Reith is right
Comment by John Tomlinson
Peter Reith, the leader of government business in the House of Representatives, is correct when he says there is an alternative to a unionised work force in Australia. He is on more dangerous ground with his claim that a non-unionised work force will make Australia more productive and internationally competitive.
Reith's attacks on the union movement, through his support for the Dubai fiasco, his championing of Patrick Stevedores' connivance with the National Farmers Federation at Webb Dock, his offensive against what he calls "restrictive work practices", his weakening of the arbitration commission's power to intervene in industrial disputes, his watering down of unfair dismissal legislation, and his promotion of individual employment contracts, are part of the standard right-wing economic agenda.
Reith has been propagating this view of a "brave new world" of the workplace for a long time. However, if belief in the power of the fundamentalist economic dogma to achieve efficiency, competitiveness and productivity was all that was required to reach such ends, Australia would have arrived at such a nirvana years ago.
The problem is that the economic fundamentalists' prescriptions for productivity may not, in the longer term, achieve an increase in production. Even if their prescriptions were fully implemented, the costs — increased social dislocation and unrest — may outweigh the "efficiency gains".
A highly unionised work force led by a resourceful and determined union, such as the Maritime Union of Australia, has fought long and hard for, and won, workplace arrangements which benefit workers, such as improved health and safety. The current push for longer shifts will result in more workplace deaths. The increase in contract employment has already resulted in more deaths in the building and construction industry.
The decreasing percentage of the work force which is unionised is due, in part, to the destruction of many of the old factory jobs, combined with the shift to more dispersed service industry jobs. Some unions have not kept pace with these changes and are perceived by many potential members as of little relevance.
As well, the patriarchal elite in several unions have not understood the need to include women in the leadership. Another reason some unions have lost members is that they were forced to amalgamate into "super unions" under Labor. Consequently, "craft union" identity has been lost.
But these reasons do not fully explain the decline in union membership. The other factor is the ruthless determination of federal and state Coalition governments, in association with some of Australia's most wealthy individuals, to crush unionism and with it the organised workers' movement.
To date, this alliance has not beaten the union movement or its members into submission. But even if the movement is intimidated into inactivity, this would not be a victory for the very rich or their apologists in government.
While there may be some immediate financial gains for some employers, in the longer term, if workers don't receive anything like a fair return on their labour, their buying power will decline. This will result in lower domestic demand and consequently increased unemployment.
Those without work will be more easily conscripted to undertake more hazardous employment for even lower wages. In order to ensure workers have no alternative, unemployment benefits will need to be decreased or even abolished.
Once workers have lost the protection of a social wage and no longer have unions on which to rely for protection against the worst excesses of capitalism, they will protect their interest by other means.
Some workers will knuckle under, others will rebel. Those bosses who place unbearable demands on their work force will be carried out of their workplaces on stretchers. Gun-thug efficiency will replace the lengthy "inefficient" debates on union councils. Reith is right — there is an alternative to the present.