Dear Chris
The following article is appearing in the Melbourne 'Age' newspaper tomorrow moring (April 15). You may use it for the labournet site if you think it would be useful.
Prof Roy Green
Director, Employment Studies Centre, Uni of Newcastle
Australia
By Roy Green
Prime Minister John Howard is right on at least one point. The waterside dispute will be a "defining moment" for industrial relations in Australia. But this still begs the question.
Will it be a defining moment like President Reagan's dismissal of the air traffic controllers in 1980 or Mrs Thatcher's crushing victory over the miners in 1984? These events shifted the balance of power dramatically in favour of employers and against trade unions. They defined the ideology of labour market reform for over a decade.
Or will it result in a different outcome like the 1972 miners' strike in Britain, the German metal workers' campaign for shorter working hours, the French truck drivers' protest against work intensification or last year's high profile UPS dispute in the United States about casualisation and job insecurity?
These disputes, by contrast, set limits to the scope of managerial prerogative. They also reshaped politics towards a more cooperative relationship with the trade union movement. In the case of Britain, the conservative government was defeated in the 1974 "who runs the country" election, only to exact revenge on the miners ten years later.
Where does Australia fit into the global picture? After a period of cooperation under Labor's Accord to improve waterfront productivity, the present Government has opted for confrontation. It has found a Machiavellian partner in Patrick Stevedores, which is prepared to blame even its own management deficiencies on the workforce.
But this dispute is not about productivity. If it was, there would be some recognition of Australia's world best practice in bulk handling, of the difficulties in comparing like with like between Melbourne, Antwerp and Singapore, of the substantial improvement in container crane rates over recent years, of the restructuring of the industry and of the job losses this has entailed.
The survey and case study evidence world-wide shows that better performance is achieved not through coercion but consultation and fair treatment of employees. There is no more salient example of this than the Patricks competitor SeaLand, which has empowered its unionised workforce through training, new technology and work reorganisation.
Nor is the dispute about competition on the docks. It is now clear that the National Farmers' Federation stevedoring company is not a real competitor, as was initially claimed, but a supplier of non-union labour to Patricks. When competitors have emerged in the past, they have been denied space for their operations.
The current dispute is essentially about the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively in trade unions without facing discrimination or dismissal. This has been singled out as a "core" labour standard by the International Labour Organisation, as well as in a recent OECD statement on Trade, Employment and Labour Standards.
More specifically, the dispute is about the preoccupation of the Coalition parties with what they like to portray as the "stranglehold" of the Maritime Union of Australia. Yet this attitude sits oddly with the constructive and responsible role played by the union in waterfront reform and the praise not so long ago from Patricks chief Chris Corrigan for the "excellent performance" of his workforce.
The fact is that the MUA is a democratic organisation, more so, for example, than the Liberal Party. No one has suggested that its leadership does not accurately represent the wishes of its members. It did not start the current dispute and it has so far acted with restraint and dignity under the most extreme provocation - from the Dubai mercenaries to armed "security guards".
If the MUA is able to hold its ground, isolate Patricks and even gain reinstatement for its members through the courts, it will be a victory not just for the union but also for the Labor Party, which will be well placed to present itself at the next election as the only party able to deliver orderly and cooperative industrial relations.
On the other hand, if the MUA is effectively locked out of Patricks operations, the Coalition will be entitled to claim victory - but it will come at a price. It will be apparent to all Australians that this victory will be at their expense whenever an employer decides - or even just threatens - to establish shell companies with no legal obligation to the workforce.
Under these circumstances, Labor will have a powerful new electoral weapon - the defence of workers' rights and entitlements against an onslaught by the state and the more disingenuous employers. It will be an election with international repercussions. Already the London Financial Times has commented that "class, and not race, is suddenly the issue" in Australian politics.
But Australia is not Thatcher's Britain. After a decade of workplace change, "featherbedding" is all but gone. The survey evidence indicates that employees have had enough downsizing, casualisation and work intensification. They want fair pay, job security and more control over their working lives.
The biggest danger for the Coalition of a waterfront victory is that it will be Pyrrhic. It will provide Opposition Leader Kim Beazley with just the platform he needs to overcome the Keating legacy and to reconnect unequivocally with Labor's traditional support base. John Howard will have only himself to blame.
A/Prof Roy Green
Director, Employment Studies Centre
University of Newcastle
NSW 2308 AUSTRALIA
Tel 61-(0)2-49215022
Fax 61-(0)2-49216911
