Tuesday, 9 October 2012

Ports of Auckland signs agreement with scab union PortPro




It has been announced that the Ports of Auckland management have signed a collective agreement with the scab union PortPro that was established by 30 strikebreaking stevedores.

This is a setback for the Maritime Union, which has been trying to negotiate a new collective agreement since August of 2011. Even the National Business Review is questioning whether the move by the Port of Auckland is legal or not, as it is surely aimed at undermining MUNZ's position:

Bell Gully employment lawyer Liz Coats says the port's move could be seen as undermining the Maritime Union's bargaining position, which is illegal under the Employment Relations Act.

"If Maritime Union members decide they want to join PortPro, that undermines the leverage that the Maritime Union has in its collective bargaining because it doesn't have as much pressure on the port any more.

"The port is not going to be as desperate to accept whatever terms the Maritime Union is putting on the table because it's got a workforce that is not striking."

The scab contract is similar to one at the Port of Tauranga and will give the Port of Auckland ‘level footing’ to compete. In other words a casualised workforce with no guaranteed hours. 


This is how it is described by a Ports of Auckland press release:

The flexible shift and roster system in the deal is similar to what has been in place successfully at Port of Tauranga for over 20 years. If we can get a deal like this across all the port we will be able to compete with Tauranga on level footing.

If the Port of Auckland succeed in defeating MUNZ, there is no doubt safety will be put at risk. At the Port of Tauranga, which is held up as a bastion of profitability and efficiency, there are multiple labour companies supplying workers on short notice. There have been three deaths in the past few years, while there have been no deaths at the Ports of Auckland, a MUNZ stronghold. 


With workers are twice as likely to die on the job in NZ compared with Australia, it is clear a stronger union movement leads to fewer deaths on the job :

The number of people harmed at work each year in New Zealand would fill Eden Park four times, a national discussion paper to be released today will reveal.

It is roughly twice as dangerous to work in New Zealand as in Australia and almost four times as dangerous as working in Britain, and that is not counting people injured while driving in connection with work.

Not only will you earn on average 30% more in Australia but you are much less likely to die at work– this is what a stronger trade union movement means in real terms. We should take a lesson from Queensland construction workers who recently won a nine week long strike.

Needless Tragedies: Deaths at Port of Tauranga since December 2010

Walter Crosa 49 – father
15 Aug 2011
“It was believed Mr Crosa was working for a contractor at the port doing some roading works at the time of the accident. The Department of Labour is investigating and the matter has been referred to the coroner, he said. The Allied Workforce employee was working for another contracted company when the accident happened. It is the third fatality at the port within the past 15 months.”
Brian Shannon 61
June 2011
“In June this year, two Bay companies were fined a total of $55,000 after a forklift ran over and killed stevedore Brian Kevin Shannon, 61, of Otumoetai at the port on June 2010. Mr. Shannon worked for Independent Stevedoring Limited (ISL) loading and unloading cargo from ships. ISL and on wharf logistics company C3 Limited, whose employee was driving the forklift, were both fined over the death after pleading guilty to charges in court.”
Chinese seaman 35 (not named)
December 17th 2010
“A 35year old Chinese seaman died after falling from the side of the logging ship Green Hope and into the water in Tauranga Harbour. Attempts to resuscitate him after he was pulled from the water by workmates were unsuccessful.”
There was also a death at the port in 2003.There have been no deaths at the Port of Auckland during this period. 
[Source: MUNZ/CTU fact sheet]
-----
Will MUNZ strike back?

