bluntly that he will not allow army integration to take place.

In April the Maoist-led government formally requested Katawal to provide “clarification” over the illegal army recruitment, the extension of the general’s terms and the boycott of the National Games, as well as his generally insubordinate attitude. He chose not to reply within the 24 hours provided to him, and two weeks later the Cabinet voted to sack him. Katawal refused to accept the letter informing him of this.

Prachanda resigns

However, despite the legitimacy of the government’s action even by capitalist legal standards, President Ram Baran Yadav used his position, which was supposed to be largely ceremonial, to override the sacking and ordered Katawal to remain in his position. President Yadav is from the opposition Nepal Congress Party, chief party of the reactionary feudalist forces in Nepal.

Outraged at this, Prachanda resigned as Prime Minister on the 4^th of May, labelling Yadav’s move a “presidential coup.” Prachanda said he “will quit the government rather than remain in power by bowing down to the foreign elements and reactionary forces”. The Maoist government was over. A new Prime Minister, Madhav Kumar Nepal, has been endorsed by a precarious coalition of almost every single party in parliament, but he has so far been unable to name a Cabinet due to internal conflict within this alliance.

What next for Nepal?

The Maoists have not taken these events lying down. They have pledged to wage struggle “in the parliament and in the streets”. Maoist Constituent Assembly members have staged protests in the parliament to prevent it from sitting since the presidential coup. There have been massive protests nation-wide, and there are reports that Maoist cadre are again taking an increasingly hostile approach to the cadre of the feudalist parties.

The presidential coup, the refusal of the military to submit to civilian control and the conniving of the reactionary parties all threaten to see the dream of a New Nepal die before it was ever truly realised. But the Maoists and the working masses remain committed to this goal, they remain committed to revolution. There are also reports that the Maoists have reactivated the parallel government, People’s Committees and People’s Courts that they operated during the war.

The Spark June 2009

Air New Zealand flight attendants working for Zeal 320 Ltd took industrial action beginning in March. After months of unsuccessful negotiations between Zeal and the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), the 240 union members employed as flight attendants decided they had had enough. The workers, most of whom are young women with no previous union experience, are employed by Zeal 320 Ltd but work for Air New Zealand. They wear the same uniforms, fly on the same aircraft and are in every respect exactly the same as flight attendants employed directly by Air New Zealand – except in their employment contracts.

Zeal 320 Ltd, a wholly Air New Zealand owned subsidiary, was set up to employ staff on the now defunct cut price Freedom Air. When Freedom Air was absorbed into its parent company, the staff were kept on their Zeal contracts, meaning that they earn thousands of dollars less every year than their co-workers employed directly by Air New Zealand. Zeal staff are employed on a lower base rate than Air New Zealand staff. They are denied many basic allowances such as dry cleaning and other clothing related compensation that people on Air New Zealand contracts receive. The allowances they do receive are generally lower than the Air New Zealand equivalents.

Initially staff took lower-level actions, defying the company’s uniform code and refusing to do some paperwork duties. Air New Zealand group general manager for short haul airlines, Bruce Parton, whinged that “… some Zeal cabin crew are resorting to childish tactics like wearing feather boas, lace gloves, pink wigs and placing stickers on their foreheads and buttocks,” and the airline suspended 13 staff for breaching the code when they refused to remove their wigs. If Parton was concerned about “childish tactics”, he should have been more careful about what he wished for. The staff decided to take strike action and the company reacted by locking the workers out.

Pickets took place in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland, where the Zeal staff are based. In each centre, staff, union and supporters turned out in force and received a very positive response from people passing by. Staff who had never been on a picket in their lives were soon taking over the megaphone and leading chants of “Z. E. A. L: What does it spell? Lockout”, “What do we want? Fair pay. When do we want it? Now!” and others which were enthusiastically joined by the other picketers. Australian unionists from the Transport Workers Union, Maritime Union of Australia, and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union also took action by blocking off a busy intersection at Air New Zealand’s Brisbane head office.

