Christmas Greetings to all Tade Unionists from........ the Pope.

A note that Simon Bridges and Jammy-Lea Ross should take note of.

It's a pity that many in this present NZ Government cannot realise the sanity of this statement.

These political cartoons are worth sharing and using whenever the PinoKeyo Cabinet open their mouths to annouince new policy initiatives based on neo-liberal fallacies,

Great arguments for the minimum wage or living wage- how the Nats attempt to counter them.

The Treasury's advice to Key to remove unemployment statistics from the list of embarrassing policy failures.

The fallacy of comparing the country's budget tpo family house keeping exposed.

What Hekia Parata dreams of...

Simon Bridges' nightmares

The importance of Collective Bargaining- why the Free Market doesn't work. Part 2.

Respect And Promote Wages And Collective Bargaining

28/06/2013 by Ronald Janssen

Ronald Janssen

I regard the growth of collective bargaining as essential. I approve minimum wages and hours regulation. I was altogether on your side the other day, when you deprecated a policy of general wage reductions as useless (…).

These words were written 75 years ago. In today’s Europe, they are now even more valid as they were then. Just like the United States in 1938 was digesting its renewed fall in recession, the Euro Area economies are now expected to slowly emerge from their ‘double dip’. Just like the United States in 1938, the 2012/2013 recession of the Euro Area recession was triggered by an untimely and exaggerated policy of fiscal contraction.

Back in 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the message John Maynard Keynes had written to him in this letter of February 1938 by heart. A few months later, he signed a Fair Labour Standards Act based on the idea that goods that were not produced under “standards of decency” should not be allowed to “pollute the channels of interstate trade”. This Act outlawed child labour, guaranteed a minimum wage, limited the working week at 40 hours and introduced overtime pay. Some years later, at the end of the Second World War, a follow up act was proposed aiming to strengthen the practice of collective bargaining itself but  president Roosevelt passed away before this second act could be approved.

From the Great Depression in the US to the Great Recession in the Europe of today

Where do we in Europe stand on this? For the past half year, the different European Council formations have been discussing how to build a so called ‘genuine’ Economic and Monetary Union, a discussion that was supposed to include the social dimension and social dialogue as well.

One – optimistic – reading of this is to think that European leaders have realised that their double strategy of fiscal austerity and wage deregulation they are pursuing turns out to be disastrous and that it is their genuine intention to change course. If so, there is a not to be missed opportunity to draw up a list of demands on Social Europe.

Another – rather machiavellistic- interpretation is that European leaders have not really changed their mind but have become nervous because of the political backlash against ‘la pensée unique’ in some member states. In this case, European leaders actually remain convinced of the need to continue with internal wage devaluations by getting rid of all wage formation institutions that prevent wages from being cut. However, in an attempt to contain widespread resistance against such policies, an invitation is extended to trade unions to join the discussion table and actually assist in the implementation of these policies.

What are the facts saying? One fact is that the social dimension in the draft conclusions of this week’s European Council is minimal and limited to proposing “appropriate indicators” and “better coordination of employment and social policies”. This does not say very much.

Another fact is that the Council conclusions remain on the track of building even more new instruments of European economic governance, the idea being to force individual member states to undertake those types of reforms that weaken wage formation systems and allow employers to cut wages easily.

Meanwhile, the wage race to the bottom is ongoing. After wages have been squeezed in Greece, Spain and Portugal, it’s now France’s and Italy’s turn to put downwards pressure on wages .One – cynical-  illustration here is that financial markets, becoming aware of the fact that the Euro Area domino’s keep falling, have invented a new acronym. Markets are now referring to France, Italy, Slovenia, Holland as the FISH countries. And it will surely not end there: Sooner or later, with the export prospects of the remaining group of countries (Germany, Austria, Finland) under continuing pressure from the collapse in import demand in the rest of the Euro Area and with their relative unit wage costs increasing because of the wage cuts elsewhere, the view that the latter countries (the ‘GAF’s’?) have lost competitiveness and need to follow the example set by Spain or Greece, will gain traction. If so, GAF’s, FISH and GIP countries will then compete for the questionable title who is able to cut wages most.

A Genuine Social Dimension: Respect and promote collective bargaining on wages

If the social dimension of European Monetary Union is to be genuine, then one of its key priorities should be to ensure that currency devaluations are not being replaced by wage devaluations and that the wage race to the bottom is prevented from taking place.

