Opinion piece from http://www.workersliberty.org/australia/Newsletter/August00/review.html
The media magnates such as the Murdoch or Packer, those in politics, writers, journalists, and our institutions of higher learning play an enormous role in creating societal myths. They have done an exceptional role in deluding the average working Australian as to the type of society we have
From the ghosts of the ANZAC and the “Bush Legend” a common theme emerged that Australia wasn’t like Britain with all of its class division - Australia was the land of the “Fair Go ” and that an egalitarian society was being created. This illusion although false still has a very real impact on many working class Australians. Australia is an elitist and inherently unfair society, not an equal and just one.
The recent book “Waterfront : the Battle that Changed Australia” (Doubleday, Sydney, 2000, 317p) by Fairfax journalists Helen Trinca and Anne Davies is a book with an elitist outlook on a dispute which deeply affected the lives of tens of thousands of trade unionists, pensioners, students and other supporters of workers’ rights in this nation. Trinca and Davies had the resources at their disposal to examine this struggle in depth. However they chose the relatively conservative path, and have written a book which examines the Waterfront dispute as a clash between the hierarchy of the MUA and the ACTU, Patrick’s Chris Corrigan and the Federal Government, and in particular Peter Reith.
This book outlines some of the major events that led up to the April-May 1998 battle in chronological order. It moves through the leaking of documents concerning the government’s involvement in the dispute, the takeover of Webb Dock, to the dispute itself and its aftermath. There are some interesting facts revealed such as the MUA and the ACTU did not have a legal strategy organised until the Melbourne solicitor, Josh Bornstein, contacted the union on the 30th of January 1998. However I have found that overall the authors of this book have taken many things reported to them at face value whilst if they had probed beyond the surface the real truth would have emerged. Partly this has to do with a section of the MUA’s hierarchy’s quite brazen attempts to re-write their role in this dispute.
In this review I have examined some particularly contentious chapters dealing mainly with the MUA. The reason being that I have first hand knowledge of these events.
In chapter six entitled “Trouble in the Tropics” the attempt to replace the MUA Cairns workforce, in September 1997, by contract labour was thwarted by the owner of the vessel “Java Sea” refusing to have one of his vessels involved in a dispute not of his making. The International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) played an important part in finding out who actually owned the ship, however the pressure on the ship owner came from the International Longshore Association (ILA) which is the union for Longshore workers (wharfies) on the East Coast of the United States.
It is my contention that it was the specter of the Liverpool Dockers, which was of particular significance in creating the atmosphere for such powerful supportive action. At this time the heroic struggle of the 500 Dockers representing the last unionised dock labour force in Britain was coming to an end. Their two year battle centered around trade union principles - they were sacked for refusing to cross a picket line - alerted rank and file Dockers around the world to their plight and also the future for all Dockers if they did not fight together. Although unsuccessful in being re-employed their message of standing together against all odds (including having been sold out by their union, the TGWU) was an inspiration to Dockers everywhere. Their message was heard with a particular clarity and sense of alarm on both the East and West Coast of the United States and Canada.
Further on in the book in the chapter “Divided Nation, Divided Family” Trinca and Davies write of the divisions in the MUA leadership over the berthing of the container ship “Australian Endeavour” at Patrick’s terminal in Sydney. According to the authors the National secretary John Coombs threatened Deputy National secretary Tony Pappaconstinus (who is given the nickname of Papps by the authors when in fact Tony has always been known as Pappa) with suspension over disagreeing that the vessel should be berthed.
Although it can certainly be argued that by allowing the ship to be serviced by scabs the union avoided certain prosecution under the Trade Practices Act. I do know that it created a great deal of confusion internationally and it also showed the limitations of the union strategy. The “Australian Endeavor” is a modern container ship on the Japan-Korea-Australia run. It has a full Australian crew with the MUA covering the ratings. After the vessel was discharged and loaded by scabs it went to Japan’s largest port, Yokohama, and after a small protest Japanese Dockers serviced it. The hoped-for supportive action did not occur.
