National protests reflect workers' will to fight

November 17, 1993
Issue 

Sue Bolton

Joan Doyle, Victorian Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union postal division secretary, described the national June 28 protest against Work Choices as "sensational". It showed that, "three months after the laws have been implemented, people are still willing to turn out in large numbers to protest".

Estimates of the total numbers vary from 200,000 to 300,000. But, as Doyle told Green Left Weekly, despite less union effort this time compared to last November's national protest, June 28 was a substantial mobilisation. In many regional centres the rallies were roughly the same size as last year.

Predictably, federal workplace relations minister Kevin Andrews and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief Peter Hendy, who had threatened workers with legal action and fines for attending, labelled the rallies "a dud". But as Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Victorian secretary Martin Kingham said, "Like the last national protest, [June 28] was an unauthorised stoppage where individuals could face $6500 fines, and the payment of damages for lost production, as well as the union facing big fines".

There was a high degree of intimidation, Kingham told GLW. "The ABCC [Australian Building and Construction Commission] also visited sites to remind employers that they had to report unlawful industrial action or face fines themselves. But, despite these threats and high unemployment in the construction industry, we had a good turnout from the construction industry."

There is no doubt that the turnout was hampered by some union officials talking down the action. For example, an organiser for the Community and Public Sector Union in Victoria told members in the lead-up to June 28 that because they had a three-year enterprise bargaining agreement, they didn't need to worry about Work Choices because ALP Premier Steve Bracks would look after them. But as a union member who was at this meeting told GLW, "State public servants aren't islands. We have partners, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, parents and friends who will be affected by this legislation. And Steve Bracks has a terrible record on looking after workers."

Some unions with this attitude encouraged members to take recreation leave or flexi-time to attend the rally. Alternatively, they negotiated with the boss to allow a delegation to attend the protests. But where this happened, such as in the Holden plant in Adelaide, or the eastern and inner-city Sydney schools, more workers wanted to attend than the boss would allow, which led to tension in the workplace between those who went and those who stayed behind to work.

The credibility of the Western Australian and the ACT trades and labour councils, which refused to participate in the national protest, took a dive. Despite Unions WA's decision not to organise a rally, 12,000-15,000 people responded to the call of four blue-collar unions to demonstrate, with contingents from all unions except the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union attending.

In the Canberra-Queanbeyan region, there were four separate protests, despite Unions ACT refusing to take part. Unions ACT probably took its cue from Unions NSW, which dragged its feet on joining the day of action, only declaring its support in May for the action, which was called by the ACTU in March.

Some unions and labour councils have been dragging their feet because they regard rallies — and particularly industrial action — as an impediment to getting the Labor Party elected at the next federal election. They don't believe in, or want to, exert political pressure against the rotten laws by building up extra-parliamentary action. This meant that at many of the protests, the platforms had a disproportionate electioneering flavour.

Kingham said the Victorian Trades Hall Council wanted to feature the union campaign at the rally's four starting points, making the convergence point an opportunity to force the Labor Party leaders to commit themselves to abolishing AWAs and other bad industrial relations laws. However, the line-up of federal Labor leaders Kim Beazley, Bracks and ACTU president Sharan Burrow, who all referred to the campaign against Work Choices as an "election issue", left many workers feeling frustrated. As a worker who heckled Beazley at the 35,000-strong May Day protest in Brisbane put it: "The Labor Party should be supporting the union movement, not using it."

Many are suspicious about whether an ALP government will restore all of the rights that Howard has stripped away, especially as it took Beazley 18 months to commit to abolishing AWAs. After the 2004 federal election, the ALP bowed to pressure from mining giant Rio Tinto and abandoned its pre-election promise to abolish AWAs. It was the union campaign, and public outrage at the succession of AWAs removing basic award conditions that have forced Beazley's hand.

Kingham said that between now and November the key is to build up the union-community networks so that there are big numbers on the community pickets, like during the 1998 wharfies' dispute. "The more we do that, the more the laws become ineffective."

Doyle agreed, but emphasised the need for action in the campaign against Work Choices to ensure it doesn't wind down. Victorian AMWU printing division secretary Jim Reid supports the ACTU's call for another rally in November. He agrees with the proposal for a national stoppage, but admits that a lot of work would have to be done to win that call. "The general view of our members is that there needs to be a national 48-hour stoppage", he told GLW. "The problem is that there's such a diversity of opinion on the ACTU executive." The only way of forcing the ACTU to agree to a strike is if "the Victorian unions adopt that position and convince other state labour councils to also". Reid also called for "a more concerted effort to support members who are being victimised by bosses". If the employers are aggressive, he said, then the unions need to be aggressive in response.

Geelong Trades Hall secretary Tim Gooden warned that the political campaign against Work Choices will die if it's channelled into a re-elect Labor campaign. He agrees on building up the community-union protests and pickets, but said more is needed. "You won't have a winning strategy with big rallies every six months and nothing going on in between."

He said that there needed to be protests dogging Howard and his ministers, like the one the Geelong unions organised when the ABCC held an information session for employers in early June.

"There's enough anger out there for unions to challenge the legislation in a more direct way through industrial action. If the union movement decided to pick a couple of blues by not abiding by the new law's severe restrictions on industrial action, and there was community support as well as support from other unions, we could force them to withdraw Work Choices."

From Green Left Weekly, July 5, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.


You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.