"Busting the Unions: What’s Coming Next"

by Sally McManus from a recent speech

I am an elected leader of a state based union: we cover workers in the non government community sector in the rail industry, in the water industry, all the workers at Sydney Water and the airlines industry and the information technology industry. The largest part of our union are non government community workers and they are all employed under a state based award which they spent a good 20 years fighting for. 90% of our members are in work places with less than 20 employees so the effect of what we are facing at the moment is first of all that our members will lose - or 30,000 community workers will lose - their award in NSW. It was a very hard fought award for already low paid workers. Then they will lose their right to fight unfair dismissal as well. So obviously the election of the Howard government and their control of the Senate will have a very large impact on a large part of our members who are all low paid workers.

I think we are seeing the second stage of the pre-fight match, if you look at it that way. The first stage was after the election and I think you saw amongst unionists and people who believe in trade unionism two reactions. The first reaction was one of pathological denial, that’s what I call it. And this I think went on for several months. First it started with people wanting to count ad nauseum the Senate vote and hold their breath and pray. Or if they were atheists hope that somehow Family First would get the balance of power - so you knew things were pretty bad when that's what people were hoping for.

Secondly when there was no balance of power and the Senate was lost, this group of trade unionists continued their denial and said "Oh it won't be too bad, and Howard won't go that far; he won't try to take away the state system; he won't try to take away workers’ rights that much - he's sought of learnt from the past, so we shouldn't get too skittish - we should just calm down and things will go on as normal."

I especially saw this amongst a lot of state based unions here in NSW and I think that’s been because to some degree they have been insulated from what this all means. Unions in Victoria had a different perspective because they have been through Jeff Kennett and they understand to a greater degree what radical industrial relations changes mean for working people.

The second group of trade unionists had a different reaction and I put myself in this category to some degree. They said they believe that Howard will not lose his historic opportunity to be written up in the history books as bringing about radical industrial changes and I think he would like it on his gravestone that he was able to crush unions in Australia. So a lot of us knew that this was what we were in for and had no illusions that this was going to be the case. So I think we have started moving into the second phase of the pre July or August period before the Senate first sits - and that’s a softening up period. We started to see last week all the bosses coming out about what their wish lists were.

We saw yesterday the Business Council of Australia come out with their well thought out plan about what they thought the changes should be. I think we have seen from history that usually what the BCA says is what ends up happening. They represent big business in this country. You see Garry Brack coming out today saying that he wants to take away penalty rates for the major awards in NSW. You see a whole lot of other bosses participating in bidding wars for what they demand of their party now that the Liberals have a free hand to do what they want. So I think all of this is fairly coordinated; I don't think it’s something that happens in a vacuum. I think that the Howard government took quite a deep breath and they are quite patient. I think that one thing that Howard has learnt is a bit of patience. And he has learned a bit of thought-out smartness about how he is going to go about what he wants to do. And I think that a lot of what the bosses are doing now is flying kites to see what the reaction is and trying to soften up the opposition they know they will get come August.

So I think if we look at what the Business Council of Australia says about what should happen ,it would probably be pretty much right. What they'll want to do is move towards 5 minimum conditions for everyone. There will be sick leave, annual leave, maybe maximum hours and a very, very minimum wage. They’ll make awards irrelevant through these minimum conditions, they’ll have a minimal role for the Commission if any and they will definitely try to achieve "a unified national system".

Of course their main objective is an ideological one and that’s about entrenching a culture of individualism over the collective. That’s what they want to achieve more than anything.

So I reckon the government’s strategy is probably three fold. First of all I think they will try to attack or weaken the strongest unions. We've already seen this at the Royal Commission on the CFMU and noted the industrial police who came into place there. I wouldn’t be surprised if they spread that beyond the building industry. We have already seen it in what they have said to the NTEU, that government funds will be tied to individual contracts. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried that in our industry in the community sector as well. Also they will try to attack or weaken the stronger unions by anti-strike laws; or they will try to hamper and bankrupt unions by imposing large penalties on them. They will try to hamper them by putting many layers of bureaucracy and secret ballots and long drawn out periods where the boss can undermine and intimidate workers who are wanting to go on strike. So I think the first part of their strategy is to attack or weaken the strongest amongst us.

The second part of their strategy I think is to destroy the institutional support that workers have had or their unions have had. By that I mean first of all the award system. I think that despite some people saying there will be High Court challenges to the Federal Government wanting to take away the state system, I think all of that in the end will buy us some time only. I mean we know what the High Court is like. Secondly they will want the Industrial Commission to play no role at all. They have already weakened the Commission’s role – now they want to burn down the institution itself.

I think this provides a particular challenge for the trade union movement. You have to remember too that it’s not as if a lot of unions woke up yesterday and thought "Oh, eventually they are going to have a go at us." This has been something that has been debated and discussed for at least 15 years, probably longer amongst the movement and a lot of unions have been preparing themselves well for the time when institutional supports may not be there. They know that if our movements depended on things the government gives us, what are we really? Not much. So many unions have, through necessity, through membership decline, have looked at their practice and have had debates amongst their membership about what they are really about and how they should operate. And I can assure you the best unions in this country know how to survive without institutions and without that support and will be well able to face up to that challenge. But that’s not all unions. There are a lot of unions that haven't reformed at all and are utterly dependent on institutional support or are still in pathological denial and think that things will go on as they always have. This is the most dangerous of all situations and this is what I fear most of all for many unions that won't know how to face up to the challenge. I think that many unions will face a serious viability problem.

