Life after Patrick: back to the 'hungry mile'?
GRANT HOLDEN is a job delegate at P&O Ports, West Swanson Dock, in Melbourne. He was interviewed by SUSAN PRICE for the February 5 Friday Breakfast Show on Melbourne community radio 3CR. The interview has been edited by Green Left Weekly.
Question: What's life like for wharfies following the Patrick dispute?
The current atmosphere is that people are frightened, not just of losing their lifestyles, but their and their children's jobs, and also our democratic rights — everything that was fought for by my father and by people's grandfathers. I think the majority of wharfies fear we're going to shrivel into insignificance.
Question: We've heard about P&O Ports' moves to take a leaf out of Patrick's book of waterfront rationalisation. What is being proposed for Melbourne?
I think they want to reduce the permanent work force from approximately 303 to 221. There's money floating around as a bribe for people to give up their jobs. If more than these jobs go, P&O says they will be replaced and levels kept at the prescribed number, but the result will be an increase in casual labour, plus longer working hours, less pay and less job security.
Question: These changes were put to P&O workers around the country in the form of an in-principle agreement with the MUA. What has the response been?
At the moment, the rank and file is split down the middle. It's a genuine split about whether we should go along the path the [union] executive — and P&O — is taking us. Take the last meeting in Melbourne: there was a disputed vote and no count was actually taken, which was a serious mistake. Even people who voted for the in-principle agreement can see that it has been rammed down our throats.
Question: What kind of workplace culture is now being fostered on the waterfront?
It's a competitive culture; we're competing for jobs. We have around 73 casuals whom the company would like to work one day a week.
The majority of casuals are genuine workers who hope eventually to get a secure job. But they're all hand-picked by the employer. Also, we have people who are running their own businesses yet come and work down on the wharves.
We also have some part-time bouncers. They'll come from a city nightclub, where they've been pursuing the honourable trade of bouncing the patrons, and then work on the day shift!
The result is that no-one knows who to trust. And although we experienced unionists — and the executive of the union too — tell these workers never to go into the employer on their own, they do, because they see that as the only way to curry favour. Then it just snowballs: people have been in serious accidents, and they'll go in and talk to the employer on their own, and then they realise they haven't got a leg to stand on.
It's becoming the norm. If you go into the boss with a union official or a job delegate, it'll be a black mark against you and you may not be picked to work.
Question: Is the risk of not being picked for a shift real?
Yes, and not just for casuals. This in-principle agreement states that overtime will be at management discretion. Fair enough, but it also says that it's at their direction. If that becomes part of specific site agreements, then as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, the employer will say that they pick who does overtime and who does the good jobs and who the dirty ones.
Question: How do you see the discontent amongst the rank and file being expressed in the forthcoming MUA elections?
Most members I've spoken to are frustrated. So, for the first time, we're going to try and openly debate all the issues. A number of us have decided — and it's national, not just in Western Australia — that we have to broaden the debate. It's not just directed against the union executive; we want to help them as well.
I think it's a malaise that a lot of unions are in, where officials keep coming down to meetings twice a year and talking about the "big picture" and frightening the ranks into submission. I think that is a trap we can all fall into.
Question: Looking at the "big picture", haven't workers delivered productivity increases on the wharves over the years?
When the waterfront reforms took place in 1992, there was disillusionment and disappointment that a lot of conditions and jobs went without one day's work being lost, but to the rank and file's credit, everyone decided that we have to reform the industry, get our rates up and have "world's best practice", whatever that means. Now we've achieved it, and it seems that whatever conditions we still have left are going to disappear.
Question: What impact have the waterfront "reforms" had on workers' financial and family commitments?
We've got members with mortgages and debts, some of whom are in over their heads. If they get a wage reduction of the size being proposed, they won't be able to pay their bills.
Then there are others who do what they think to be a reasonable amount of overtime, have got a nice house, nice car and their kids in school. What they fear is that they'll be spending more time at work struggling to make ends meet.
There's a famous movie called The Hungry Mile, and I think that's going to come back to haunt us as we spend more time at work, on irregular shifts and not seeing our families.
Question: I've been informed that the WA MUA Rank-and-File Bulletin will now be going national. Do you think workers in Melbourne will welcome this kind of debate through such a journal?
Very much so, as long as everyone is up front, there are no unsigned letters and everyone knows who's involved. This is going to be a new dimension in the lifestyle and the activities of the MUA.
As one official said at the last stop-work meeting, there's trepidation in his heart every time he has to come down to Melbourne and tell the work force that they have to accept a change in their lifestyle. Well, now the rank and file are telling the elected officials that they too will have to accept a change in lifestyle!