The Christmas roast turkey had barely enough time to be digested before the Sydney Morning Herald launched a broadside against wharfies and the Maritime Union of Australia, hoping to isolate them from other workers and thus ease the way for the government's planned attack. 
In a two-part series on January 5 and 6, the Herald argued the case for waterfront "reform", gave extensive quotes from managers of Patrick and P&O Ports — the two main stevedoring companies — and outlined how the maritime unions were smashed in New Zealand.
The editorial in the January 5 Herald claimed that the waterfront "is one of the most glaring examples of workplace inefficiency in Australia.
"Overtime payments to waterside workers have risen startlingly ... This growth of an 'overtime culture' has been made possible under enterprise agreements", the Herald editors declared.
The editorial tried to separate wharfies from other workers by arguing, "While many workers in comparable industries consider $50,000 to $55,000 a reasonable salary, the MUA wants a guarantee of at least $70,000".
The Herald also claimed, "Waterside workers operate at a level of efficiency 40 per cent below world's best practice, shifting an average of about 18 containers an hour compared with 30 at overseas ports."
Not to be outdone, the Weekend Australian of January 10-11 ran the headline "Dock war fears over extortion accusations" and extensively quoted workplace relations minister Peter Reith accusing wharfies of extortion and possibly criminal behaviour — allegations without any evidence, but designed to tarnish all maritime workers.
It is not surprising that the big business newspapers support the big stevedoring companies and ship owners. This is the same role the media played in England, assisting Thatcher's attacks on the dockers there.
Nicholas Finney, director of the British National Association of Port Employers, who led the campaign to casualise the work force and eliminate the unions, explained the role of the media, at a function of the far-right H.R. Nicholls Society in 1990.
"We had a Times columnist write headlines like 'legalised extortion racket', 'block those dock rip-offs' ... these headlines were all designed to make it easier for the dockers to be isolated ... at the end of the campaign it [the media] was beginning to become an overwhelming pressure group influence on the government."
The claims of the Sydney Morning Herald are distortions and outright lies.
The newspaper blames the maritime union for a "culture of overtime" on the waterfront. Yet the need for overtime arose because of the large-scale sackings which occurred under the Labor government, through the Waterfront Industry Reform Authority.
Between 1989 and 1992, 4900 wharfies lost their jobs, a massive 57% of the work force.
The remaining workers have had to work harder and longer in order to do the work, because the workload has not decreased. The blame for excessive overtime lies clearly with the employers and the government of the time, for sacking so many workers.
The same processes are occurring in many industries. Bosses make more profit by sacking workers and forcing the remainder to work longer hours.
Another key element of the anti-wharfies propaganda is that maritime workers are an overpaid elite. The papers have claimed that maritime workers earn up to $110,000.
Normally only managers or foremen earn anything like $110,000. Many dock workers do earn $70,000 to $80,000. But these are not unreasonable wages when all factors are considered.
Much of the wage comes from overtime because of the shortage of workers. Working a 60 hour week — almost two jobs — at any time of the day, for $70,000, is not an overpayment.
The award rate of pay for a stevedoring employee grade 1 is $436 per week. A grade 6 gets $635.50.
Waterside workers also get a series of allowances for the nature of the work they perform, making an industry by industry comparison misleading. According to the stevedoring award, workers get a disability allowance to compensate for dirty and obnoxious work, dangerous work and working in the rain, wind and cold.
Profits of the stevedoring companies are rarely if ever mentioned. The difference in wages between waterside workers and other workers is insignificant compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars of profits corporations make. But headlines like "Stevedoring companies make millions: government urged to smash greedy employers" are never seen.
It is also untrue that the waterfront is inefficient and unproductive. "Greater productivity" is usually code for more profits and more exploitation. It really means sacking workers, making others work faster and more intensely, casualising the work force and introducing machinery to replace workers. Bosses win, workers lose.
When containers are counted in twenty-foot equivalent units or TEUs, to equalise the different size of containers, the average for Australia's main ports shoots up to 23.3 per hour.
International comparisons are difficult because of factors like economies of scale: productivity will be higher at ports handling large volumes of cargo. Other site specific factors can also distort comparisons.
In the bulk stevedoring sector, particularly coal and wheat, which handles 60% of exports, Australia is amongst the most "efficient" in the world.
"Productivity" or profit rates should not be the key variable, but workers' wages, conditions and quality of life. Workers do, after all, make up about 80% of the population in Australia.
Until now the MUA has been able to stave off attacks through its links with the International Transport Federation, as the successes in the Cairns dispute in September and the more recent Dubai scab-training affair have shown.
The government and employers, however, will continue the attacks. The next may be the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's report into hold cleaning, eliminating overtime rates in the next round of enterprise bargaining and attempting to find an employer who will hire non-union workers.
Their aim is to lower wages, casualise the waterfront and wipe out the MUA. Any success the employers have here will encourage them to try the same thing in other industries.