MUNZ engaged in effective strike action at the end of last year and beginning of this year that brought the bosses back to the negotiating table. However they have also pursued a legal strategy that meant they called off action before signing a collective agreement. This now seems like a mistake. The courts did postpone redundancies but the management have hit back by harassing and humiliating union members on site with new security systems etc and the deal with the scab union is the next step to undermining MUNZ members.
While the strikes were on MUNZ in Auckland received solidarity from wharfies all over the world. Most significantly however were the actions taken by union wharfies in Wellington and Sydney ports who refused to unload ships that were loaded by scab labour at Auckland. A further reason why  the workers movement should rely on its own power instead of the courts is that they forced MUNZ wharfies in Wellington to unload scab ships:
“Bosses at Wellington's Centreport applied for an injunction from the Employment Court after a small number of staff on Friday and Saturday refused to work on a ship that had recently arrived from Auckland.”
As it stands at the moment MUNZ is continuing with court mediated bargaining and has organised a rally today in Tamaki Drive, Auckland, to build support for their cause. The MUNZ website explains that:
Mr Parsloe says MUNZ has worked very hard to settle an agreement that provides further flexibility to ensure the Port continues to be successful for the people of Auckland.
“We believe it is possible to do this and have a fair collective agreement that provides security for our members, unlike the Port of Tauranga that POAL continues to hold up as the model.”
However, as far as I can see, all out strike action or the threat of it can achieve a better deal for Aucklands union wharfies – not simple lobbying and relying on the courts. If MUNZ takes strike action socialists should strive for the maximum solidarity to help the wharfies sustain their action until a new contract is signed.
The Port management colluding with the scab union PortPro is a strategy to divide the workforce and introduce a Tauranga style contract, which will just lead to speed ups, less job security, and worst of all more injuries and deaths at the Port.

The MUNZ workers have the power to shut down the Ports of Auckland and if they use their power by taking all out strike action along with solidarity from other sites they could be able to force the Auckland City Council to sack the current anti-worker management team and get a good contract. A victory for MUNZ in which a contact with good terms and conditions are kept should not be passed on to the scab union.


Derwin Smith

Monday, 8 October 2012

Auckland bus drivers’ spirit prevails over dead hand of union officialdom



Three weeks ago this blog had a post titled ‘Rebellion of the Rank and File’. 

At a mass meeting Auckland bus drivers working for NZ Bus Ltd had thrown out a pay deal recommended to them by the First Union and the Tramways Union, and the drivers were set to strike on Monday, September 24, and every Monday thereafter. 

Every socialist and trade unionist should be aware of what happened next and of the full story of the bus drivers’ dispute so far, for it shows precisely what is wrong with the union movement at the moment and where hope lies.

At the last minute, without consulting the membership, union officials called the strikes off and tried to foist the same basic deal on the bus drivers they had already rejected three weeks ago. The deal was put to a second vote, a secret ballot this time, which closed on Friday, October 5. The result was another rejection, confounding the unholy alliance of bus company and union officials. 

It is not yet known what action the two unions will take now. But the story of this dispute is still unfolding.

The story begins with 900 bus workers seeking a new collective agreement with NZ Bus Ltd to run from July 2012. The bus drivers are currently paid $18.75 an hour; and they only get paid for 8 hours of a 14-hour day when on a split shift; they get time and a quarter for working on a rostered day off. The drivers want a substantial pay increase, and no wonder. 

NZ Bus is owned by the multi-national giant Infratil. Infratil can afford to pay up. Its profits rose by 6% to $127 million in the year to April and the company increased its dividend payout by 18%. This company feeds off what were once publicly owned services and utilities.

On August 23, the drivers began industrial action with a work-to-rule. On September 4, the Auckland Tramways Union and First Union announced the drivers would step up their action by  striking every Monday for nine weeks, starting on September 17. Tramways Union president Gary Froggatt said the dispute was over the drivers’ claim for the company to start paying $20 an hour sooner. During bargaining, the unions asked that the $20 rate should start from July 2013, but NZ Bus would only agree to pay $20 an hour from April 2014 (the mandate given by the drivers to their officials was not limited to $20 an hour but was for an unspecified increase to a living wage.)

