By Peter Boyle In the minds of some union bureaucrats, the class struggle in Australia is over. It is an "outdated paradigm". They defined a new role for unions under the ALP-ACTU Accord as working for the common good of "the Australian economy". Since Labor became the federal government in 1983, most trade union leaders have worked to dampen class struggle, with considerable success. Days lost to industrial disputes have fallen from 872 per 1000 workers in 1983 to 84 per 1000 in 1995. But if the class struggle is over, someone forgot to tell the corporate bosses. They have kept on with the class struggle. For instance, every major industrial dispute last year was the result of an attack by capitalists on workers' rights and conditions. At Mt Isa they were trying to get rid of the travel allowances of workers in this remote mine. At Tweeds Head it was the right to sick pay. At Weipa and Port Fremantle, it was the right to belong to a union. With the WA Court government's industrial legislation, it was the right to strike and the rights of unions to inspect workplaces and make political donations. The working class in Australia may not suffered a decisive defeat, but is clearly on the defensive. In most of these struggles, the workers demonstrated their preparedness to fight, but officials from the ACTU have flown in to contain the struggle. Leave it to the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) or the Labor Party, they've counselled. Consequently, all the main industrial struggles last year ended in poor compromises under which the unions gave up more rights and conditions.
Union membership
Not surprisingly, workers are voting with their feet, leaving or refusing to join unions. According to figures released by the ACTU in December, union membership has dropped by 626,300 since 1991. In the same period, the work force has grown by 591,000. ACTU secretary Bill Kelty's response to the figures (in a letter to ACTU affiliates) was to postpone a membership drive to free the movement to campaign for Labor's re-election. But Labor is finding it hard to sell its slightly less painful industrial policy. A Bulletin Morgan poll in October revealed that about 60% of voters earning less than $30,000 a year said they would vote against Labor at the next federal elections because the ALP no longer acts in workers' interests. Many workers don't buy the line that the Keating government has delivered the world's first painless neo-liberal program. While working-class illusions in Labor are probably at the lowest level ever, high unemployment and a decade of retreats have also lowered the expectations of many workers. Workers feel more insecure about their jobs and are having to work a lot harder (the average working week has risen from 35.8 hours in 1985 to 42.6 hours in 1995). This is the scene being surveyed by the ruling class for the federal elections. Labor has done them good service, and its domination of the union apparatus has helped contain any working-class backlash. But they are always interested in getting more. Their predicament was summed in the July 26 editorial of the Australian Financial Review, entitled "Backlash a lesson to Australia". "In Australia, the need to keep a clear focus on what is politically possible, not just on pursuing an economic agenda, was demonstrated by the Coalition's defeat at the last election. Unfortunately, fear of this sort of backlash is threatening to abort the reform process altogether. Instead, what is needed is steady progress towards building a more efficient economy while keeping a close eye on the social consequences. "While New Zealand's embrace of radical change carries the risk of triggering an equally radical response, in Australia the challenge is to ensure that the lesson which is learnt translates into careful, well-thought-out reform — not a policy of doing nothing." John Howard has tried to take the cue. He indicated clearly that a Coalition government would go further and faster than Labor but at the same time has sought to play to the growing working-class disenchantment with unions. As Howard has admitted, the key to Coalition policy is breaking the power of the now only 2.4 million-strong union movement. To do this, the Coalition has to dismantle the Industrial Relations Commission, the so-called "impartial umpire" that the union officials have gambled on to protect their role. Over the years, the IRC bench has been filled in roughly equal parts by former union officials and bosses. Howard recognises that he can move only in stages to get rid of the IRC. As a first stage, he has promised to set up a new body called the Employment Advocate. This body would register employment agreements, but not scrutinise or intervene in them. The Employment Advocate would exist alongside the IRC but eventually would replace it.Election outcome
The outcome of the federal election hangs on how many workers buy the Coalition's line that they will not suffer wage cuts under the new system. Ironically, Labor's success in delivering the bosses' neo-liberal reforms has created an anti-Labor backlash in its traditional base of such a scale that it may upset what appears to be a ruling-class consensus that the ALP is probably its safest bet. If Labor nevertheless wins the election, we know what to expect. More cuts to social spending, the speeding up of enterprise bargaining (unsettling more sections of the union bureaucracy), more privatisation (and pressure on state governments to privatise their utilities) and perhaps even the introduction of a consumption tax. As far as the ruling class is concerned, this is one item of the neo-liberal agenda that Labor hasn't implemented. But after John Hewson was defeated on this issue at the last election, the ruling class also concedes that both major parties must keep their intention to bring in such a tax a secret from the voters. They say as much in their newspapers. If the Coalition wins, it will first have to test out just how much the union movement has been weakened through the ALP-ACTU Accord. The union bureaucracy's main response to attacks on union rights by state Liberal governments has been to shift workers to federal awards and to urge workers to vote Labor. But if there are Coalition governments at federal and state levels, this strategy falls apart. The unions will have to fight seriously for their rights, or take a crippling blow. However, the union bureaucracy can be counted upon to hold back any fight back — with an eye to keeping control of the union movement and not frightening the ruling class from supporting the ALP at the next election. The ALP is unlikely to shift to the left because it will want to continue being seen as a reliable manager of neo-liberal reform. This has been the experience in all the states which have Coalition governments.[Peter Boyle is a member of the national executive of the Democratic Socialist Party.]