Comment by Ray Fulcher and Roberto Jorquera
MELBOURNE — Victorian Trades Hall Council industrial officer, Brian Boyd, has distributed a discussion paper with the avowed intention of promoting a "healthy, open and fear-free discussion" within the union movement to establish a "credible path forward". Most of the ranks of the union movement have not yet seen this document, but some 100 officials and the Age's industrial reporter obtained copies early in January.
Boyd implies that an open discussion is being held back by some of the union leadership. "What often happens in crisis situations is that incumbents directly compare loyalty to themselves personally with loyalty to the union movement as a whole. Such a framework disallows frank, useful exchange with patronage winning out over rationality."
Th anti-Kennett campaign cannot move ahead without such an open discussion, he argues. But while Boyd begins to identify the source of the problem, his "clear directions for 1993" are disappointing.
Boyd begins by quoting Bill Kelty's characterisation of Kennett's industrial relations strategy as the "greatest threat to the trade union movement in 100 years". Workers are watching to see if the union movement can provide a strong lead, says Boyd, and there is the immediate risk that the "atmosphere of fear" developing in many public and private sector workplaces will be translated into paralysis.
"The response to the mass demonstration and statewide strike of November 10, 1992 was overwhelming. The ongoing co-ordinated industrial campaign quickly created a political environment that allowed the federal ALP/Keating government to rush through amendments to the federal Industrial Relations Act which will make it easier for unions to apply to convert state awards into federal awards", Boyd writes.
But then the campaign seemed to lose its way. "... once this welcome initiative became public the scheduled industrial activities aimed at building ongoing resistance to Kennett's IR plans was interfered with.
"In particular the November 30 National Day of Action and the 24-hour power strike of December 9 was undermined."
This undermining consisted of "playing down" the November 30 action and calling off of the power strike by union leaderships.
Boyd argues that the calling of a truce over the "natural lull" period of late December-January, in order to "test the government's willingness to negotiate" was a good idea. But with the public knowledge that some ACTU officers had played down the National Day of Action and had a "direct hand" in calling off the December 9 power strike, this gambit failed.
Recent polling shows Kennett recovering from his low level of popularity at the height of the trade union defence campaign, and Boyd says that it "can be argued that a virtual dropping-off of campaigning will have many people believing Kennett has 'toughed it out' and the implementation of his policies are inevitable and not challengeable". If the campaign continues to waver, it will become harder and harder to mobilise workers against Kennett.
Boyd acknowledges that at the core of the problem is the pressure from the ALP and leading ACTU officials for the campaign to be subordinated to Keating's re-election.
But he refuses draw the logical conclusion and support the urgent need for the campaign to be independent of the ALP. Instead he sees the task as "establishing the fine balance, that is calculating how much weight to place on the obvious need to secure a Keating election victory, when planning and conducting the trade union defence campaign".
Most of Boyd's proposals for reviving the campaign are quite vague. But at least one is quite specific: to promote "without qualification the re-election of the ALP federal government" by electioneering in key Victorian seats.
The problem is that re-election of the Keating government is the avowed reason for restraining Victorian unions from the campaign of mass action and industrial action that could actually defeat Kennett.
This is only logical. Keating and the ALP, after all, are seeking to prove that they can accomplish the goals of big business without the confrontationist tactics favoured by the Liberals. Subordination of the anti-Kennett campaign to ALP election strategy has all but scuttled a campaign with huge potential; to continue on that course would be suicidal for the union movement.
To get the campaign back on track, it must be disconnected from Keating's conservative re-election campaign. It should organise a program of united industrial action combined with mass mobilisations which will make powerful connections with the broader community.
Regular all-union delegates meetings should be held, and a
campaign committee should be elected from these meetings and from the community campaigns instead of being bureaucratically appointed by top union officials. This committee could keep the ranks and the broader community accurately informed (not constantly misled by changing rumours from Trades Hall, as is presently the case) and propose strategies.
We cannot afford to have a strategy based on doubtful promises to respond to further attacks by Kennett on individual workplaces and government sectors. We need to go on the offensive around the demands to repeal the anti-union legislation, end the budget cuts and stop the job shedding.
This does not mean that we should be indifferent to the outcome of the federal elections. It is in our interest to keep the Coalition out. But if we try to do this by supporting Keating's pro-big business campaign, workers and the broader community will lose regardless of the outcome of the election.
A strong, independent fight against Kennett can help to defeat Hewson and is more likely to make it harder for a returned Keating government to press ahead with its own anti-worker policies, such as "enterprise bargaining".
[Ray Fulcher is a Public Sector Union delegate, and Roberto Jorquera is a Health Services Union delegate.]