[Dave Keirns gave this talk to the ISO Dunedin branch earlier in
the month, and before yesterday’s injunction was reported.]
There is an industrial dispute at the Auckland Port between
Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) and the port workers, who load and unload ships,
represented by the Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ).
The person speaking on behalf of the company is CEO Tony
Gibson, who has held management positions in several overseas shipping
companies, spent three years as the managing director of Maersk NZ (an
international, Danish based container shipping operator, which was recently
fined $31 million for overcharging) and has been POAL CEO for eleven months. He
receives $750,000 per year.
The person speaking on behalf of the workers is MUNZ
National President Gary Parsloe, who earns $66,000 per year. The base rate for
a wharfie is $57,000.
This article will cover three aspects - A report on events
to date and a comparison with the 1951 waterfront lockout.
A discussion of the stance taken by political actors (the
Auckland Citiy Council, Act and National, the Maori Party and united Future,
Labour, the Greens, Mana and the Alliance) and by the union movement, including
the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union
(RMTU) and rank and file union members (from a quick survey of attitudes at
Hillside engineering workshop).
Strike Action on the
wharf
Workers at POAL are employed through a collective agreement,
negotiated on their behalf by MUNZ. Their collective agreement expired on
September 30, 2011, so a few weeks prior to that, on September 6, MUNZ and POAL
began negotiations to renew the collective.
Because of the 24/7 nature of the port, and the uncertainty
of shipping schedules, there is a lot of flexibility already built into the
collective agreement. It allows for up to 25% of the workforce to be casual
employees (current level is 20%). They are not guaranteed any work, are
employed shift-by-shift and their only job security is that if they are called
in they are guaranteed 8 hours minimum.
The contract allows for 27% of the workforces to be employed
as “P24s” - permanent workers who are guaranteed at least 24 hours per week (3
x 8 hour shifts).
The remaining 53% of the workforce are full-time permanent
employees, entitled to 40 hours per week over 7 days. They are able to
stipulate one preferred day off per week, otherwise they must work any day, at
any time of day.
The ability of the company to employ a mix of full-time,
part-time and casual staff means they can easily meet the requirements of
shipping schedules.
The 2010/2011 annual report and 2011 annual review of the
Port notes that container and bull cargo volumes increased despite the
depressed economic circumstances and that all time best crane rates were
achieved that year, up 4.1% on the previous quarter.
Interconnect, a Port magazine for customers said staff hours
per container had decreased 16% since 2007.
A Ministry of Tranport investigation into container rate
productivity of New Zealand ports rated Auckland as comparable or better than
other international ports. Of the 6 main container ports in NZ, Auckland,
Tauranga and Otago were rated as the best operations.
An existing bone of contention was that during the term of
the last agreement, management contracted out driving of four container
shuttles, despite the job being covered by the union members' collective
agreement.
This was followed by a “consultation period”, which I have
come to know through the process at my workplace as “listen and ignore”. It
ticks the box for engaging in consultation but it's not real. It is entered
into with a predetermined result.
Disagreement led to the union's first strike notice. This
strike was not carried out, as the parties went into mediation in January. The
union agreed to more roster flexibility including changes to the overtime
roster, greater use of part-timers and other concessions.
Management said at the time these concessions addressed
their major concerns but shortly after, didn't want to settle the agreement and
came back with a list of demands that were a “final offer”.
They included the complete removal of restrictions on the
balance of permanent, casual and part-time workers (ie all employees will be
casual); the minimum guaranteed shift to be 3 hours not 8 hours; and random
drug testing and bag and body searches (which raises human rights and equality
issues – e.g. will Gibson be strip-searched for cocaine?).
Something hardened in the POAL attitude here. There stance
changed from being a predictable arsehole to a position that required the union
either to submit completely or to adopt a confrontational attitude.
After some partial strikes, the union called an all-out
three week strike on February 24. After a week and a-half, the company declared
all union workers were “redundant” and there would be no more negotiation with
MUNZ.
1951
In the 1951 Waterfront Lockout, the National government and
shipping companies were able to manufacture a dispute over pay by offering a
lower pay increase to wharfies than was given to most other workers at the
time. Overtime was essential to the operation of the ports because then, as
now, the companies consistently refused to employ enough workers to allow the
work to be carried out in a 40 hour week.
When the Waterfront Workers Unions withdrew overtime, the
employers locked them out.