There is no doubt the sight of MUA members sailing on a ship loaded with scab cargo would have provided a convenient excuse to take only very limited protest action. By limiting such an enormous dispute such as this to just Patrick’s, the union’s national leadership was ensuring the disputes limited outcome. In the Chapter entitled “Picket Power” there are a couple of particular areas in which the MUA’s leadership’s elitist outlook and its tendency to reinvent events are graphically shown. On April 19 1998 about 1000 supporters of the MUA stormed through barricades and protested outside Patrick’s container facility at Fishermen’s Island. During the protest the Southern Queensland Branch Secretary, M. Carr and MUA National Organiser Jim Tannock argued quite heatedly over what the protesters should do. Carr argued they should enter the facility and Tannock argued that the point had been made and that was enough. This argument was carried out in public.
However to quote from Trinca and Davies book the MUA Southern Queensland branch secretary seems to have undergone a memory metamorphosis: If they get in someone will be killed, Mick Carr, the secretary of the Brisbane branch of the MUA, thought to himself as he tried to calm the crowd.
Further into the chapter Trinca and Davies relate to the readers a phone call MUA National Organiser Mick O’Leary received from John Coombs after he had seen him battling on a picket line. Coombs advised O’Leary “Not done mate, mate, not for a national official”. What really could be more elitist? Apparently it was all right for the MUA rank and file and thousands of supporters to engage the police but not for a National Organiser of the MUA. With all due respects to Coombs it was a picket line, not Trotsky leading the Red Army in the Russian civil war.
In this chapter and indeed in the book overall only the most fleeting of references is given to the finest act of solidarity in the whole dispute. This act of collective working class heroism came from the working men and women of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals 13 & 63 in Los Angeles. For 17 days the Longshore workers refused to work the ship “Columbus Canada” as it had part of its cargo loaded by scab labour in Australia. This act of solidarity started making several of Patrick’s major clients very nervous. These workers defied U. S. Secondary boycott legislation so that the MUA might survive.
In my many telephone conversations with them their message was consistent; that an injury to one was an injury to all and they had decided to make a stand. These workers were not going to allow what happened to the Liverpool Dockers to occur in Australia. For the authors not to examine this part of the dispute shows a lack of willingness to examine “difficult” areas.
Two years after the dispute the MUA hierarchy are portraying the actions of these two locals in a false light. The reason is clear, the rank and file led the boycott of the “Columbus Canada” and an empowered rank and file is the last thing the MUA leadership wants. “Waterfront -the battle that changed Australia” concludes with a brief analysis of the dispute and states quite clearly that it appears Corrigan has come out of it with the most gains and the MUA is facing difficulties in recruitment and other areas. My outlook on the dispute is somewhat different. For the MUA to have survived such a ferocious attack was a victory for workers everywhere. It was however an extremely short lived one.
What was won on the picket lines has been handed over on the negotiating table. It is hard to generate solidarity if your team has a trade-off mentality. The cost of this dispute can not be measured by dollars and cents or how many union members the MUA can’t recruit. This dispute claimed the best part of 700 permanent workers and another 500 if we take the P&O redundancies into account. For some sections of the union movement to claim this as a victory displays a very conservative understanding of how workplaces operate and how workers think. Casualisation in the industry is rampant and at levels which are deemed totally inappropriate in other areas of highly unionised industries in this country. Corrigan has been successful in his drive to create the atmosphere he wants for his business and make no mistake other stevedoring companies are paying attention. Since the dispute Patrick’s share price has increased a staggering 800 percent.
With the workers I have recently spoken to there appears to be a certain despair in the way they see the industry they work in going and their union’s approach to tackling these problems.
In general history has shown us that when faced with oppressive laws we must fight and challenge them not just in the courts but much more importantly they must be fought on the job. The strategy that “The union can’t do this and that because of the laws” is a strategy doomed to failure. It is a strategy, which creates an enormous gap between the leadership and the membership. Danger does not pass by burying your head in the sand or on the election of a Labor government. The 1998 Waterfront dispute saw the very best and worst of this country’s union movement. The generosity of union organisations and rank and file workers was outstanding. It could have been the start of a re-emergence of unionism but sadly it wasn’t. We may have to wait a long time for another opportunity.
