HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF - NATIONAL'S GREAT MARCH BACKWARDS

A proud record of Unionism exists in New Zealand

There has always been a proud record of Trade Unionism in New Zealand. From Samuel Parnell who arrived in the country in 1840 and quickly set out his terms of employment when contracted to build a store for a Mr Hunter. His terms and conditions are part of NZ folk-lore:
"I will do my best, but I must make this condition, Mr. Hunter, that on the job the hours shall only be eight for the day ... There are twenty-four hours per day given us; eight of these should be for work, eight for sleep, and the remaining eight for recreation and in which for men to do what little things they want for themselves. I am ready to start to-morrow morning at eight o'clock, but it must be on these terms or none at all."

When Parnell was told that if he was in London and not at work at 6.00am he would lose a quarter day's pay his response was simple: 'We're not in London."

  With few tradesmen in the young settlement, Hunter had little choice but to accept the carpenter's terms. As Parnell later wrote, 'the first strike for eight hours a-day the world has ever seen, was settled on the spot.'

Other employers tried to impose longer hours, but Parnell enlisted the support of other workmen and informed those arriving on incoming ships of the local custom.

In October 1840 a meeting of Wellington workmen apparently resolved to work eight hours a day, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. – anyone offending would be ducked into the harbour.

Parnell's stand was commerated in the 1899 Labour Day Act and remembered on the fourth Monday of October even now.

The 1894 Arbitration Act, developed by Liberal P.M. William Pember Reeves, recognised trade unions and individual employers or ‘industrial unions of employers’ as responsible parties in negotiating wages and other conditions of employment. Once they were registered under the Act, each party was required, if they were in dispute with each other, to discuss the matter at district Boards of Conciliation. If this failed to produce an agreement, the dispute would be submitted to the national Court of Arbitration. The industrial agreements or awards concluded under the Act were legally enforceable.

Strikes and industrial unrest were not a feature of New Zealand work places but  complaints about the arbitration system grew as it failed to increase wages in line with the cost of living, didn't compel employers to pay for all hours of work, and the provisions for employers hiring workers at less than agreed rates were considered too loose.

The growth in the number of unions in the early 1900s increased the arbitration courts workload to the point that unions could wait up to a year before getting a hearing. A change of Government in 1912 with the election of the conservative Reform Party, the precursor of the present National Party, decided that the Unions had too much influence over their conditions of work and, as Michael King wrote,  “In October of that year [1913]... employers fearing a continuation of “revolutionary” union tactics, engineered a lockout on the Wellington wharves.”and Richard Hill in his history of the police wrote “the federationists were the victims of a government determined to destroy its class enemies... Leading employers decided to strike at the heart of the union movement before the united federation had a chance to consolidate... with the government assisting in various ways ... the government was more interested in crushing the watersiders than getting the wharves going.”

The 1932 Public Safety Conservation and the Finance Acts were passed by the coalition of the United and Reform Parties - the parents of the present National Party. These acts severely limited New Zealanders' civil liberties and abilities to organise or criticise the government. 

Then in 1951the National Government of Sidney Holland declared war on the Trade Union movement and declared a state of emergency and on the 27th of February, troops were sent onto the Auckland and Wellington wharves to load and unload ships. Draconian emergency regulations imposed rigid censorship, gave police sweeping powers of search and arrest and made it an offence for citizens to assist strikers – even giving food to their children was outlawed.

The workers who stood strong for the 151 days of the lock out that the declaration of a state of emergency was designed to support are remembered in Trade Union history as symbols of those prepared to stand up against a government for whom civil liberties and the rights of workers to organise and negotiate their conditions of employment are an anethma.

Jami-Lee Ross.. practices his anti-worker sneer  as he launches his anti-Union Bill.

Now, in 2013, the shades of the past National Party dictators have roused themselves from their graves to repopulate the minds of the Key led National-ACT government. Two bits of industrial legislation are coming through the NZ Parliament. The first, the brain child of the very inexperienced MP for Botany, Jami-Lee Ross is designed to "to repeal section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 97 prevents the use of volunteers, contractors, or other casual employees by an employer during a strike or lockout". Ross thinks that the withdrawal of labour in the process of negotiating terms and conditions of employment is unacceptable and that this right should be removed without any compensating means of reaching a resolution of the dispute.

