 The 60s and 70s were rocked by mass protests and uprisings throughout the world. New Zealand was no exception. Everyone knows of the giant movement against the Vietnam War, the rise of movements against racism – the movements for tino rangitiratanga and against apartheid in South Africa, and the women’s liberation movement. What is less often mentioned in the centrality of working class political activism to these protests. The 60s and 70s saw several strike waves, including here in New Zealand. Brian Roper has examined the period.
From 1957 until 1969 labour productivity grew much faster than real wages, while the share of national income going to wage and salary earners steadily declined: “The failure of real wages to keep pace with the rise in real GDP, the growing willingness of unions to press their claims outside the formal machinery of conciliation and arbitration, and the prevalence of labour shortages (which forced employers to bid up wage rates) inevitably created the conditions in which a rapid and widespread rise in nominal wages could occur, given the necessary trigger” (Boston, 1984, p.90).
This trigger came in the form of the infamous Nil General Wage Order (GWO) of the Arbitration Court issued on the 18th of June 1968. Given that the rate of inflation was 4.9%, the Nil GWO constituted a 4.9% wage cut. It shattered the confidence of the labour movement in the Arbitration Court and outraged the rank and file, bringing to an end the quiescence of the rank and file of the labour movement which had been the hallmark of industrial relations in the years following the defeat of the militant wing of the union movement in the 1951 Waterfront Lockout. As Boston observes, ‘‘the nil-wage order had four immediate effects: it shattered the labour movement’s confidence in the Court as an honest broker in the industrial relations arena; it sparked a wave of protest action; it further encouraged the move towards direct negotiations between employers and employees; and it eventually prompted a new approach to the Court by the FOL (Federation of Labour, equivalent to the CTU nowadays) and the Employers Federation’’ (1984: 91). Rank and file workers and their shop-floor delegates considered that they had not received a ‘fair share’ of the economic prosperity of the 1960s. Consequently they were no longer prepared to be shackled by the centralized system of wage bargaining nor misrepresented by a trade union bureaucracy that was more concerned with maintaining its own privileged position in that system than with organizing and advancing the struggle for higher real wages and better conditions of employment.
In the autumn of 1969 the pressures that had been slowly building during the 1960s, exploded in a strike wave of historically unprecedented proportions. The industrial action started in the Auckland area but it was soon generalized throughout the country as 110,096 workers, representing 12% of the total workforce, pressed their claims.
This strike wave was the beginning of the most significant upturn in the level of working class struggle in New Zealand’s history. The strike waves of 1969-1970, 1973 and 1976-77 were driven from below. The rank and file militancy of workers, reinforced by the experience of successful actions taken in the recent past, fuelled these strikes. The strength of the union movement is indicated by the fact that real weekly earnings increased 0.3% in the year to April 1969, 2.2% to April 1970, 8.4% to April 1971, 4.9% to April 1972 and 5.1% to April 1973. Workers newly awakened awareness of their collective strength and confidence in their ability to struggle and win transformed the political environment, contributing, among other things, to the defeat of the National Government in the 1972 election.
Bosses back compulsory unionismThe response of the Employers Federation (NZEF) to this upsurge of working class struggle is interesting. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the balance of power favoured the trade union movement, it supported centralized wage bargaining and compulsory unionism. Voluntary unionism was opposed on the grounds that it would enhance the influence of militants within the labour movement: “with voluntary union membership, the size of the largest and most moderate unions would fall, giving the smaller and more militant unions a disproportionate voice in trade union movement policy making”. At the same time “abolition of compulsory unionism would likely see an increase in wildcat stoppages, especially at strategic points in industry” and, while the militant unions would have no trouble establishing closed shops, the “moderate” unions would experience declining membership and influence within the labour movement.
 Rank and file workers were successfully achieving major concessions from individual employers at the level of the workplace and/or firm – either through actual industrial action or at least through the very real threat of it. Employer solidarity was at an all time low. The historical corollary of working class confidence, unity and strength was, at that time, a lack of confidence, disunity and a self-perception of industrial weakness amongst employers. Thus the NZEF had little choice but to push for increased government intervention to provide a greater degree of centralization than would otherwise have been possible and to enhance the influence of the “moderate” trade union bureaucracy within the labour movement.
Unions defeat the governmentThe third National government under the leadership of the conservative populist Robert Muldoon was swept to power at the 1975 election. A central element of the National Party’s platform was a pledge to reduce the power of the union movement. This was to be achieved though the introduction of secret ballots on the question of voluntary unionism, stiffer penalties for “illegal” strikes, provision for the Industrial Commission to order a resumption of work in the public interest, the outlawing of political strikes, and to provide jurisdiction to the civil courts over industrial relations matters.
The union movement responded with waves of protest action from 1976 to 1977. In 1976, the total number of workers (201,085) and the fraction of the workforce (19.3%) involved in strike action peaked at the highest level reached in the twentieth century. The immediate focus of these struggles was the attempt by the Government to introduce a statutory incomes policy (a twelve-month wage freeze was imposed in May 1976), which was intended to control nominal wage growth and reduce inflation.
