By Jonathan Singer
After Patrick Stevedores sacked its work force (all members of the Maritime Union of Australia — MUA) in April 1998 to try to force the union out and cut jobs, Australian workers began industrial action that was not ordinary. For the first time since the early 1980s, thousands of supporters of unionism joined MUA members on picket lines and in demonstrations to help win a battle that impacted around Australia.
The win by the unions and their supporters was mainly moral and political. The federal Coalition government's rabidly anti-union stance was exposed. The credibility of its 1996 Workplace Relation Act (WRA) had to be salvaged by temporary concessions to the unions.
However, the unions did not build on the high ground they had won. There has been no wider campaign against the WRA.
Meanwhile, industrial relations minister Peter Reith has planned a new march forward: his proposed amendments to the WRA will reduce legal protection of pay and conditions, give individual contracts priority, increase restrictions on starting and maintaining industrial action and on union officials' access to workplaces, and target well-organised workplaces for harassment.
Workers and their unions need not accept anti-union laws. The "Free Clarrie O'Shea!" campaign, which involved a million-strong nation-wide strike, statewide 24-hour general strikes in Victoria, WA, Queensland and SA, plus large demonstrations, not only freed the union leader, (jailed in 1969 under penal sanctions of industrial relations law), it also stopped fines and jail terms being imposed on unions that took industrial action.
The key factors in that victory were: the unions strove to force the repeal of the laws, and campaigned to that end for years; unions central to the campaign, such as O'Shea's tram and bus workers' union and the metalworkers' union, had already confronted the laws in their day-to-day campaigns to improve pay and conditions; the unions educated their members about the anti-democratic nature of state control over unions; 27 "rebel" unions broke from the conservative Victorian Trades Hall and provided an alternative campaign leadership; and the union leaderships involved were clear about the need for united action and forthright opposition.
O'Shea remarked on his release, "The infinite power of the workers when they are really aroused has frightened the life out of the government and the employers".
Beating anti-union laws is not just the stuff of decades past. In 1995, a sustained industrial and street campaign by WA unions stopped the Liberal state government's proposed "second wave" attacks on union rights. Unfortunately, when the government relaunched these as a "third wave" in 1997, the unions backed off after commencing the fight with a 30,000-strong rally.
The employers' offensive
The government and the employers are highly conscious of the counterposed interests of workers and employers. The ink was barely dry on Reith's WRA when they started thinking about the next stage of law "reform".
A January 30, 1997, letter to members of the H.R. Nicholls Society from its president, Ray Evans, labelled the WRA a "betrayal" of "labour market freedom"; that is, its attacks on workers' rights didn't go far enough. Treasurer Peter Costello was soon talking about labour market deregulation to cut wages.
Then, in an interview with the Financial Review (February 3, 1997), Reith said, "Reform is an ongoing process". Immediately afterwards he denied that this meant there would a "second wave", but four months later he spoke of further legal changes within five years.
At the start of 1998, the government wrote to 200 business leaders seeking their "practical ideas and submissions" on further changes (Financial Review, February 27). While Reith's defeat in the MUA dispute meant that he hardly dared whisper about industrial relations changes during the October 3 election campaign, many of the proposals in the "second wave" were contained in the Liberals' October 1 policy announcement. They included secret ballots and increased notice for industrial action, suspensions of bargaining periods and, therefore, legally protected strikes, and more award stripping.
This year, Reith began to enlist supporters. In early March he told a Business Council of Australia meeting: "The reform debate must run — and be run — ahead of the legislative changes ... If an organisation with the status and the resources and the networks of the council cannot make a case for the ongoing benefits of reform, then everything that has been achieved so far is at risk" (Australian, March 8). He reassured his audience: "To make real gains ... you do not need a 1999 version of the 1998 waterfront dispute".
ACTU in denial
Through all this, until the "second wave" changes were announced in May, the ACTU seemed to be in a state of denial. The ACTU's anti-second wave campaign proposal, not announced until July 5, said it "will coordinate major rallies and protests" over two weeks in August in each state and territory.
However, the organisation of many of these actions has proceeded very slowly. Moreover, the ACTU has not recommended that unions organise their members to stop work in order to attend the rallies.
Compared with the Patrick campaign, the current campaign, if it stops there, will enable the government to push its latest attacks through at minimal political cost.
The ACTU seems to be hoping that the Australian Democrats' commitment to refer the proposed laws to a Senate inquiry will give workers an opportunity to show that the laws should not be passed. Furthermore, a July 9 ACTU media release welcomed not only the inquiry but also the Democrats' claim they will reject Reith's laws "unless they are substantially amended".
The Democrats claim is in line with their practice: to prettify draconian laws in the Senate, not stop them. To defeat the second wave, the unions' main line of attack must be, not reliance on the Democrats, but convincing the government that the price it will pay for pushing the laws through is too high.
Union leaders, such as NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa, have been expressing "concern" about whether or not members are willing to seriously fight Reith.
It is true that, compared with the lead-up to the August 19, 1996, demonstrations against the WRA (in which rank-and-file unionists and delegates' meetings strongly advocated stoppages, for example), the push from workers to mobilise is weaker.
However, in the last year — since the Patrick dispute — there have been some successes in industrial action again. Coalminers have sustained campaigns against Rio Tinto at a number of mines. The lockout of textile workers at the Australian Dyeing Company was defeated. Construction and metalworkers' have stalled body-hire and casualisation. A 36-hour week was won at the Docklands and Federation Square building projects in Melbourne. Hotel workers have defeated employers attacks on their conditions.
The government's acceleration of its "second wave" is a response to these fight backs.
If the August actions are treated as a starting point, there is a real chance of stopping Reith's second wave. The gains won by the trade union and social movements of the 1960s and 1970s have not yet been entirely lost: whereas 5000 workers joined O'Shea at the courthouse for his trial, at least 50,000 workers are expected to rally in Melbourne on August 12.
It is impossible for unions to "make the best of" the Liberals' attacks. The government will always push harder on behalf of the employers — Reith has already suggested that a "third wave" could eliminate awards and bring unions under a nationally unified industrial relations system governed by the needs of business. And with each win for the government, the conditions for union struggle will grow more difficult.
Reith's attacks on workers' rights can't be stopped without a serious campaign which strives to involve all unionised workers in industrial action, from national all-union stoppages to actions designed to hit the government and big business hardest where it hurts most. It must also aim to mobilise in solidarity students, women, community organisations, etc. — all those also confronting the Howard government's axe.