While the 1894 Arbitration Act limited the right to strike it did create a means of resolving industrial disputes that was acceptable. At least until the system got over loaded. Ross' bill is very simply designed as a tool to both allow employers to lock out workers and to break strikes and, in the process, create the perfect climate for industrial unrest.

 Key, who has little grasp of ethical legislation if his dealings with Warner Bros and Sky City are any indication, has pledged to support the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill through its first reading.

However the Bill has not met with a great deal of enthusiasm from the Employers and Manufacturers who have damned Jami-Lee with faint and unenthusiastic praise.

Kim Campbell, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association, said the bill appeared to be a good idea ''at first flush'', but this did not take into account unintended consequences.

"While its principles are worth exploring it could prove very divisive,'' Campbell said.
"New Zealand communities place a high value on fairness and the Bill could have consequences that would be considered unfair.

"In spite of several high profile cases we have had 10 to 15 years of harmonious workplace relations and don't want to jeopardise that. We need to look carefully at the implications of industrial action on essential industries such as the ports and hospitals, as well as on small businesses.''

Campbell added that employers did not want employment law to change every time there was a change of Government ''and we can foresee law based on this Bill may not last".

His view is echoed by the Director of the New Zealand Work Research Institute, Professor Tim Bentley who says if this Bill was to pass, our best and brightest may be forced offshore.
"We want wages to be able to rise to a decent rate, towards a living wage where we're not losing people overseas and we're retaining our skilled workers here in New Zealand and I don't think this legislation does anything to advance that."


Even The New Zealand Herald has not endorsed the Bill. It's columnist, Kerry McIvor had this to say about Jami-Lee's bill:

  I would hate to think MP Jami-Lee Ross' private member's bill will ever see the light of day. He's looking to allow employers to bring in volunteers and contractors to do the work of striking employees, a move now barred under section 97 of the Employment Relations Act.

Unions don't take strikes lightly these days. It's no longer "all out brothers" at the drop of a cold pie on a smoko floor. It's a measure of last resort, usually employed by low-paid workers or those in dangerous or physically strenuous jobs.

It should be a fundamental right of a worker to withdraw their labour if they feel they are being unfairly and unjustly treated, without the employers being able to hire scabs.

New Zealand is the country that introduced the world's first compulsory state arbitration act and created a Department of Labour to improve working conditions and protect vulnerable workers.
Unlike Jami-Lee Ross' mean-spirited bill, that was legislation to be proud of.

While the Ross bill is a members bill and may not get past its first reading the Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges, has his own Employment Relations Amendment Bill in the wings. Its legality under international labour law is already under scrutiny by both NZ Unions and the ILO, particularly in light of his refusal to discuss the legality of the proposals under international labour conventions while in Geneva at an ILO conference.

Bridges' Bill is designed to allow employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining and thus undermine the effectiveness of a multi-worksite collective agreement .

In summary the Bridges Bill :

• • - Removes the current requirement for parties in bargaining to conclude a collective agreement, unless there is genuine reason not to as part of the duty of good faith;
    
  • - Enables the Authority to declare collective bargaining at an end on the application of any party to the bargaining.  Bargaining may then be re-initiated after 60 days;
    
  • - Enables employers and unions to initiate bargaining at the same time, removing the 20 day head start currently provided to unions in the Act;
    
  • - Allows employers to opt out of bargaining for a multi-employer collective agreement;
    
  • - Repeals the “30 day rule” which requires new employees to be employed on the terms of any applicable workplace collective agreement;
    
  • - Requires a party to provide advance written notice of any strike or lockout and enables employers to make partial deductions from the pay of employees engaging in partial strikes;
    
  • - Reforms Part 6A which gives rights to “vulnerable” employees in restructuring situations by clarifying the transfer process and exempting employers with 19 or fewer employees from some of Part 6A’s requirements, including the requirement to accept transferring employees;
    
  • - Clarifies and limits an employer’s obligations to disclose information to employees where their employment is “at risk” for example, during restructuring;
    
  • - Provides greater flexibility around the taking and timing of rest and meal breaks and provides for reasonable compensatory measures for those employees who cannot take breaks;
    
  • - Extends the right to request flexible working arrangements to all employees at any time during employment and removes restrictive criteria about the number and timing of applications;
    
  • - Requires the Authority to either give an oral determination at the end of an investigation meeting, or to give an oral indication of its findings, with a written determination to be issued within three months.
    