This is not the first time Air New Zealand has come under attack over its employment strategy for cabin crew. Almost exactly a year before this industrial action began it was revealed that Air New Zealand was employing and paying the Chinese staff on its Auckland/Shanghai routes on worse conditions than other New Zealand staff. In its defence the airline could only say the staff were employed in accordance with Chinese law and, in effect, that it was standard airline practice to pay Chinese workers less.

Air New Zealand is majority owned by the New Zealand government. When that bail out occurred many people on the left applauded the decision, seeing it as some sort of progressive nationalisation. Nationalisations of this sort are not progressive as the Zeal workers have since discovered. Regardless of its ownership, Air New Zealand needs to be fought all the way over their cut price staffing practices.

Workers Party activists collected around 100 signatures for Unite’s campaign for a hike in the Minimum Wage at Auckland’s Otara Flea Market today.

Many of the signers remarked how they would personally benefit from raising the rate to $15 per hour – which would result in a pay increase for some 450,000 workers in New Zealand. It was an encouraging start to the year-long campaign to get the 300,000 signatures necessary to force a referendum on the issue.

Workers Party activists in Christchurch and Wellington have also been collecting hundreds of signatures at stalls and in workplaces.

Workers Resistance conference was held over Queens Birthday Weekend in Wellington. Over 65 people attended the public conference which, for the most part, was held at the Wellington City Library. Themes included both local and international workers’ struggles.

The three-day conference started off on the Friday evening with debate between Workers Party National Secretary Daphna Whitmore and Council of Trade Unions secretary Peter Conway.

Saturday’s schedule started off with Don Franks presenting on the Unite-led campaign for a $15 minimum wage. The Workers Party then launched its campaign of solidarity with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Workers Party member Paul Hopkinson presented the background to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Mike Walker, also from the Christchurch branch, spoke of more recent developments before outlining the political and stategic position of the PFLP .

In the afternoon John Edmunson then made a presentation on the world economy and the financial crisis. He pointed to the need for a sober analysis of the state of the economy in terms of the ability of capitalism to recover from such crises. In this context, Philip Ferguson, Workers Party’s National Organiser, gave a presentation on the nature of the current National government which facilitated a broad discussion on the content of the government and the approach that needs to be taken towards it.

International speakers at the conference included Roberto Jorquera of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (Australia) and Mel Gregson of the Socialist Party Australia. Roberto addressed an audience at Wellington’s Bar Bodega where he compared the experience of the socialist movement in Chile and the counter-revolution in 1973 with the ongoing experience of social transformation under the Chavez leadership in Venezuela. Of particular interest was the following discussion around the role of the army in the revolutionary process, which was discussed in some detail. The presentation was well-received and as attended by members of the Wellington’s Latin America solidarity group.

The final day of the conference began with Mel Gregson delivering a presentation on the Australian economy . She highlighted Australia’s shrinking export market, and rising unemployment and underemployment, and pointed to the complete inadequacy of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Keynesian talk and infrastructure-based stimulus packages. It was shown that Rudd’s return to discussion around Keynesianism has been a cynical attempt to distance the Australian Labour Party from public anger. While working people are suffering the government has announced a military spend-up, with $26.6 billion being spent in 2009-2010 alone.

Philip Ferguson and Jared Phillips led the final sessions of the public conference, with Jared speaking to the topic of how we approach common arguments against socialism and Marxism, and Philip speaking to the concept of historical specificity that was developed by German Marxist Karl Korsch.

The Workers Party’s annual internal conference elected and re-elected national positions within the party to form the national steering committee. While maintaining other party-building and broad front activities, it was formally decided to give strong emphasis over the next year to the solidarity campaign with the PFLP and to help develop the broader campaigns for workers rights, including Unite’s living wage campaign.

Omar Hamed and Jared Phillips
The Spark June 2009

The National Distribution Union’s (NDU) main public response to the May 15 redundancy of 186 clothing manufacturing workers employed by Lane Walker Rudkin (LWR) has been to invite workers and supporters to hold cake stalls as a fundraising activity for the redundant workers. Of LWR’s 470 staff, 102 in Christchurch, 61 in Greytown, 19 in Pahiatua, and four in Auckland have been made redundant.