An Auckland bus strike would give huge power to the drivers’ bargaining position. It would cause considerable disruption. Alternative arrangements would have to be made for children to get to school. People would be late for work. It was time to call in Helen Kelly, of the Council of Trade Unions, to save capitalism from this awful prospect!

On September 12, before the first Monday strike was due, NZ Bus and Helen Kelly put out a joint press release to announce a proposed settlement that would be recommended by the unions to a ratification meeting of drivers on September 17. 

A press release put out later by NZ Bus is enlightening. It says that after the deal was reached “The union executive even shouted the company a beer after signing the terms of settlement to celebrate reaching agreement.” 

For union officials to be celebrating with the employers in advance of the ratification meeting is scandalous. It shows complete contempt for rank-and-file members.

The ratification meeting on Monday, September 17, rejected the joint union recommendation and voted to implement the Monday strikes. The deal was voted down 352 to 265 according to NZ Bus, admittedly an unreliable source. The deal included an increase in the rate for working on rostered days off to time and a-half (again according to NZ Bus, therefore a health warning on this information applies). The reason the drivers rejected the proposal was the delay to the $20-an-hour rate until December 2013. 

The vote by the rank and file was a slap in the face to the union officials and the CTU. 3 News reported the NZ Bus CEO saying “The president of the Council of Trade Unions had done a great job, and also spoke at that meeting in support of our offer, so … I'm at a loss." 

This episode demonstrates just how far paid union officials can be out of touch with the ordinary union member. Of course, none of these union worthies would be struggling on $18.75 an hour themselves. Union leaders worth their salt would not recommend a lousy deal, but would be fully behind action for a living wage.

What followed the rank-and-file rebellion was nothing but a conspiracy by the union bureaucrats and bus company to clamp down on the drivers’ independent spirit. With the first Monday strike looming for September 24 the union officials did another deal with NZ Bus, called off the strike and put out a joint press release with the company. The excuse for calling the action off was an improvement in the pay offer so paltry as to be almost insignificant. Instead of $20 an hour from December 2013, the rate would commence from November 2013.

The worst of it though seems to have been that the officials agreed to change the ratification process at the employers’ behest. Ominously, the press release quoted the bus company spokesman saying “We are delighted that agreement has been reached and changes to the ratification process agreed.”

Unlike with the previous proposal, there wasn’t a mass meeting to discuss the barely revised deal. Instead a secret ballot was organised depot by depot. This change in the ratification process meant, of course, that there would not be a forum for any alternative viewpoint being voiced by ordinary members to the membership as a whole, and that the unity and confidence generated by a mass meeting would not occur. The arrangements were designed for voting in isolation in order to get the new version of the agreement through.

According to First Union the ballot result was 51% to 49% to reject on a high turnout. 

It shows the drivers' determination that despite the demoralising antics of the union officials, the second deal was thrown out. 

We have to wait and see whether the unions will re-instate the Monday strikes threat. There can be no doubt a great majority of drivers would abide by a strike call even though nearly half voted for the settlement. 

The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) stands in a political tradition that recognises that paid union officialdom is separated from the daily experiences of ordinary members and that the upper reaches are paid a lot more too. This union bureaucracy plays a role politically linked to, if only informally, the Labour Party leadership. This role is to act as mediator between workers and employers; to act within the capitalist system, not against it. Compromise is the bureaucracy’s watchword. As the bus drivers’ dispute shows, the mediation role can lead to being in cahoots with the employers against union members taking action. 

The ISO believes in independent, workplace-based union organisation in which representatives are elected and part of the rank and file. In practical terms that would mean in the case of the NZ Bus dispute that elected drivers themselves would conduct negotiations with the company. 

Our union movement has some serious weaknesses. There is low union membership, especially in the private sector. Only a small fraction of workers are covered by a collective agreement. There is a huge unmet need for union organisation to tackle low pay, poor conditions and bully-boy management. Only a fighting union movement can inspire workers to flock into the unions. The Auckland bus drivers are showing the spirit that can take the movement forward. The dead hand of paid union officialdom is part of the problem.