     The legislation is dressed up with the usual National-ACT rhetoric of "Levelling (tilting) the playing field back in favour of the employer after the negotiating had been dominated by Unions under the previous Labour Government...." and to "balance fairness and flexibility" which loosely translated means that New Zealand's labour legislation will be shifted back to that favoured by past National Party legislators - from George  Forbes, to Sidney Holland and on to Robert Muldoon and will put our employment law under intense scrutiny by international agencies and return the country to one of uncertainty and on going conflict as we now see with dispute at the Ports of Auckland. (Interestingly, Jami-Lee Ross has now revealed that he framed this Bill after and during discussions with the PoAL commisars. Obviously a direct result of Jami-Lee's close connections with the National Party's dirty tricks brigade of Sater and Lusk who were heavily implicated in the PoAL lock out of its employees.) Which is something no New Zealander would want to see and experience.

Botany MP Caught OUT??

How much credibilty does Pansy Have?
The answer: NONE.
Earlier in November,Pansy Wong assured the Principal of Howick College that the much vaunted "National Standards" testing had gone even before lunchtime. It appears that Ms Wong was somewhat economical with the truth or else she, as a cabinet minister, was considerably out of the policy loop, which doesn't say a lot about her influence, or that she was following the party mantra of simply tailoring her response to the Principal to suit the political circumstance.

Whichever way it was it appears that she deliberately misled a large group of her constituents following the Howick College Senior Honours Ceremony as Mr Slippery has announced the decision to ram through the "National Standards" testing inside the first 100 days.

Either Pansy comes clean and publically apologises to the Principal, staff and parents of Howick College for deliberately misleading them or she admits that she is an ineffective and purely token member of the cabinet and remains silent on the issue.

Perhaps, more honorably, she should speak and voteagainst a piece of legislation she obviously disagrees with. Now, wouldn't THAT be a change?

Ironies on the Campaign Trail

Last night I went along to a "Meet the Candidates" presentation to hear and see those who would represent the electorate in Parliament. The evening was one of irony and Monty Pythonish humour.
First, there were three candidates who were immigrants to New Zealand - each proclaimed that they were here because they saw opportunities and possibilities for them by moving from their country of birth. The National and Act candidates, both Chinese born, then condemned New Zealanders for following their example and traveling overseas for experience, opportunity and gaining knowledge of other cultures and societies. One was left wondering why it was OK for them to emigrate, to travel overseas but for young New Zealanders to do the same is to be seen as betraying the country?
Second, there was a Kiwi Party candidate who supports the repeal of the law protecting children from violence in the home on the basis that this would stop parents being classed as criminals for chastising their children, sincerely advocating the use of the rattan, a la Singapore, as a deterrent to criminals while declaring that N.Z. shouldn't become a police state. Well, at least he was consistent even if confused about the nature of a police state.
Third, the ACT candidate called for deregulation of business so that they could flourish as businesses do in the deregulated environment of China as well as calling for the removal of bureaucrats who interfere with the free market practices of business while advocating the expenditure of $1 Billion to crack down on crime.
He seemed to forget that in the deregulated, free market of Chinese business where the bueaucracy didn't maintain checks on the business practices criminal behaviour was rife. A point well appreciated by Fonterra!!
Then, again, the ACT candidate argued for the removal of taxation to allow the individual to decide how best to spend their money but then failed to explain where the money would come from to pay for their $1 Billion Anti-crime policy as well as the provision of what education, justice, defence, infra structure maintenance....
He, too, didn't seem to appreciate that the policies he was calling for would create a police state in New Zealand even though he'd decided to emigrate here to escape such a police ridden state!
Then, the National candidate was prepared to defend Lockwood Smith as a credible politician when, apparently, the only value Lockwood would have placed in her would be her small hands.
Mind you she also declared that her esteemed leader was an responsible experienced manager of finances while glossing over, or conveniently forgetting, his role in the 1987-88 money trader speculation on the NZ dollar that almost caused a collapse of the NZ economy. Hardly the actions of a responsible New Zealander one would have thought but, then, as I stated it was a night filled with ironies.