The trade union movement placed the Government under tremendous pressure. Once it became clear that the union movement was united and determined to oppose the wage freeze, the Government decided to beat a tactical retreat.
The Government was forced to make a number of important concessions to the trade union movement. Central among these was the inclusion of an “exceptional circumstances” clause into the regulations governing the wage freeze. In effect, this clause enabled the Industrial Commission to grant wage increases where joint submissions were made by both workers’ and employers’ representatives. At first, recognizing the broader implications of making joint-submissions, the Employers’ Federation refused to budge. The union movement responded with a vigorous campaign of industrial action and by year’s end, the employers had capitulated.
The lasting impactThe strikes waves from 1968 to 1977 were central to a major upturn in working class struggle. This upturn in struggle corresponded to, and was influenced by, a similar international upturn in working class struggle exemplified by May ’68 in France, the Long Hot Autumn of 1969 in Italy, and the British union movement’s defeat of the Conservative Government in 1974.
The most important characteristic of the strikes during this time is the simple fact that workers were winning. As workers successfully won wage increases and better conditions of employment through strike action, this fuelled the confidence and militancy of rank and file union members. The strike waves during the 1970s were driven from below. Many were wildcat strikes initiated by the rank and file without official sanction by trade union bureaucrats. The militancy of the union movement is highlighted by the response of thousands of Auckland workers to the gaoling of Bill Andersen, then secretary of the Northern Drivers Union, on the 1st of July 1974; “on the following day thousands of … workers ceased to work and converged on the Supreme Court were Andersen was due appear”. This kind of largely spontaneous industrial and political action by workers was common during this period, even if it often took place on a smaller scale.
The upsurge in working class struggle, student political activism, and the rise of progressive social movements that generated a significant leftward shift in New Zealand politics. First, the struggles of the workers’ movement and the various social movements during this period rocked the conservative establishment, composed of company directors, National cabinet ministers, and bureaucrats, which had ruled the country without challenge from 1951 to 1967. After 1968 both employers and successive governments were forced onto the back foot; they struggled to contain the growing pressure from below and to reconstruct and reassert the hegemony of the right.
Wide layers of people absorbed the belief that the world could be changed for the better. In this respect, the polity as a whole was permeated by the ideologies and politics of the left. It would be an exaggeration to suggest that the left was dominant, but it was confident, militant, active, organized and powerful, and it enjoyed a significant degree of popular support.
The turbulence of the 1970s highlights the transitory nature of ideology and politics. It suggests that the current dominance of neoliberalism is historically contingent and rests on a changing balance of social forces, however much it may superficially appear to be permanent and unchangeable. Another major upsurge in working class struggle, on the scale that we saw during the 1970s, could transform New Zealand’s political environment in the future.
Learning from the PastWhat are the lessons of the strikes, protests, campaigns and movements of the 1970s for our involvement in shaping the future? First, the history of the 1970s highlights the importance of being involved in struggles and campaigns outside the realm of parliamentary politics. The progressive political change that was brought about as a result of the struggles of the 1970s was achieved because large numbers of predominately working class people got involved in pushing for change from below.Second, it's vital to recognise the potential capacity that workers, organised in unions, have to take on employers and/or the government and win. As the union movement's victory in 1976-77 shows, the defeat in 1991 (when the Employment Contracts Act was introduced) was not inevitable but resulted from the treacherous sell out of the rank and file by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) leadership. A prolonged general strike could, at the very least, have forced the government to either amend or withdraw the legislation. Learning the lessons of the 1970s when workers won major victories, and the 1990s when they suffered major defeats, can help us prepare to fight and win in the future.
Finally, it's also vital to realise that none of the central issues that concerned the protest movements of the 1970s have diminished in importance. Today the world is characterised by war, large and growing gaps between rich and poor, women's oppression, racism, heterosexism, and mounting environmental problems. The world's rulers repeatedly portray free market capitalism and liberal democracy as the best possible way of organising advanced industrial societies economically and politically. Yet in this free world we are not really free and in this democracy we generally have no real influence over government. Therefore, the key message of the movements of the 1970s is more not less important today: another better world is both necessary and possible. Back in the 1970s protesters chanted: 'We shall fight and we shall win- London, Paris, Rome Berlin!' I think we can and should draw upon the inspiration provided by the struggles and movements of the 1970s, not to indulge in nostalgia for the past, but in order to make a better future.
Cory A
Based on the article "The Fire Last Time: The Rise of Class Struggle and Progressive Social Movements in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 1968 to 1977" by Dr Brian Roper.
Further ReadingBoston, J. (1984), Incomes Policies in NZ: 1968-1984, Wellington: Victoria University Press.Roth, H. (1979), ‘The Historical Framework’, in Deeks, J., Roth, H., Farmer, J. and Scott, G., Industrial Relations in New Zealand, NZ: Methuem.Pearce, G. (1986), 'Where is NZ Going?', Phd Thesis, Christchurch: University of Canterbury |