Emergency regulations were passed. The military ran the
wharves, censorship was introduced and police powers increased. It was made an
offence to assist the strikers. The government was prepared to starve families
and children. Wharfies had no income, no food and no help. Like now, the Labour
Party leadership (under Walter Nash) was silent. When some Labour M.P.s did
move, it was too late because they were banned from publicly supporting the
union by the emergency regulations.
Whether more repressive regulations are introduced by the
Key National Government is yet to be seen.
They may not have to because they have set the scene
already, through employment law. For business owners to attack workers.
The Key government has introduced further restrictions on
union access to the Clark Labour government's already restrictive employment
law and plans to reduce workers' access to justice by reducing the status of
the employment court.
Furthermore, the Auckland “Supercity” laws mean the the
owners of POAL, the people of Auckland, need not be consulted if privatisation
were planned.
It would be interesting to look at accident statistics
before and after the 1951 lockout.
Who is saying what?
The Auckland City Council, led by “left” Mayor Len Brown has
not come out in support of workers. The council had, in fact, before the
dispute demanded a doubled return from POAL of 12%. There have been some honourable exceptions, like the left-wing councillor Cathy Casey. Councillor Richard Northey's motion backing the wharfies was voted down.
The Labour Party is scarcely to be seen. David Shearer has
kept his distance. Labour relations representative Darien Fenton (a fierce
opponent of reinstating the pre-1991 right to strike) has been on the picket
lines though. Labour has said National's planned employment law changes have
emboldened bosses to attack wages and conditions.
National, not surprisingly, have denied having an
anti-worker agenda.
Act and the Maori Party have not been involved, but are
effectively lackeys of Key.
The Greens have criticised management and claimed there is
an agenda to privatise the port.
Mana has taken a radical stance, challenging parties to
support workers struggle and action, with MP Hone Harawira calling for mass
civil disobedience.
Internationally, the International Transport Federation has
come to MUNZ's support and the Maritime Union of Australia has pledged
$130,000.
Rank and file workers, however, seem to have limited
engagement. An informal survey of 6 workers at Hillside engineering workshop
showed:
most were unclear on the issues of the dispute
all agreed it would have a wider effect on wages and
conditions
all agreed MUNZ should be supported in principle,
not all agreed the industrial action was good, but only one
thought there was any other option
Only two would strike in support of the Auckland workers
all would donate to a strike fund
What is a socialist perspective?
This issue forms part of a class war fought by working
people who create the wealth. When you consider the setting where this takes
place, and the vesated interests of the parties involved, it becomes clear to
see what is behind the words of the ruling class.
If they, the owners, who represent the ruling class of
capitalist society, keep wages low through casualisation and by creating
competition for work make jobs insecure, they get bigger returns for
shareholders, eg the Auckland council. Then it becomes attractive to private
owners, and leads to a power imbalance between owners and workers, aided by
employment law.
The government and business have been successful in drawing
the public and workers into accepting a capitalist point of view, based on
workers disengagement.
We need to raise awareness and show that the many struggles
have common causes, and what those causes are.
There should be collections in every workplace and campus to get funds to
the struggle. We need collections everywhere, particularly workplace
collections. Every union should have printed official collection sheets by now and
organised weekly collections on every work site. Anybody can start a collection
anywhere. There are details of how to donate on the Save Our Port website.
Donations can keep strikes going but do not win them. Real solidarity
action - sympathy strikes - are the way to win. The most powerful weapon is
picketing. The bosses hate it with good reason. Picketing at the Auckland wharf
and flying pickets to other ports, particularly Tauranga, is key. Rank and file
workers talking to rank and file workers is the best way to win solidarity
action, whether that is truck drivers turning round or sympathy strikes. That
may mean breaking an unjust anti-working class law - so be it.
[MUA - here to stay! A still from "Bastard Boys", a 2007 TV dramatisation of the MUA struggle]
It was mass pickets of the wharves in Australia in 1998 – drawing in
thousands of supporters of the MUA there – that stopped plans to destroy the
Maritime Union of Australia. The MUA faced media demonization, allegations of ‘violence’
and all sorts of dirty tactics by the Howard government and the bosses, but
stood firm, and kept and built wider community support. The British miners won
in 1972 when thousands of engineering workers struck and supported the miners'
mass picket. They lost in 1984-85 because there were no sympathy strikes, only
massive financial support. The informal survey at Hillside shows there are
obvious differences between those situations and now, but we are going to need
to re-learn these lessons if we are to defend our unions.
No comments:
Post a Comment