Garry Preston
The Australian trade union movement and workers' rights are under attack in a way unseen in this country before. But one only needs to look across the Tasman to see what can happen to workers' rights and conditions under a right-wing government. The rhetoric of PM John Howard's government is eerily similar to that of the National government in New Zealand back in 1990.
I was an organiser for the New Zealand Building Trades Union (NZBTU) at the time the Employment Contract Act (ECA) became law on May 15, 1991. In the building industry, the tradespeople had a national award, and the labourers' union had a very similar award that included time-and-a-half and double-time, boot and clothing allowance, meal money, travelling time and most things Australian workers still enjoy today. We had a redundancy agreement with most of the major builders, and in Auckland a dollar-for-dollar superannuation system was in place.
For almost 100 years, New Zealand had an industrial relations (conciliation and arbitration) act in place that ensured industrial awards in every industry. But the ECA abolished all national and regional awards and agreements, or if the award expired before then, and the employers refused to renew it, it died when the act came into force. The act abolished NZ's traditional 40-hour week (eight-hour day, five-day week, Monday to Friday) and it prohibited employers or workers' organisations from entering into any contract that made union membership a condition of employment.
By political decree, New Zealand unions had been deregistered and made into incorporated societies. Under the ECA, a union was not entitled to function on behalf of its members on any matter between an employer and an employee, except where the employee nominated the union as his or her bargaining agent.
The only legislative protection NZ workers had was: three weeks' annual holiday; 11 statutory holidays; a minimum wage rate for adults of NZ$6.12 per hour (which at the time was half the minimum rate previously laid down by construction industry awards and agreements); five days' special leave (sick pay, bereavement leave) per year, which was non cumulative; and parental leave without pay.
The ECA was a victory for employers who wanted individual contracts.
Lack of unity
The NZ union movement made some mistakes, largely through its lack of unity. There had been amalgamation talks between the various construction unions, with the intention of forming one building and construction and building materials union. The NZBTU held talks with the labourers union, the NZ Workers Union, the NZ Timber Workers Union and the furniture union. But the talks failed, and eventually the lack of unity allowed for the bosses to drive down wages in the construction industry. (Later on, however, the workers and labourers did amalgamate.)
No-one was aware of just how concerted the attack from big business and its agents — the National government — would be. The Nationals took an unsuspecting electorate by surprise. During the election campaign they had vowed to uphold "freedom" by introducing voluntary unionism. They pamphleted every letter box in the country informing workers that they would have a real "choice" in who would negotiate their contract, and that the bosses would not be able to slash wages.
But you could see things were going to get a lot harder.
The 1990/91 award round had started, but the union assessors stopped the negotiations because of differences over the hours of work clause. It was not "business as usual" when the rules were about to be changed. We should have settled with a soft award because it would have maintained conditions in the industry well after the ECA became law.
After the negotiations broke down, my branch went out to sign up every member so that we could act as their bargaining agent, but after getting two-thirds signed up things got harder. Hardline employers were sending around leading hands to tell workers that they could negotiate directly, and save the worker a few hundred dollars in union fees.
Disappointment
There was great disappointment among 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of the union movement when the NZ Council of Trade Unions did not call a nationwide stoppage the day the act became law. But on May 15, 1991, building workers in all the main centres went on strike for three days. Some employers were fast to act. The ECA had become law at the time of a major downturn in the building industry. Workers were presented with individual contracts that included large pay cuts, and told that if they signed they would go onto the next contract.
Soon afterwards, a wool mill in the South Otago town of Milton locked workers out when they tried to negotiate a new union contract. After the workers had been on the bricks for a number of weeks, the bosses began to call around to workers' homes at night to get them to sign individual contracts with large pay cuts. With mortgages and bills to pay, some workers began to sign.
The unionists maintained the picket line for more than seven-and-a-half years — the longest industrial dispute in New Zealand's history. It was only resolved by a cash settlement to unionists after the Labour/Alliance government came to power.
With the old award expired and no new award in place, building workers had very little protection. Workers with mortgages and families faced with the prospect of losing their jobs would sign without thinking about the long-term prospects for wages and conditions without a union.
In almost every case, although the base hourly rate went up, workers would come out with a loss of overtime rates and most allowances, and their take-home pay was up to $100 a week less.
Union poaching
The ECA also allowed for union membership to be contested. With falling membership, some unions began to poach from others.
After months of being undercut by non-union employers, my branch secretary entered into negotiations with the Otago Southland Master Builders and our national secretary with Downer and Company to get a 3.5% increase in productivity added to the hourly rate. In exchange, double time was given away, along with hours of work.
Because of the drawn-out nature of these negotiations, and the fact that more and more companies had forced workers into non-union agreements, I came to accept that we had to give up some conditions to save others. The Otago Southland Master Builders would not negotiate with the labourers union, which it considered too militant. There was a construction worker clause added to the agreement that enabled labourers to become part of the BTU deal. The labourers union clearly saw this as poaching.
A group calling itself the Construction Workers Action Committee issued a memo stating that a war had been started in the building industry. In the middle of this inter-union battle, the hierarchy of the NZBTU decided to lay off most of its organisers, including myself.
Some branches were left with just a secretary, many of whom had forgotten how to organise. Without ongoing organiser visits, the membership began to walk.
The first major building contract after the ECA was the NZ$800 million Auckland Casino. Fourteen unions turned up to contest union membership. While the inter-union negotiations over coverage were going on, the main contractor cut the union out and put its work force on labour-only contracts.
In the late 1990s I visited an old friend, a hard-nosed fighter for workers' rights, the then-secretary of the NZBTU's Auckland branch. At its peck, the Auckland branch had almost 5000 members but now it had just 150 financial members.
Cutting the union out of the building industry meant that the industrial accident and death rates had become one of the highest in the Western world, and workers were working longer hours and getting paid less than they had 10 years earlier.
AWAs = wage cut
New Zealand unions did their best under trying conditions and the Australian union movement must learn from our mistakes.
Where an EBA can be settled before the Liberals introduce the new anti-union laws, all the better. If you are presented with an individual contract after the law changes, you should still contact your union. Even if officials cannot get into your workplace, make sure you meet with them somewhere else. They are the only ones that have your wages and conditions at heart.
Long-term individual contracts, no matter how good they look, mean losses in wages and conditions. Just a few extra words or dot-point changes can mean cuts to wages and conditions. In the short term you may get onto the next contract, but 10 years down the track you will still have your mortgage and be working for less money. Be aware of loud-mouth leading hands and company delegates who say they can save you your union fees by negotiating directly with your employer. In New Zealand this equalled a wage cut.
Australian building workers will not be faced with contestability; the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) is the one major union in the industry and workers and officials need to ensure they remain united.
Finally, a message to union executives: Organisers must be kept on the road; they are the ones who do the hard yards. If the membership don't see the union officials, they walk.
Unity is strength.
[Garry Preston was an organiser with the New Zealand Building Trades Union. He is now a site delegate in the NSW CFMEU. This is based on a talk he gave to a 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly public meeting in Sydney on July 12.]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, July 27, 2005.
Visit the