International Socialists

Gerry Cotterell

As a union the PSA has been in trouble since the passing of the State Sector Act in 1988. These problems were intensified with the passing of the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) in 1991 and since that time its membership has haemorrhaged from around 65,000 in the early 1990s to around 40,000 at present.

The losses in membership have partly been due to the major restructuring of the public sector and the anti-union climate in New Zealand. However, a significant portion of the losses can also be blamed on the PSA leadership's organising tactics that have failed to adequately defend the interests of their rank and file members.

After failing to resist the imposition of the State Sector Act in 1988, the PSA leadership, against the wishes of a majority of its members refused to call for a general strike against the ECA. This resulted in a major demoralisation within the union - ironically even more so for the leadership than the members. Throughout the 1990s the leadership was paralysed by an ongoing state of demoralisation which they were unable and unwilling to overcome.

Since the defeats of 1988 and 1991, instead of organising to best defend the needs of its members the PSA has put its faith in working alongside management in the public sector. This went under the name of workplace reform which was an attempt to incorporate labour into the management process in a very selective and limited way in order to boost labour productivity and "work quality."

Recently this policy has been formalised under the name "Partnership for Quality" (PFQ) which is defined as "the PSA strategy for achieving industrial, political, economic, and social advancement for our members." The current government has approved this strategy and recently the PSA signed an agreement with the State Services Minister Trevor Mallard and will begin working with the State Services Commission to implement this policy in the core government sector.

Once again this essentially involves allocating more union resources for working with managers and less for organising the members.

The PFQ strategy was adopted after a drawn out and bitter internal struggle. Many members and paid staff opposed the direction, arguing that it compromised the ability of the union to put its members' interests first and that it was in direct opposition to trade union principles.

The struggle saw many long serving staff and elected officials resign, retire or be "helped" on their way in the push to impose the new direction. One recent past high profile president will not even belong to the PSA, in protest at what has happened, and has joined another union at his place of employment.

Supporters of the PFQ approach have enshrined it in the official union principles and enacted changes to ensure that it will be very difficult to overturn. An example of this can be seen in the process by which delegates get elected to any of the PSA's sector committees.

To be eligible for election candidates must meet a range of criteria which include having a "commitment to Partnership for Quality." Not having such a commitment means that the candidate is unlikely to be selected, "as those already on the committee have such a commitment."

Other options open to members who do not agree with the approach such as expressing opposition in the PSA Journal have also been removed as the paid staff of the union have editorial control of the journal and will not publish articles dissenting with the PFQ strategy.

So what are the options for current members of the PSA? There are at least two:

• Attempt to find other members who are dissatisfied with the current PSA approach and agitate for a change in policy.

• Consider joining another union. Alternative unions operating in the public sector include the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE), and the Service Workers Union. These unions have a much better record of organising effectively to advance their members' interests.

Whether members decide to stay or go will probably depend on whether or not they have a meaningful choice between the PSA and a more militant union in their workplace.

For those of us who do not have the option of joining a more militant union, we will have to continue the fight both for more democracy within the PSA and for a shift towards a more militant industrial strategy for advancing members' interests.

(Gerry Cotterell is a member of the PSA and wrote this article for Socialist Review after attending the most recent PSA delegates' conference.)

"Dissident" PSA members can be contacted via Socialist Review: