International Socialists

Now into its seventh month, the South Island ports dispute shows no sign of letting up. Indeed, with mediation talks having ending in deadlock, all the indications are that Carter Holt Harvey is more determined than ever to press ahead with its union-busting exercise, while for its part the Waterfront Workers' Union (WWU) looks set to continue with its strategy of "peaceful picketing."

 

Yet it will not be a return to "business as usual," for three months at the bargaining table has left the WWU in a far worse position than before. Undoubtedly much of the blame for this can be placed on the union officials, who failed to build on the momentum generated by the hundreds of people who turned up to the picket lines to show their solidarity with watersiders.

 

However, this still does not answer the essential question of why the union leadership chose not to take the initiative and go on the offensive when quite clearly a course of militant industrial action backed up by a coordinated campaign of civil disobedience represented the best chance of victory. Part of the answer must lie with the harsh new anti-strike provisions contained in the Employment Relations Act (ERA) introduced by the Labour-Alliance Government last year. Not only are workers who take "illegal" strike action liable to incur $5,000 fines and/or lengthy terms of imprisonment, but even in the case of legitimate strike action the union must first submit to compulsory mediation - the famous "good faith" bargaining clause.

 

The history of the working class in this country is littered with examples of supposedly "impartial" decisions handed down by government-appointed arbitration commissions that have resulted in defeat after defeat for workers while always safeguarding the interests of the ruling class. Behind all the rhetoric about a "new era" in workplace relations, the current vogue for "resolving" industrial disputes through mediation is based on the same principle: to guarantee the profitability and productivity of big business by forcing workers into a legal straitjacket which prevents them from taking any kind of action against their employer. In the case of the waterfront dispute the mediation process has played a crucial role in defusing what could have been a very damaging situation for Carter Holt.

 

So how then are we to explain the attitude of the union officials, who seem prepared to sacrifice just about anything for the sake of this futile exercise?

 

 

Conservative role

It is important to understand the essentially conservative role that the trade union bureaucracy plays within the labour movement. The position of a union official is basically that of a bargaining agent, negotiating with the employer on behalf of the workers who they represent in a bid to obtain higher wages and conditions. Yet their relatively privileged status means that their interests are not the same as those of rank-and-file union members. For one thing, they tend to see the maintenance of "good relations" with employers as their most important goal.

 

Quite simply, they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo - the unequal relationship between the employer who controls the means of production and the worker who is compelled to sell their labour in order to meet their economic needs. As such, the union official will generally oppose shop floor militancy except as a means of forcing the employer to give them a seat at the bargaining table.

 

This can be clearly seen in the present waterfront dispute, where the WWU leadership has run pickets at Nelson, Bluff and Port Chalmers, only to withdraw them once safely ensconced in mediation talks. Yet these "gestures of good faith" have not met with the desired response - instead, Carter Holt and Mainland Stevedoring (the scab company) have taken out a High Court injunction that effectively bars the WWU from engaging in any kind of protest action. In the meantime, the workers themselves are further away from regaining their jobs than ever before.

 

Union work

However, we should not allow this bleak scenario to discourage us from continuing to work within the trade union movement, for while the leadership may be conservative we cannot hope to win workers over to our ideas if we cut ourselves off from the rank-and-file. Over the last few months we have already begun to see the potential for union officials to radically alter their position when they are directly challenged and put under pressure.

 

Like all politicians, union officials must be careful not to alienate their constituency if they are to hold out any hope of re-election. So they can be pushed to support more militant demands if they think that their position is under threat. This in turn highlights the importance of building a revolutionary socialist organisation - one capable of bringing together the most organised and militant sections of the working class to argue effectively against the narrow reformism of the trade union leadership.

 

Nor should we imagine that victory in the current dispute can be won by the waterfront workers fighting alone. Instead it will require all of us to get active on our campus or workplace and help build a genuine movement that can take on the might of Carter Holt Harvey. In a more immediate and practical way we can offer our support on the picket lines, as members of the International Socialist Organisation have been doing over the last seven months at Bluff and Port Chalmers and as we will continue to do until Carter Holt and their big business allies are finally defeated. We urge students and workers to join with us in opposing the use of scab labour on the waterfront and strike a blow against corporate tyranny.