| On the waterfront: |
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00 | |
|
Part 2 - 1951 remembered Andrew Cooper Introduction
Fifty years ago tens of thousands of NZ workers were taking part in the largest and most significant industrial struggle ever seen in this country. The "151 Days" saw the Draconian "Emergency Regulations" put into effect to smash the Waterside Workers' Union (WWU), regulations the NZ Standard was to call the most "drastic curtailment of the right of free speech enforced in any country outside of fascist nations."
In this article Andrew Cooper looks at the origins of the 151 Days, the momentous events of that year, and what lessons the defeat holds for those struggling for many of the same basic rights the wharfies fought for fifty years ago.
The struggle for control of the wharves
The events of 1951 had their origins in two different conflicts. One was a struggle for control of work on the waterfront between wharfies on one side and the shipping and port companies on the other. The second was a much wider struggle between the WWU, as leaders of NZ's most politically advanced workers, and the Cold War logic of both Labour and National's "anti-Communist" politics.
First though, let's look at the struggle on the wharves.
Throughout the 1920s and 30s conditions on the wharves could only be described as appalling. In those days, before modern container shipping, goods were stored in various cheap packagings, often paper bags in the case of some of the most "obnoxious cargoes" like fertiliser and "lampblack" a filthy substance used to blacken tyres. These packages often broke, exposing workers to their contents. Further, the NZ wharves were notorious for their lack of mechanisation. Workers had to haul cargo around with their own hands rather than using cranes and other labour-saving equipment.
This complete disregard for workers' safety meant that at times fully one third of all waterside workers were receiving accident compensation at some point during the year.
But this was by no means the only bad thing about the wharves. Throughout this period the auction block system (basically a form of casual labour) meant that wharfies often had to wait around all day to see if they would get work. They often didn't, and weren't paid if there wasn't work on a particular day.
The port companies and shipowners were determined to wring every last penny of profit, with little regard for the safety or welfare of their workers. And just like today, despite significant improvements in productivity by the workers, all that was ever heard from the bosses was that standards were slipping, pilferage was rampant, and that discipline needed to be restored to the waterfront.
The wharfies reacted to these harsh, dangerous work conditions both by organising as a union, and through developing practices such as "spelling" which aimed to ease the burden on wharfies by the rapid rotation of workers on duty. These actions were the response of wharfies to the extremely hard conditions they faced, not because they were "lazy" or more interested in subversive political meetings than doing their jobs, as the bosses claimed.
The wharfies won a series of important improvements in their working conditions such as control of employment, whether to work overtime and payment for handling obnoxious cargoes. The Second World War saw a massive shake-up on the wharves as there was not only a huge increase in the amount of goods being shipped, but the arrival of the US military saw modern equipment and procedures introduced. From the auction block and short hours the wharfies now typically worked fifty hours or more a week during the 1940s boom.
The other big conflict was a much wider one. It saw the militant unions around the WWU face off against the right-wing of the labour movement and the ruling class. It was a Cold War conflict between unionists who wanted to defend and improve workers' lives and those who wanted to smash any labour unrest in the drive for postwar "stability."
The WWU
Both during the earlier years and now under the extraordinary leadership of its president Jock Barnes, the Waterside Workers' Union was at the centre of industrial struggle in NZ. They became such a militant group of workers because of the unity forged around continuous battles with the bosses. Conditions were similar for workers at all ports and awards were bargained nationally, and the ports themselves were tightly-knit working class communities.
These things their actual work conditions and the closeness of their communities meant that the wharfies were an extremely united and disciplined group of workers. In the face of unrelenting attacks by the right-wing union leaders and the bosses, they built up a tremendous reputation for solidarity with other workers. The WWU campaigned around numerous issues, and its paper, Transport Worker, educated its readers in working class history as well as informing them of current struggles.
By gaining control of the hiring of labour, good "industrial character" became the primary requirement for a job on the wharves, and many militants blacklisted from work elsewhere were given jobs and added to the WWU's fighting spirit.
Origins of the lockout
By the late 40s the ruling class was becoming increasingly determined to smash the WWU, which they correctly saw as an inspiration to workers throughout the country. First the Labour Party under Prime Minister Peter Fraser, then National under Holland, sought to impose "labour discipline" as part of the Cold War drive, for example by destroying the militant carpenters' union in 1949.
Lining up loyally behind them was the Federation of Labour (FOL), under the increasing domination of one Fintan Patrick Walsh, possibly the most despicable labour "leader" in this country's history. By 1950 Walsh and his cronies had successfully manoeuvred the WWU and several other militant unions into seceding from the FOL to form the separate Trade Union Congress (TUC). The formation of the TUC was not some act of machismo or ultrasectarianism on the part of Barnes and his allies, as is sometimes claimed. In reality they had no choice except to form a new union grouping or surrender completely to the right wing.
The differences between the militant TUC and the conservative FOL weren't just the by-products of Barnes and Walsh's personalities, as completely opposite as they were. Far more important were the underlying differences in the membership of the two confederations. The FOL relied heavily on very passive groups of union members, such as civil servants, who, because of compulsory union membership gave an apparently huge (but illusory) support base for Walsh. In reality this "support" was the result of a passive voting block of clerical and shop assistant unions.