Martin Gregory

Saturday, 6 October 2012

Syria's Revolution: Bloodied but Unbowed




With the regime of Bashar Assad desperately trying to cling to power, the death toll has risen to 30,000 fighters since Syria's revolution began. Simon Assaf argues for Socialist Review (UK) that the revolution remains popular, non-sectarian and led by Syrians themselves, despite the claims of some commentators

It is a bitter war that has engulfed Syria - one that has transformed the Arab world's most popular revolution into a struggle that can only end in the defeat of Bashar Assad's regime, or the death of the revolution, and with it any hope of change. At the heart of this revolution is the demand for an end to one-party rule, arbitrary detentions, repression, corruption and poverty. The revolution was born in the poor villages and spread to the vast working class areas of all the major cities. It has been marked by huge popular demonstrations, and the emergence of a national grassroots movement organised around Local Coordinating Committees (LCCs) and other similar bodies.

The revolution is united in the call for national unity. Its most popular slogan remains: "The Syrian people are one". It is anti-sectarian, cuts across all ethnic and religious groups, and has been driven forward by the masses of workers, students and agricultural labourers who, inspired by the Arab Spring, are demanding social justice. This is a popular revolution, its motor were the thousands of small and large protests that erupted most nights and after every Friday prayers. It carries with it an aspiration of change after 40 years of rule by the Assad clan.

Bloody repression

However, unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, the regime of Bashar Assad was incapable of delivering even the mildest of reforms, and to the consternation of its allies, met every upsurge in popular anger with bloody repression. Assad gambled from the beginning that sheer brutality would be enough to dowse the rebellion. The few reforms he did offer were met with incredulity, designed as a sop to his supporters rather than to address any of the demands rising from the streets.

As the repression grew more intense, sections of the army mutinied and turned its weapons to the defence of the popular movement. In the face of such withering repression an armed uprising became the only option for many people. Growing numbers of revolutionaries joined the defectors to form brigades known collectively as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). There are now over 100,000 fighters engaged in daily battles with regime forces.

As the armed uprising spread, regime forces became trapped in their bases. Unable to seize back rebel areas, the regime resorted to a strategy of "massacre" - indiscriminate artillery barrages, tank rounds, warplanes, cluster bombs and the crude "TNT barrel bombs" dropped from helicopters. Alongside these are the sudden sweeps of working class neighbourhoods that leave hundreds dead (often killed in their shelters). The recent massacre of between 800 and 1,000 people in the Damascus suburb of Daraya has been the bloodiest single incident of the revolution, but it is being repeated daily on a smaller scale in dozens of cities and towns.

Tallied next to the daily lists of the dead are the names of large numbers of factory workers, farmers, students and urban poor, testifying to the class nature of the rebellion. In one incident regime forces massacred 150 in a raid on their factory, in another 15 sugar workers were killed. Such incidents are all too common. The regime has reduced large parts of Syria to ruins, destroying factories, hospitals, markets, homes, shops and infrastructure such as water supplies and electricity in its war against the people. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees, both internally displaced and those who crossed the borders. Vast parts of Syrian cities are now deserted battlegrounds.

Over the past few months fighting has spread across hundreds of fronts in all major cities, towns and villages, pushing the death toll close to 30,000. Early in the uprising many feared the loss of life would be greater than the 800 killed in the 25 January Egyptian Revolution. Some thought it could reach as high as 5,000, few expected it to reach such a dramatic total, and many are now saying that even this figure - compiled by the LCCs - is an underestimate. Over the past few months the weekly toll of officially recorded deaths is over 800, the majority of them civilians and rebels.

