BY SAM WAINWRIGHT
PERTH — In the June Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) election, two of the three positions in the Western Australian branch were won by the Rank and File ticket, which called for a return to democratic and militant unionism. Fremantle wharfie Ian Jamieson is the group's convenor in Western Australia. 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly spoke to him about the challenges for militants in the MUA and the state of Australian unionism.
A life-long socialist and member of the Socialist Alliance, Jamieson's union activism began in Melbourne in the 1970s. By the early 1980s, he was working at the BHP steelworks in Wollongong and was a Federated Ironworkers Association delegate.
From 1984 to 1999, Jamieson was a miner on Tasmania's west coast. For much of that time, he was secretary of the Rosebery branch of the Australian Workers Union, secretary of the Rosebery Combined Union Council and president of the Tasmanian Mining Industry Union Council. In an isolated mining community of 2000 people, the union assumed a central role in community life and he rounded out his responsibilities by serving on the local council.
The 1998 dispute with Patrick Stevedores profoundly shaped the MUA. While Patrick failed to smash the union, MUA leaders agreed to a settlement that massively increased casualisation. Similar agreements flowed through to the other stevedoring companies. Jamieson believes the election results show that MUA members are not happy with this:
"In many ways it was a revolt by the neglected and forgotten in the union, the casuals. It's also a smack in the face for the Coalition government which thought it now had a tame-cat union.
"Employers are also worried. They can no longer expect to go unchallenged despite the massive profits they've made through restructuring in the last few years. It's a tremendous start to returning the union to the membership. We can now start to rely on our collective strength, democratic decision making and the strong traditions of solidarity."
Soon after the June election, a rank-and-file team won control of the postal and telecommunications division of the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union in Victoria. Taken with the militancy of the Victorian branch of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Western Australian and Victorian branches of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, does this mean a return of the "old fashioned" unionism that employers, the media and many union officials claim is no longer relevant?
"The MUA vote can also be seen as a significant break from 'business' or 'service' unionism", Jamieson commented. "It's still small and the process is uneven but there are many who are proudly putting their hand up to have a go." Jamieson calls this current "class struggle" unionism. He explained what he means:
"Most union leaders accept bosses' ideology about how the work force has to be more flexible, productive and internationally competitive. They believe in a fantasy world where bosses and workers can live in harmony — but workers make all the concessions. During recent negotiations at P&O, some MUA officials said that we had to be more 'flexible' so P&O could remain competitive against Patrick. This leads to a race to the bottom.
"Class struggle unionism means fighting for better wages and conditions, no matter how much the bosses and media scream about irresponsible unions. It means educating members to show that Australia is a wealthy country that can easily afford better lives for working people.
"It means workers and unions sticking up for each other, no matter if they're down the street or on the other side of the world. It means educating members to realise that the only real way to achieve workplace harmony is workplace democracy, that means a society where working people make the decisions not the millionaires and multinationals who currently run the show."
Jamieson blames the accords between the Labor government and the ACTU in the 1980s and 1990s for eroding some of the best traditions of the Australian union movement.
"The unions, before this, were by no means perfect, but the Accord swept nearly every union before it. With a few valiant exceptions, every union accepted that the Labor government would give working people better services if the unions swore not to use their industrial muscle. While the unions kept their side of the bargain, the government did not. The union officials and a generation of workers forgot how to organise a struggle."
Underpinning the Accord was the idea that unions had a responsibility to look out for the profits of big business, in the hope that more crumbs might fall off the table. But while profits grew, the crumbs got smaller. Jamieson says that this ideology spread like cancer into every nook and cranny of the union movement, severely weakening it.
While many workers would undoubtedly like to see the return of fighting unionism, the Coalition government is keen to squash unions. Many union officials say that the anti-union laws the Coalition has brought in mean that their hands are tied, and unionists must wait until a future Labor government repeals them. But while conceding anti-union laws make life harder, Jamieson criticises officials who hide behind them as a reason for not leading the fight.
"It is no excuse to lamely bleat that there is little we can do. With will, unity and careful preparation Howard can be beaten. There have always been anti-union laws — and some have been harsher than PM John Howard's laws, and whatever else he has up his sleeve. Historically, most of these laws have been smashed by decisive action and solidarity, not by relying on a Labor government. Anyone who believes that [Labor leader] Simon Crean, even if he gets in, is going to do the right thing by us is dreaming. Labor will only do the right thing if we put pressure on it."
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, July 30, 2003.
Visit the