And I think the third part of the government’s strategy is ideological and this goes without saying - anyone who has seen the previous amendments that the governments tried to make to the Workplace Relations Act will know very well what I mean. They call their bills things like "the Fair Bargaining Bill" or "the Better Wages Bill" when of course it means "Kick the working class bill" - but they don't call it that. It’s a double speak they use quite well just as they use it against refugees and just how they use it against anyone they oppose. Just as they use it about the difference between "interrogation" and "interviews". And they have got quite good at it and have got the ground in terms of being on the front foot in the ideological war. This is something that we as a movement or as trade unionists need to face up to and admit. There's no point in saying our opponents are weak; there's no point in saying that they are not capable of doing things; they are capable and this is something we have to address. The only way to address this is naming what the problem is and what they are really doing and call it for what it is. Don't try and play their game. If this is going to be a vicious attack on working people let’s call it that. That's what it is going to be. If we try to play a PR game the way they do, it is one that we will lose. Also as a part of their ideological war, of course they’ll equate unionism with every evil. They will say "You know unionists are terrorists", that "having unions means interest rates will go up..." - I mean how predictable was that! It took a month after the election for them to say that unless we reform the industrial system, interest rates will go up and that will be the "nasty unions’" fault. Expect many images of building workers - or whoever they think is the best to use against us - to say all the reasons why they have to attack these "special interest groups", these self centred organisations. Remember too the ideological war. I mean Andrews himself couldn't have said it or telegraphed his punch more clearly the other day when he said that unions have got basically 15 years to survive. "You've got 15 years to survive and you've got two choices. You either come with us which means that you embrace individual bargaining, you embrace representing people as bargaining agents, being quasi legal organisations, helping workers out in contract negotiations because if you keep with the collective you are a dinosaur." He doesn't quite use these terms but that’s what he means. . This is attacking us where we are strongest because without the collective we are nothing . I suspect that we will see some unions do what unions did in the UK and New Zealand - have some internal reflection and say "Well maybe he's right, maybe we should set up an internal legal department, maybe we should start specialising in negotiating individual contracts for people, maybe that’s fee for service, maybe that’s a better way to go". I think we will see some unions go on that path.

I think we should be concerned about individual contracts especially with AWA’s (Australian Workplace Agreements). I have seen these in action and it’s not a matter of negotiating above what other people have already got. AWA’s never have been about that. I think the Government may follow more the New Zealand model where there won't be proper checking and there won't be guarantees that they reach minimum standards. It will be more like a common law contract and it’s a "take it or leave it" in a job interview. In a job interview, you are alone and at your weakest. You have little bargaining power and you certainly have no collective when they are in a job interview . It’s a take it or leave it situation. So the biggest threat to us in my view is not keeping our eye on the game when the Government’s tactics and strategy are fairly clear.

The government's tactics will be many and I am sure there are many tricky ones that I won't be able to think of - but the obvious ones will be to want to divide unions and divide unionists and bring about dis-amalgamation legislation They will attack the strongest first and have everyone else cowering in the corner and say "Thank God its not us, thank God it’s the CFMEU!". In the end the more we look internally and the more we fight each other the better it is for the employers. There'll be suggestions that there are good unions, legitimate unions and of course that there are the bad unions. Unions such as the SDA (Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association) and other similar unions might be seen as legitimate or good unions and militant unions will be seen as the bad unions. I think the government will wait until the last moment to bring in the legislation, I don't think there will be much public scrutiny; I think there will be a lot of disinformation that comes out before hand. I think they will come out with it and they'll push it through quickly and they'll try to minimise debate around other things they might have in store.

In terms of the trade union movement's response, most unions at the moment have been spending their time before August on mainly defensive strategies. Those strategies have been that where they have collective agreements in their heartland areas they are trying to negotiate them and to lock them in for a three year period before July. You've seen the CFMEU do that, you've seen every union trying to do that, at least in those areas that are our biggest strongest areas, to have agreements insulated so we can concentrate on defending our weaker members. Other than that, unions are thinking about securing their assets and the other things needed to be done.

But finally there is one thing no laws, tricky legislation or lies can take away from us - that is our ability to organise as workers. That’s what unions are about and what we have always been about. We have to stick to not just the basics but what is actually the heart of unionism. The real battles will be fought in workplaces, between employers and workers. This is why we need to focus all our energy in being well organised at this level. When we get distracted from organising , when we spend all our time in debating bits and pieces of legislation, it is in the end only a distraction. I myself am quite optimistic about our ability to not only survive but to do well out of what's going to happen.

I know that my union and many other unions are ready to face whatever they want to bring on and we are well prepared as long as we concentrate on what we know is where the power of working people comes from - and that’s their ability to organise.

Sally McManus is Branch Executive President of the Australian Services Union (ASU)