Bill Mitchell has been somewhat critical of my account of Australian
unions' campaign against RTZ/CRA, and highly critical of the role of the
Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the
last 10 years.
At the obvious risk of starting a debate that I do not have the time to
continue, and which may be of little interest to those in the northern
hemisphere, my response follows. I should make it clear that I am not an
employee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, nor a member of the
Australian Labor Party.
1. I don't think I have over-rated the union's victory against CRA. It
is a _tactical_ victory; not an absolute win. I think I adequately
highlighted the required short and longer terms actions required to build
on the tactical victory. There are a lot of _ifs_ and the odds are not
with trade unions.
2. Bill construes enterprise bargaining as a creation of the ACTU and the
ALP. Moreover, the ALP is characterised as the political arm of the labour
movement. Although the party was initiated with that goal, and some
starry-eyed idealists might still regard it as such, most people inside and
outside the ALP have no such illusions. The ALP is a social-democratic
party which is generally able to draw the support of the labour movement at
election times. Sometimes, as in the 1993 federal election, that support
is crucial.
3. The ALP is often influenced more by business than by the labour
movement. It is a pragmatic election-winning machine and will stuff the
labour movement around if its own policies and priorities warrant it.
4. When the ALP came to power in 1983, there was agreement between it
and the ACTU that substantial economc restructuring and workplace change
had to occur if the Australian economy was not to go quietly down the
plughole. At the time, Australia relied almost exclusively on agricultural
and mineral exports (incidentally, where my union has substantial
membership) to sustain its international trade. Almost no product or
service produced by Australians was salable on world markets. Many trade
unions were complacent about Australia's economic future, and implicitly
thought that a good standard of living could be maintained forever through
reliance on high tariff barriers and primary products exports.
5. At the same time, what is loosely called the "New Right" campaigned for
wholesale deregulation of the economy, including both financial and labour
markets. Financial markets were mostly deregulated. Labour markets became
the battleground.
6. The ACTU did not initiate enterprise bargaining. It sought to
_redirect_ what was a major push by business to deregulate labour markets.
This push was often supported by the ALP. The ACTU did not push the ALP to
introduce enterprise bargaining. It was always the position of the ACTU
and of most affiliates that substantial workplace change could occur within
the framework of the industrial awards that regulate wages and conditions
in Australia. Most awards are minimum rates awards only, and can allow for
substantial bargaining over and above it.
7. In response to determination by the ALP under pressure from business to
formally introduce enterprise bargaining into industrial law and awards,
the ACTU sought to have such agreements being only between unions and
companies rather than between individuals or non-union groups and
companies. The ALP nevertheless introduced the concept of non-union
enterprise agreements. To date union opposition to such non-union
agreements has meant that they are only about 1% of registered federal
enterprise agreements. However, there are a lot of informal individual
contracts in non-unionised industries, and the law has allowed their use in
unionised areas where the union has been weak (as in the case of CRA mines
where the Australian Workers' Union is/was dominant).
8. It was not possible for the ACTU to outright reject enterprise
bargaining, despite its mis-givings, for two reasons:
- strong unions in unionised sectors of the economy were capable
of winning wage rises under enterprise agreements and often wanted to do
so. Their members were certainly not going to undertake industrial action
against it.
- weak unions in poorly unionised sectors were not capable of
delivering effective opposition
There is no point in flatly rejecting what your constituents/membership are
not prepared to go to the wall to stop. It makes you look stupid and
marginal.
9. There is a degree of hypocrisy in those who criticize the ACTU and the
labour movement for moving away from centralised wage-fixing and towards
enterprise bargaining because it leaves behind the un-unionised and
marginal groups. When centralised wage-fixing was very much the thing, eg.
in 1983-85, it was criticized by many of the same people for restricting
the power of unionists to wage class war against business in the workplace.
Back then, centralised wage fixing was the enemy of the working class and
an example of corporatism. Now, suddenly, it's the bastion of
institutional protection of the weak.
10. Bill claims that enterprise bargaining has caused losses to women,
migrants, etc. Actual statistical analysis of enterprise agreements by the
ACTU's Labour Information Network has not shown this. Where marginal
groups are losing out is in the informal agreements/contracts in the poorly
unionised service industries. This a result of structural change in the
economy and the admitted failure of unions to follow where the new jobs are
being created. The ACTU is now trying to direct substantial resources to
unions working in those sectors. Whilst this is a good idea, and may be
accused of being "too little, too late", there is the obvious problem of
convincing members in strong unions that some of their dues should be spent
recruiting members in other industries, and possibly for other unions,
rather than in direct organising and services back to the dues-payer.
In a final and somewhat lighter vein, I note that Bill Mitchell accuses the
ACTU of being full of people in Italian suits with university degrees.
Those of you who have ever seen pictures of the leadership of the ACTU and
major unions would be well aware that their fashion sense is rather
undeveloped. Suits that fit well rather than simply do the job are few and
far between amongst the men. And I don't think that any of the women
amongst the 35% or so of the ACTU Executive that are female has ever been
nominated on the "best-dressed" lists in Australian fashion magaines. I
have two suits (neither made in Europe) and two university degrees. But
then I'm not a union leader. Perhaps Bill Mitchell would prefer that all
people with degrees worked in academia or for business but I am afraid the
world is a little less black and white than that.
Peter Colley
National Industrial / Research Officer
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union
(Mining & Energy Division)
Sydney, Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