In complete contrast, the TUC unions, especially the watersiders, were extremely democratic. Barnes had to fight very hard to get and then keep his position as president, and, unlike the wealthy F.P. Walsh, earned less than many of his members when he became a paid official.
WWU meetings were attended by thousands of workers, and Barnes and the other leaders had to openly argue for their ideas in front of mass meetings of their members, rather than making backroom deals with the bosses. It was, above all, a union that was controlled by its members.
151 Days
By 1950 conflict had become inevitable: the bosses and the Government were determined to smash the wharfies, and the WWU was not prepared to lie down and play dead, as the FOL would have preferred. At the end of January 1951 the Arbitration Court ordered a general wage rise of 15%. But the shipowners refused to pass this on to the wharfies. The WWU announced an overtime ban and were immediately locked out. The 151 Days had begun.
The story of the February-July lockout is really two stories. One is a story of inspiring solidarity, where the wharfies long history of supporting other workers paid handsome dividends in the form of solidarity strikes, particularly by coal miners, and of incredible bravery in the face of unrelenting slander. Even today, in an era of defeats where the idea of workers actually winning a significant victory seems almost otherworldly, these events still serve to inspire.
But the other story is that of the bosses, their Government and their allies in the FOL who were prepared to use virtually unlimited repressive measures to win.
Just days after the lockout began, the Government invoked the infamous Emergency Regulations. To all intents and purposes free speech was abolished. It became a crime to support the wharfies in any way by encouraging workers to take action or just giving food to their families. The newspapers weren't allowed to print any statement by the WWU, even if they had been so inclined.
The press, which had never been particularly retrained when it came to attacking the wharfies, now had a field day. Unable to answer back except through a small illegal printing operation, the wharfies and their leaders were savaged as traitors, Soviet agents and economic wreckers. Incredible (and often laughable) propaganda stories were spread. Men who had only a few years before fought in the Second World War were now labelled "the enemy within" by Holland.
The war on the WWU makes Carter Holt Harvey's current ad campaign against the wharfies look like a picnic. One Auckland paper even called on the police to shoot workers if they tried to march.
This was part of a much wider campaign of vilification stretching back many years. Any young student sitting School Certificate English in the late 40s would have found the following question on their exampapers:
The wharfies were well organised and confident, with every branch setting up lockout committees to coordinate picketing, advertising and relief work.
In April the WWU accepted the Government's "Seven Points" for a settlement, so naturally Holland immediately added an eighth! requiring the national union to be broken up into a number of smaller unions in each port. The bosses' real aim to utterly smash the WWU was now abundantly clear.
The dispute dragged on into July, when, with other unions forced back to work by hunger and intimidation, the wharfies finally gave in. Their union was destroyed, and Barnes and many ordinary wharfies were blacklisted. More importantly, it was a devastating blow to all NZ workers, who now faced a much more confident ruling class and a union movement at the mercy of the FOL.
Was defeat inevitable?
Firstly, despite their harshness, the Government's victory was not just a result of the Emergency Regulations. In reality these sorts of measures are only as powerful as the state's ability to enforce them. Far harsher regimes, like South Africa, have been defeated by workers despite terrible repression.
Most academic historians are highly critical of the wharfies' decision to stand firm in 51. Barnes is often portrayed as being primarily motivated by a desire for revenge against the FOL and the Government, and the usual view expressed is that no group of workers can successfully fight a government and employers determined to win.
Barnes had overwhelming support from his members during the lockout. Indeed, only a tiny handful of the thousands of watersiders scabbed during the dispute.
And what if workers followed the logic of the second argument the idea that we should never try and fight because we're bound to lose? This isn't just an academic point it was the exact conclusion given by Ken Douglas, the national union leader at the time the ECA was passed in 1991, as to what lessons the union movement could draw from 51. Apart from the fact that it simply isn't true (thank goodness no one told black South Africans that they were bound to fail fighting apartheid), can anyone not enjoying a senior union position seriously argue that NZ workers are better off now because the CTU did stuff all to fight the Contracts Act?
Conclusion
The short term result, on the wharves at least, was the destruction of the WWU and with it the militant leadership of the union movement. But because the struggles of the wharfies were a reaction to the harsh nature of waterfront work and their ability to organise easily, within a few years the port bosses were again complaining about lazy workers and inefficient practices.
Further, in the years ahead, former waterfront leaders found work in a number of different industries, often coming to the fore in the great struggles of the late 60s and 70s.
And whether the enemy was the P&O Shipping Line and the Waterfront Commission then, or Carter Holt Harvey and the Employers' Federation today, wharfies have always been in the forefront of the struggle.
Above all 1951 proves that solidarity, militancy and struggle are the real traditions of the union movement, not miserable "compromises" and sellouts. Because in fighting back we remind the bosses that they can't just trample all over us if we stand firm. Even if we are defeated, we give the enemy pause to think next time it attacks.
As Jock Barnes put it a year after the 1951 defeat:
Perhaps the greatest tribute to those who fought in 51 though, is not any book or speech, but a simple four word line printed in deepest red on the certificates given to all those who participated throughout the struggle:
|
Login