LWR is New Zealand’s oldest currently-unionised company, and has operated since 1904. In recent years the company has been managed incompetently as a result of the break up in the personal relationship of Ken and Patricia Anderson, who took over the company from a group of businessmen in 2001. The bank, Westpac, won’t even release the redundancy payments.

Some outside observers have called The NDU’s response to these redundancies “a great initiative”. A real path of resistance would have been the occupation of all LWR factories and plants and the reorganisation of the company under worker’s control. However, other interim measures, such as a serious occupation against Westpac bank to get the redundancy money (which has been withheld from the workers), or local community rallies and demonstrations at the workplaces are better alternatives to that presented by the NDU.

The NDU’s public response is not only insufficient, it is a move in the opposite direction of the approach that needs to be taken against redundancies, especially in a period where redundancies of a more structural nature are taking place as a consequence of the economic downturn.

Another aspect is that the NDU has an unwritten position of supporting the rights of New Zealand employers over the rights of foreign employers. This type of left nationalism impacts on the ability to challenge New Zealand employers such as LWR.

Without a strong history of militant fight-backs against closures in the workers movement in New Zealand, it may seem difficult in some circumstances to wage a serious fight-back against redundancies. However, that difficulty needs to be overcome, not avoided. Its relative political independence from the Labour Party and blue-collar nature of its ranks puts the NDU on the left of the general trade union movement in New Zealand. The NDU should therefore be putting its resources at the forefront for organising workers to develop a fighting strategy.

By Don Franks

In a press release on 4 June 2009 the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions deplored the Government’s removal of the minimum wage protection for workers on the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme.

“There have been significant examples of unauthorised and unfair deductions from RSE workers’ pay even under the existing regulations,” said Wagstaff. “Relaxing the minimum wage rule will only result in more blatant exploitation of already vulnerable workers as unscrupulous employers shift costs onto them.”

“Allowing employers to make deductions which will reduce pay rates below the minimum of $12.50 per hour will significantly increase exploitation of RSE workers and undermine the credibility of the scheme”, said CTU Vice-President Richard Wagstaff.

Richard Wagstaff is dead right about the exploitation, but from a workers point of view, RSE has no credibility to be undermined.

The New Zealand Labour Department says:

“The RSE scheme facilitates the temporary entry of overseas workers, mainly from the Pacific, to plant, maintain, harvest and pack crops in the horticulture and viticulture industries to meet labour shortages in order to remain competitive with the rest of the world.”

In other words, grape picking in this country is so shit paid that it can only be done by abusing desperate Third World labourers.

Workers under the RSE Work Policy may return to work in New Zealand at a future time provided they have not previously breached the conditions of their RSE work permit conditions.

The Labour Department smugly observes:

“The possibility of returning the following season will encourage workers to play by the rules”.

There’s no corresponding obligation for the employers to play by rules that disadvantage them.

Employers “may choose to pay their workers’ entire airfare”.

But the bosses’ other legal option is that:

“During the course of employment deductions may be made from workers’ wages for half of that airfare.”

Such deductions are the means by which minimum wage protection is torn away.

Overseas employees are not eligible for free New Zealand health care except under ACC. The Labour Department washes it hands of any responsibility by suggesting:

“Employers are encouraged to organise health insurance for their workers.”

Wages and conditions for workers in New Zealand horticulture have been atrocious for years. Underpayment and non payment in the industry has caused local workers to avoid the fields and orchards of this country. Even in a recession.

The International Trade Union Confederation’s 12 June 2009 report on Core Labour Standards in New Zealand comments: 

“Cases of forced labour continue to be reported in horticulture, viticulture and in prostitution. Additional government inspections are required to eliminate such core labour standards violations. Minimum wage protections need to be reinforced in respect of workers on the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme.”

The pro boss New Zealand Labour Department policies’ quoted in this article show the futility of “additional government inspections”. Until there’s some serious union organising on the sites in New Zealand horticulture the injustice to all workers will continue and most likely get worse.

The RSE scheme is nothing less than brutal racist capitalist oppression.

The Council of Trade Unions should follow up their criticism of the scheme by creating some new paid organiser positions to work among local and immigrant horticultural workers.