July offensive

The power of the FSA has been growing steadily since January 2012, but took a dramatic turn in July when thousands of fighters took the battle to the capital's Damascus, and Aleppo, Syria's largest city and its commercial centre. The first wave of fighters that flooded into Aleppo came from the countryside, known as Reef Haleb, but students and workers soon swelled their ranks. Since then a citizen army has emerged, often formed around groups of defected soldiers and officers. Despite being outgunned, they withstood the first regime counter-offensive on the city, and have been gradually extending their control over its neighbourhoods. The tenacity and success of the rebel army in Aleppo have confounded all expectations.
The battle for Aleppo has exposed the limits of the regime's power. Short of reliable troops, and mistrustful of the conscripts, it has resorted to pressganging young men into service. Regime forces have retreated to a series of heavily defended compounds, and used indiscriminate airpower and artillery to pound rebel neighbourhoods. A similar pattern is developing elsewhere. One rebel commander estimates that the revolution now controls 80 percent of the country, but is held in check by concentrations of well-armed regime troops.

Damascus has been less fortunate. Assad's forces quickly pushed out the lightly armed rebels, and he has been taking his revenge on the capital's rebellious working class districts. Hundreds of shops have been burnt, homes bulldozed and any sign of resistance met with overwhelming force. No one has been spared, including the Palestinian camp of Yarmouk, which is being punished for giving shelter to Syrian refugees and fighters.

This war is taking its toll on the country, and has left many people, including revolutionaries, in despair. Amid the chaos and horror the heart of the revolution remains intact, but it is facing mounting challenges, not just for its survival but also for what will emerge out of the ruins of war.

There is a glimpse of a future Syria away from the front lines. In liberated areas forms of civilian control are taking root. Many of the LCCs that sprang up in the early days of the revolution have morphed into civilian authorities, in some places successfully putting local administration under popular control. These local councils are coalescing into a national network with the backing of the main rebel brigades. The formation of the councils is a sign of the deepening of the revolution, even under the most difficult circumstances. But this popular control has to confront huge problems created by the scale of destruction, growing shortages and lack of funds.

Independence of the revolution

The often confusing picture that is emerging on the ground testifies to the perseverance and difficulties the revolution faces, but also to the fact that it is forced to take the regime apart piece by piece. The slow progress of the uprising belies the fact that the revolution has strong backers in the West and among some Arab regimes. The greatest myth about the Syrian revolution is that it is being armed and trained, and effectively working in the interests of the Western powers and its Arab allies. If this is so, then the rebels are ill served by their masters.

In one of her many reports from inside Syria Time magazine journalist Rania Abouzeid attempted to track the trail of weapons coming in from the northern border with Turkey. She writes, "What is remarkable is that this substantial strip of free Syria has been patched together in the past 18 months by military defectors, students, tradesmen, farmers and pharmacists who have not only withstood the Syrian army's withering fire but in some instances repelled it using a hodgepodge of limited, light weaponry. The feat is even more amazing when one considers the disarray among the outside powers supplying arms to the loosely allied band of rebels."

She reports that far from a coordinated strategy to arm the revolution the efforts by outside powers have been shambolic. There is little evidence of a substantial amount of weapons coming in from Turkey (apart from the black market), less from across the Jordanian border, while old stock (much of it useless) is coming from Iraqi cities such as Fallujah and Samara. Clearly very few weapons are coming in, and certainly not Western arms. There are no signs in Syria, for example, of the wire-guided anti-tank missiles that appeared near the end of the Libyan uprising. Most of the rebel weapons are crude field guns and homemade rockets, a few captured tanks, some mortars and limited anti-aircraft weapons. All of these have been seized in raids, or brought over by defectors.

A common complaint is that rebels have more volunteers than weapons. Many go into battle hoping to pick up a discarded rifle; others make near-suicidal raids on regime checkpoints to seize guns and ammunition. Rudimentary networks of weapons workshops have sprung up, but these are no match for the stockpiles of sophisticated weapons available to the regime - designed to withstand a two-year war with Israel - or the regular shipments of arms from Iran and Russia.