As Keynes indicated in his quote above, the practice of collective bargaining is key to this. Robust collective bargaining systems with wide coverage and representative trade unions and employer organisations allow to arrive at balanced outcomes. This is in particular the case when collective bargaining is coordinated so that all bargaining parties can take the situation of the macro economy at national as well as the need to avoid counterproductive ‘beggar thy neighbour” policy at the Euro Area level into account. Moreover, one particular concern, often expressed by trade unions in CEE member states, is that a minimum wage floor without strong collective bargaining practice is not sufficient since 60% of a low average wage is still a low wage.

A first and urgent action to take is stop the ongoing attacks on collective bargaining systems, attacks that are systematically coming from the new system of European Economic Governance (‘six-pack’, competitiveness contracts, ex ante coordination, Troika programs).

This can be done by giving the social dimension side of monetary union the power to set clear limits on this system of European economic governance and its instruments to torture wages and collective bargaining systems. The almost unlimited power the masters of finance (EU finance ministers council, DG ECFIN) and money (ECB and IMF) have managed to obtain over national economic and social policy making needs to be constrained from the very beginning and from inside the system itself. One concrete example here is the wage safeguard clause in the regulation on excessive macroeconomic imbalances stating that the application of the regulation shall not infringe on the freedom to bargain and the right to take action and that national systems of wage formation are to be fully respected. Similar wage safeguard clauses should be developed and inserted into all the other regulations, contracts and programs that make up this system of economic governance.

A second line of action is to complement these wage and collective bargaining safeguards with a policy approach that supports and promotes the practice of collective bargaining.  This could take the form of introducing collective bargaining related clauses in public procurement or of explicitly imposing on employers when using posted workers to pay the collectively bargained wage (and not the lower minimum wage). In line of with the existing European Social Dialogue giving social partners the primacy over European social and labour market regulation, one could also propose to establish a platform of coordination at European level where social partners meet to discuss and take action in an autonomous way how to improve collective bargaining practice.

Finally, we insist on the fact that European Treaty does not need to be changed for the Commission and the Council to undertake the policy directions described above.  Indeed, the Treaty contains quite a number of principles that allow and even oblige European policy makers to respect and promote collective bargaining. There are the objectives to improve and harmonize living and working conditions (TFEU article 151). There’s the obligation of the Union to promote social justice (EU article 3). There’s the obligation of the Union to facilitate dialogue between social partners, while respecting their autonomy as well as the diversity of industrial relations systems. Finally, there’s the horizontal social clause forcing the Union to take, amongst others, the values of democracy and equality into account when defining and implementing its policies (article 9 TFEU). Collective bargaining has clear links with all of these objectives and values.

Two good reasons to oppose Simon Bridges, his mate Jammy Lea and the Key government.

These pictures speak for themselves.

Ronald Reagan was correct. The anti-union, anti-worker bills proposed by Jammy Lea Ross and Simon Bridges are attempts to remove basic freedoms.

This is a Tory initiative in the UK. It will certainly appeal to PinoKeyo once he plays the race card again in an effort to regain trust lost over his GCSB let me spy on you legislation.  Cameron and Key have a lot in common in their policy directions.

Useful cartoons to remind ourselves that Unions matter

In view of the legislation being put before Parliament by local MP, Jami-Lea Ross, and the Minisiter for "Labour", Simon Bridges, these cartoons serve to remind us exactly why these two representatives of the National-ACT party despise workers and, especially, hate the Trade Unions that work to protect their rights.

To describe their Bills as being framed and written from a position of knowledge would be a mistake. To describe their Bills as being written informed by prejudice and a lack of experience as workers would be accurate and fair.

Jami Lea Ross posts Photograph of ideal working conditions

Jami-Lea Ross, MP for Botany, whose friends, Slater & Lusk, helped him draft the insidious anti-worker bill designed to create "ideal working conditions" has just posted a photograph of the conditions he and his mates think Unions screwed up.

We gather that these are the conditions desired by those that advise Mr Ross on matters relating to peoples' employment contracts.
It's a pity for Mr Ross that Trade Unions do work to protect the conditions of employment and are prepared to take action when the safety and health of workers are in danger of being reduced.

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.