On Policing and Protest Marches:

Over the past week we have been witness to a mass march of, mainly Chinese, asians in Botany campaigning against what is seen as violent attacks on them as a distinct ethnic group and a basic analysis of the situation by different media groups.

The local throwaway paper - The Times - printed an uncritical report of the march and subsequent comments from Mr. Low and his associates which threw out a lot of heat but shed very little light on the issue.
The Herald’s analysis of the situation was similarly light-weight and, while alarmed at Mr. Low’s call for Triad help to control the perceived crimes against Asians did not put the claims under any critical scrutiny. Although, when members of the Chinese community began to express their doubts about Mr. Low’s rationale and ability to speak on their behalf the Herald did give space to their criticism.
It was left to The Sunday Star Times (13.7.08) to examine the reality behind the hype that was Mr. Low and the march.

The SST checked the difference between the perception and the reality of the situation. Once the situation was subject to analysis it becomes obvious that the perception has greater weight among the Asian community than the reality provided by the police statistics. The perceptions carry greater emotional weight and force when given the fuel of race tensions in what is the racial diverse community of the Botany electorate.

When one reads comments left by those who may be among Mr. Low’s supporters on different news sites the possibility of a racial divide and subsequent conflict becomes all too real and the Minister of Ethnic Affairs is right to be worried about talk of vigilante action from the group set up to combat violence against Asians.

Comments ranged from ACT’s (People’s Choice) politico, Williams assertion that there are too few police, that the government is failing to protect the community so the community has the right to take back the right to protect itself... one presumes he is endorsing the outside the law vigilante style “policing” advocated by Mr. Low which then calls into question Mr. Williams’ ability to adequately represent the community of Botany.
Other comments on websites called for action against those who venture into Botany from Otara and a need to be ready to take a counter offensive into the Otara streets.

If such comments are given more credence than being examples of hot-headed reactions of a few who have let their emotions get ahead of their rationality then South Auckland is on the brink of not just a socio-economic division but an explosive ethnically based socio-economic divide that will be even more explosive and divisive than anything we are presently witnessing.

While Peter Low from the Asian Anti-Crime Group said signatures are being gathered for a petition to present to Parliament calling for tougher sentences for offenders which is laudable his out bursts on Radio New Zealand and in the Press calling for the use of vigilante groups which could include Triads to patrol the streets of South Auckland is of extreme concern.

The illogic of calling for the use of imported known criminal gangs from the Asian mainland to “protect” the community against other, local, criminal gangs should have set the alarm bells ringing in the heads of local Botany politicos like Mr. Williams and Quax, should have set the alarm bells ringing in the editorial offices of the local throwaway paper and among the wider community. Thankfully calmer and more rational heads among the Chinese and wider Asian communities in the area have voiced their concerns and injected a sense of balance and responsible argument into the emotional minefield that is race relations in South Auckland.

We should take the comments of minister Chris Carter that New Zealand is still a peaceful country and it is important people do not take the law into their own hands, that comments arguing that knives and violence could be used are irresponsible as that would compound the problem, not solve it as being the voice of reason and not allow ourselves to react on the gut level, knee jerk level that has been yelled for by those who see political expediency in associating themselves with Mr. Low’s emotional extremism. We need to work towards greater cross cultural understanding, greater integration into the wider community of South Auckland instead of drifting into closed enclaves based on ethnicity each afraid of the other and each prepared to take arms against the other. We cannot, for the sake of the Nation, afford such a situation.