An insider's view of the Maritime Union
Until July 1998, BOB CARNEGIE was a branch organiser with the South Queensland branch of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). He was also a longtime member and former Queensland president of the Maritime Union Socialist Activities Association (MUSAA), and an inspector for the International Transport Federation. Bob is well known on the Brisbane left for his union activism and his support for progressive struggles. He spent 22 days in prison during the SEQEB dispute in 1985. Carnegie was interviewed for Green Left Weekly by JIM McILROY, secretary of the Brisbane branch of the Democratic Socialist Party.
Question: The MUA has been under consistent attack from Labor and Liberal governments since the early 1990s. When did you begin to have doubts about the MUA leadership's response to this offensive?
The doubts started when I was taken off an enterprise bargaining committee in early 1996. The company wanted me off the committee because I had played a fairly significant role in industrial disputation on the ships. I was concerned when the union started pulling off its organisers because the company objected to them.
Secondly, in August 1996 I was the only MUA official in Australia who spoke out against the BHP Trans-Tasman Agreement which opened the trans-Tasman trade to "flag of convenience" shipping [ships which are registered in another country, usually a Third World tax haven, and which employ non-union crew from Third World countries on substandard wages and working conditions]. It was obvious it would impact very heavily on the Australian and New Zealand seafarers' unions because the wage levels of flag of convenience seafarers were about 80% less than on Australian and New Zealand vessels.
The MUA leadership decided to agree with BHP, allowing nine of its flag of convenience ships operate in the Tasman. This then opened it up to flag of convenience shipping everywhere and has resulted in enormous job losses.
Question: What is your assessment of the Patrick struggle?
There were four main reasons why the union survived the dispute, and I believe that the survival of the union can be looked upon as a victory.
First, of the 2100 permanent and casual workers of Patrick, no-one scabbed.
Secondly, there was enormous public and community support.
Thirdly, there was the international solidarity action of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. They held up the Columbus Canada for some 17 days in Los Angeles, the third largest container port in the world. The Columbus Canada's scab cargo had to come back to Australia to be unloaded because of their action.
That was critical to the whole dispute because the shippers started to get very nervous about being able to supply their clients on time.
The fourth reason, union leadership, was not as important.
Question: What is your analysis of the settlement of the Patrick dispute?
The union was in a difficult position, and it needed to survive intact. But 500-700 jobs were lost out of a work force of 1400 permanents. Another 400-500 jobs have been lost from P&O as a direct result of the Patrick settlement.
The settlement couldn't be looked upon as a victory because of the massive job redundancies. Defeat was taken from the jaws of victory. The dispute should have been widened to embrace the entire Australian trade union movement.
Question: Alternative candidates and tickets in the recent MUA elections were accused of being "Trotskyites" by MUA incumbent officials and MUSAA members. What is the explanation for this?
I think the problem is that Stalinism is still alive and kicking in the MUA hierarchy. That was the role that MUSAA played. The intonation of many of MUSAA's articles on the election was "How dare anyone actually stand against the incumbents — anyone standing for a position must be a 'Trotskyite'". I believe that MUSAA is going to pay an enormous price for its unfounded, irrelevant and ridiculous attacks on people.
MUSAA's role in the election was sad but not surprising. I was a foundation member of MUSAA in the early 1980s. It was supposed to ferment socialist ideas in the maritime industry. We never formed MUSAA for it to become an adjunct of the trade union officialdom, although that's obviously what it has become.
The role of the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) was criticised at several stop-work meetings, and it was claimed that the DSP was "interfering" in the MUA elections. The DSP was doing what any decent working-class organisation should do. It gave a voice to those who didn't have one. And Green Left Weekly has given a voice to workers who have a different opinion to the incumbent leadership.
The invective that they've [the MUA leadership] heaped upon people during this election has been extraordinary. For example, a couple of good seafaring comrades invited me to the Pineapple Hotel for a couple of beers. I met them a couple of times, and that became known as the "Pineapple Hotel conspiracy" around the east coast.
Because they can't attack the person on areas of principle, they try to destroy the person's confidence and credibility. Comrades who stood on a rank and file ticket deserve plaudits for putting across a campaign that was based on principles and not personalities.
Question: What is your analysis of the election result?
The union leadership had the resources of a $20 million bureaucracy to call on during the elections. For example, the incumbent leadership produces the Maritime Workers' Journal, which doesn't carry any articles that dissent from the union leadership.
In a small union like the MUA, for incumbent officials to lose over 40% of the vote to a relatively new, fairly disorganised rank and file ticket, shows a high level of dissatisfaction in the union. I think the rank and file ticket polled much better than was expected.
Question: What sort of issues will face those members of the rank and file ticket who did win?
It's important that those rank and filers who won are supported. I'd hate to see them feel as isolated and alone as I did when I was an official of the union. If they are not supported, they will be absorbed into the hierarchy.
You have to develop democratic structures to stop bureaucratisation occurring and that's fundamental. It's not much use throwing out right-wing incumbents and replacing them with left-wing incumbents in the same structures or in the end they too will become right-wing incumbents.
Question: The MUA and MUSAA have a long tradition of supporting struggles for the environment, against war, and in solidarity with struggles against US imperialism. How do you square this record with the retreats on industrial issues?
One of the great things that both the Waterside Workers' Federation and the Seamen's Union of Australia did was to support those who had very little. This developed a great sense of pride within the two unions.
But when the union continually retreats on industrial issues, it is no longer able to lend solidarity to other struggles in a meaningful way. Continuing industrial retreat is fundamentally a weakening of the union in the sphere of working-class internationalism .
Question: How can we build a new militant left in the unions?
By trying to develop a style of unionism that is participatory, democratic, inclusive and based on socialist objectives — truly socialist objectives and not Labor Party objectives, objectives that workers can rally around. We need a union movement that genuinely wants to go out and fight for the rights of working people. We don't have that in Australia at the present time.
From my experience over the last 20 years, the union movement has lost its way, particularly since the days of the Accord. It has become much more bureaucratic and is much more aloof from rank and file workers.
Unions have to decentralise and empower rank and file workers. Unless that's done, there won't be many changes, and the declining path of trade union membership will continue.
The union movement is all about human dignity and self-respect and believing in working people. The French revolutionary Sebastien Faure wrote, "I am aware of the fact that it is not always possible to do what one should do. But I know that there are things that on no account can one ever do."
There is a section of the MUA hierarchy that should realise that once you cross certain boundaries of human decency, redemption is not to be found in either the collected works of Stalin or Machiavelli.