Attempts to set up client militias have also been met with limited success. The Telegraph newspaper reported that the Saudis spent a small fortune on one brigade consisting of only 50 men. Qatar's efforts have also been limited. Both the foreign-sponsored brigades as well as the foreign Salafi fighters represent a fraction of the rebel army. The FSA brigades have reacted with deep mistrust to any offers by outside powers to buy their loyalty, and have refused to accept the "conditions" on receiving arms even when supplies were desperately short. Loyalty to the independence of the revolution has been a dominant feature of the uprising and continues to remain a strong part of it.

Similarly, attempts by Western powers, the US in particular, to find "friendly forces" have come to little. The West has lost faith in Riad al-Asaad, the self-appointed head of the FSA that was until recently based in Turkey. Instead the West is to groom a new military hierarchy drawn from more recent high-ranking defectors.

The much-heralded launch of the Western-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), which aims to put all rebel battalions under central control, has also had limited success. Key brigades have refused to recognise the SNA command, remaining loyal to the defectors's civilian councils that emerged in the early days of the armed uprising.

Sectarian civil war?

The scale and ferocity of the uprising, and the growing dependence of the regime on the minority Alawi community have fed fears that Syria is now in the grip of a sectarian civil war. This danger must not be underestimated and remains a deep concern for many of the revolutionaries. But if this was a sectarian war it would have been over by now, as the Sunni Muslims represent 70 percent of the population.
Both the revolution and the regime draw their support from across the many religious and ethnic communities. The vast majority of Kurds support the revolution in its social objectives, but also have faith in the revolution to end the decades of discrimination. Among the Christians and the Druze the picture is more complex. The regime has played on their fear that Syria will become a Salafi-controlled state, yet neither community has been the target of the revolutionaries, and these communities are deeply divided between regime supporters and those who support the revolution. The regime still retains the loyalty of large numbers of Sunni Muslims, especially from among the middle classes and the wealthy elite.
Bashar Assad and many leading members of the regime are drawn from among the Alawi minority. Alawi towns and villages are recruiting grounds for the notorious Shabiha militia responsible for waves of massacres, and have been targeted by acts of revenge by rebels. But the situation among the Alawis is deeply contradictory. There is deep bitterness inside the community towards the Assad clan, its corruption and monopolies. Some Alawi villages and neighbourhoods have openly sided with the revolution, and many are fighting alongside other minorities in the rebel brigades. Many fear they will pay for the massacres committed by the Shabiha, and the regime has stoked fears of revenge. This has made the Alawis fearful of the revolution, and trapped into supporting the regime. However, the Syrian Revolution is not a sectarian civil war, but a popular uprising. Its demands and aims remain unchanged since its first day, and sectarianism has never been a part of it.

Arab revolutions

Western efforts to shape the outcome and direction of the revolution face another challenge. Egypt's new president Mohamed Morsi has been attempting to form a coalition of major regional powers that rejects direct Western involvement in Syria. Morsi has allied with Turkey to invite Saudi Arabia and Iran to form a group dedicated to solving the "Syrian question". Morsi is offering Iran full diplomatic relations if it withdraws its support from Assad. His efforts have not yielded any results, but they point to the rising influence of an Egypt that no longer represents US interests in the region. Morsi's diplomatic moves point to the deepening problems faced by the West since the advent of the Arab Spring, and Syria remains an important part of this revolutionary wave.

Since its outbreak the revolution has faced many dangers: the scale of the repression and bloodletting, the fear of sectarianism, the meddling of Western powers and the collapse of the country. Yet this revolution has proved to be remarkably resilient and has maintained its independence. The revolution is far from over, but it is facing many dark days, and as winter approaches so will the problems mount.


[This article, by Simon Assaf, first appeared in Socialist Review UK. For useful updates on politics in the Middle East from a revolutionary socialist perspective follow @SWAssaf  on Twitter]