By Vivienne Porzsolt and Peter Chiltern
The New Zealand government's assault on the trade union movement is falling well short of its main aim, says Alan Millar, a leading NZ public sector unionist who visited Australia recently.
When the right-wing government of Prime Minister Jim Bolger introduced the Employment Contracts Act in May 1991, it declared that it wanted to make unions irrelevant. It is already clear that it has failed to achieve this, Millar told Green Left Weekly.
Supporters of the new act reasoned that it would sideline the unions by denying them legal recognition and dismantling most of the legal framework in which industrial relations had been conducted for decades.
The act certainly had a dramatic effect, including the collapse of one of the country's biggest unions, the clerical workers, within 12 months. Several other unions also crashed, and others were forced into hasty amalgamations. Some of these amalgamations could themselves collapse because of the poor state of some of the organisations going into them.
The act caused such chaos by knocking out the main props of the old day-to-day union functioning:
- It abolished legally sanctioned industrial awards, substituting a common law contract system with only a rudimentary set of minimum standards.
- It removed all legal recognition of trade unions. Unions may still exist as voluntary associations, but the loss of their former legal status makes it more likely that damages suits arising from industrial action could succeed.
- It abolished the arbitration system and ended any state role in supervising agreements between workers and employers.
- It banned strikes during the term of employment contracts. Strikes are permitted only during contract negotiations. "Political" strikes, or strikes on any issue other than a contract negotiation, are illegal, as are strikes involving more than one employer.
It's not surprising that some unions went under. What the government and its supporters didn't expect, however, is that some unions not only survived but grew stronger.
Just as importantly, public attitudes towards unions changed dramatically. Opinion polls are showing a rise in the popularity time in 50 years.
The unions that adapted best to the new situation are signing up new members. This is partly due to the survivors taking in members from those that have gone under, but Alan Millar says it's also due to workers being forced to rethink their attitudes towards unionism. "They are aware as never before of the need for a union, because without them there is no-one to defend their interests. It's a matter of fight or surrender."
The unions that collapsed fell into certain categories, says Millar. "They were the ones that were most dependent on the old legal framework. The clerks, for example, were an occupational union spread across a large number of industries. They just couldn't organise contracts; they didn't have the cash flow or the capability."
Unions that were too small also went down quickly, though a couple of precisely directed "boutique" unions, such as the wharfies and the seamen, survived mainly thanks to strong traditions and their strategic positions in the economy.
Organisations dependent on compulsory unionism deals with employers were hit hard or collapsed completely, as did those whose organisers spent most of their time on the telephone or in the arbitration courts and didn't get out into the workplaces.
The unions that survived, and even flourished, in the new situation were those with a higher level of membership involvement and activity, with active delegates and more democratic methods of functioning, and which didn't rely excessively on the legal system. Millar's PSA claims to represent 85% of the public service work force, without any or preference-to-unionists or closed shop agreements.
Under the new act, workers in contract negotiations may select a bargaining agent. Each worker wishing to be represented by an agent must sign a statement saying so. Forced to make a choice, large numbers of workers are choosing to be represented by unions. In the early stages, many shady individuals set up as agents, and there were instances of them charging as much as $250 per hour for their dubious services.
The only lower limits on contract negotiations, set out in a "minimum code", consist of:
- a minimum hourly rate for workers 20 years of age or older;
- three weeks' annual leave;
- statutory public holidays;
- a grievance clause.
There is no minimum wage for workers younger than 20, no hours and no penalty rates or health and safety provisions. The concept of duress does not apply to a worker forced to sign a bad contract.
Even in these circumstances, some unions have established contracts close to the old award conditions. Much to the government's dismay, the engineering union, which covers the metal industry, put together a multi-employer agreement similar to the old award over most of the industry.
The government was confident there would be no multi-employer contracts, but it reckoned without the need of some employers for similar standards across their industry to regulate competition.
Paradoxically, says Millar, the New Zealand union movement is probably healthier for the experience, "not that we would advocate the changes that have gone on". The unions that have emerged are closer to their ranks. The officials are more dedicated: "there's no room for time servers". Any official who wasn't highly motivated has gone.
"We're better than we were before, and they certainly haven't made us irrelevant. All the indications are that the reverse is starting to happen: we're not only surviving, we're getting stronger, and that's in a period of recession."
As for the PSA, the experience under Bolger has led it to make some long-term decisions: "We will never go back to state-imposed arbitration, we're not going to allow any government to interfere with us again, and we're certainly not going to allow any outside body to interfere with our rules and how we do our business".
There were positive things about the old system, "but we paid a price for it, and perhaps the biggest price was that we allowed the perception to grow that there were three forces in industrial relations: the employers, the workers and the unions. What we know now, more strongly than ever, is that the union is the workers, and a lot more workers know that now as well."