By Greg Adamson
Between March 4 and March 25, members of the Public Sector Union and the seven State Public Services Federation unions will vote on whether to unite into one union, proposed to be called the Community and Public Sector Union.
The amalgamation forms part of ACTU plans to produce 20-odd big unions, supposedly with a view to improving services to union members via economies of scale.
Clearly, some of the union amalgamations that have taken place to date make sense. That is, they have given rise to the genuine industrial unions that progressive union activists have always favoured. The Public Transport Union and the Finance Sector Union fall into this group.
Other amalgamations are simply factional and bureaucratic monstrosities, such as the proposed alliance between the Australian Workers Union and the Federation of Industrial, Manufacturing and Engineering Employees.
On the surface, the proposed amalgamation between the PSU and the SPSF would seem to conform to the requirements of industrial unionism. Wouldn't it be better for all public servants to be part of a big, powerful union covering most public sector workers?
Progressive PSU activists around the country are saying that it would, provided that the new union were democratically organised and run. Unfortunately, however, the proposed PSU-SPSF amalgamation won't bring about this result.
When PSU rank-and-file activists are asked why they oppose the amalgamation, they give four reasons. Above all, they worry about democracy in the new union. As their leaflet opposing the amalgamation says: "Amalgamation supporters say that 'members' participation in the union' is a 'top priority' in setting the new union's structure, but the new union's rules will be worked out after the amalgamation. First you buy the amalgamation, then you get to see what you've bought! The rules and structure will be determined by national officials, not by members."
The PSU national leadership is presently considering a restructure of the union which would reduce the power of state branches and state departmental delegates' committees. Nobody can say whether this scheme would be incorporated into the structure of the new union.
Secondly, opponents of the amalgamation question whether this amalgamation would allow a more efficient use of existing PSU and SPSF resources. They note that PSU branch records are so chaotic that the Federal Court recently overturned the November ballot for Victorian branch executive because many members did not receive election information or ballot papers.
Where the PSU currently deals with one federal and two territory governments, the combined union would deal with nine federal, state and territory governments. There are claims that the PSU has state experience from its coverage of public sector employees in the ACT and the Northern Territory. But these workers are covered by federal, not state, awards.
Thirdly, for the opponents of amalgamation "bigger doesn't mean stronger". They point out that since the ACTU launched its amalgamation crusade four years ago, wages have continued to fall, jobs to be lost and conditions to worsen, all while unions have been getting fewer and bigger.
The anti-amalgamation leaflet argues: "Uniting public sector workers is extremely important today, but it is not simply a matter of piling everyone in the same union. The proposed amalgamation does not bring together all public sector workers. Many local government employees and members of other unions in the State and Federal public sector remain separate.
"Unity comes from cooperation. The practical course of the PSU through its support for agency [enterprise] bargaining has been towards fragmentation. In some state public services, agency bargaining is being conducted on a floor-by-floor or even room-by-room basis!"
PSU rank-and-file activists say that the practical alternative to this proposed amalgamation and divisive agency bargaining would be a united wages, jobs and conditions campaign with the SPSF and other public and community sector unions, seeking decent common standards for all government employees and promotion of the public sector.
What of the increased clout with government that amalgamation supposedly brings? Supposedly, the PSU is failing to defend the public sector and community services because it is too small.
That's false. The main cause of failure is that the PSU leadership identifies with the ACTU-ALP government alliance. This becomes the overriding consideration, no matter how many jobs and conditions are at stake. Having a bigger public sector union won't reverse this state of affairs; it will simply provide officials with a bigger empire. In this situation, having one union instead of two will make it simpler for governments to impose an anti-public sector agenda, as there will be only one union to compromise.
Amalgamation opponents stress that they are not opposed to amalgamation of public sector unions in principle. Rather they oppose this particular amalgamation, noting that the Department of Industrial Relations has contributed $100,000 to support it.
The amalgamation is being sold to PSU members as a cure-all for the problems of job losses, worsening conditions, funding cuts and wage restraint. It will solve none of these problems, nor will it provide the mechanism for doing so. It will certainly make them more difficult to solve if it goes through.
[Greg Adamson is senior deputy president of the ACT branch of the Public Sector Union.]