Duncan B.
(Above: Ted Bull, former Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, Vic Branch, and Vice-Chairman of the CPA [M-L])
The relationships between the labour movement, trade unions, Australian capitalism and the role of Communists have been and still are complex and potentially divisive. Analysis of these relationships should be undertaken with care to unravel all the complexities.
Some insightful albeit ‘historical’ comments on the social, political and economic roles that trade unions and Communists have played in Australian politics were made in the 1980s by leading figures in the Communist and trade union movements. Ted Bull, Ted Hill and Norm Gallagher had been involved in struggle in their capacities as Communists and trade unionists for decades. Coming together to address the broader issues that arose out of the concerted attempts to crush the BLF and other unions in the 1980s, Bull, Hill and Gallagher co-authored a pamphlet called For Militant Trade Unionism. Whilst somewhat dated now, there is still enough in the pamphlet to draw some important lessons.
Australian capitalism and industrial relations in the 1980s
When the pamphlet For Militant Trade Unionism was published in 1987, the Hawke Government was into its second term and about to go into a third, brought about by the calling of a double dissolution and the subsequent defeat of the Howard-led coalition in July 1987. There had been changes to industrial relations legislation, primarily at the behest of monopoly capitalists.
The 1980s were marked by an escalating campaign against organised labour not only in Australia but throughout much of the Western world. In the UK, Thatcher and her cronies had led the charge against the Miners, and in the US Reagan had targeted Air Traffic Controllers. Such attacks on the working classes, particularly organised labour, were part and parcel of the drive to turn around the decline in profitability experienced after the end of the long boom.
The Australian industrial relations landscape was strewn with the results of the concerted attacks on unions during the period in question. The roll call of Dollar Sweets, Mudginberri, SEQEB, attacks on the Plumbers’ Union and the deregistration of the BLF, highlight how concentrated and planned the attempts to smash unions were.
All this took place under the auspices of a Federal Labor government and involved the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a body charged with setting Award rates and resolving industrial disputes. Other bodies have superseded the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but the role it played in the attack on trade unions in the 1980s has salutary lessons for class-conscious Australian workers and their allies.
According to Bull, Hill and Gallagher, the arbitration system as it was then called, was “an elaborate system of registration of trade unions”. Underpinning the system was the legal requirement that the trade unions had to be incorporated, that is, the unions became corporations. They could sue and be sued and be subject to fines, injunctions and have their assets seized. The unions could own property and amass substantial funds. They could not dissolve themselves however. The result was “a thoroughgoing attempt at institutionalisation of trade unions within capitalism”.
The institutionalisation of trade unions caught them in a bind. Unlike other corporations whose shareholders were (and still are) not subject to punitive fines, asset seizure and incarceration, unions and individual officials, even rank and file members, could be and were subjected to fines and/or incarceration. The system did deliver a degree of stability and wage rises, but the trade off was substantial.
In 1987, new laws had been enacted by the Federal government that tightened up the punitive side of the system. As pointed out by Bull, Hill and Gallagher, the controls on unions were akin to making them “a labour front”. The class-based nature of this legislation was apparent at the time. “There is not even a pretence but that this legislation is aimed only at the workers and unions. That is its whole purpose. No one ever heard or will hear of penal action of any importance nor of a government ballot in an employer’s organisation nor the operation against an employer’s organisation of any of the many repressive provisions in this legislation.”
The point that Bull, Hill and Gallagher made about the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was that essentially all such bodies reflect ruling class interests. Over time, trade unions were even more adapted to the system. However, the struggle between capitalist ideology and working class ideology continues.
The lessons learned
Drawing on their experience of decades of involvement in working class and trade union struggles Bull, Hill and Gallagher astutely pointed out that the adaptation of unions to the industrial relations system was accomplished through a mixture of co-option and coercion. Acceptance of the system, capitalism, and by extension the imbibing by some trade union officials of capitalist ideology, gave rise to the strengthening of certain political traits. Trade union politics was predicated on the permanence of capitalism. The goal of unions was to operate within capitalism to secure the immediate economic demands of their members. This was contrasted by the three writers to what they called scientific socialist politics.
“Scientific socialist politics accept the trade unions as very important mass organisations of the working class, and accept the vital importance of the struggle of the workers against the adverse effects of exploitation but they hold that the struggle arises from the nature of capitalism itself and can only win final victory when capitalism is ended.”
Such a view, they hastened to add, was not to denigrate the importance for struggling for the immediate demands of workers, but the ultimate objective of scientific socialist politics – socialism – was a world away from the ultimate objective of trade union politics.
What about now?
It is clear that since the pamphlet was published the attacks on the Australian working class and their unions have continued and intensified, with a number of changes to the industrial relations laws passed. In sum, the changes to the industrial relations legislation since 1987 have served to limit, constrain and make illegal more and more trade union activities.
Despite the viciousness of the attacks on the trade unions and the Australian working class over the last twenty or so years, the optimism that Bull, Hill and Gallagher ended their pamphlet with in 1987 still resonates. They suggested that “sustained campaigning is required.” With “patient explanation, agitation, action of all kinds will grow.” For them and for us now, “the Australian people are magnificent in struggle.” We can and will build an independent and socialist Australia.
Some insightful albeit ‘historical’ comments on the social, political and economic roles that trade unions and Communists have played in Australian politics were made in the 1980s by leading figures in the Communist and trade union movements. Ted Bull, Ted Hill and Norm Gallagher had been involved in struggle in their capacities as Communists and trade unionists for decades. Coming together to address the broader issues that arose out of the concerted attempts to crush the BLF and other unions in the 1980s, Bull, Hill and Gallagher co-authored a pamphlet called For Militant Trade Unionism. Whilst somewhat dated now, there is still enough in the pamphlet to draw some important lessons.
Australian capitalism and industrial relations in the 1980s
When the pamphlet For Militant Trade Unionism was published in 1987, the Hawke Government was into its second term and about to go into a third, brought about by the calling of a double dissolution and the subsequent defeat of the Howard-led coalition in July 1987. There had been changes to industrial relations legislation, primarily at the behest of monopoly capitalists.
The 1980s were marked by an escalating campaign against organised labour not only in Australia but throughout much of the Western world. In the UK, Thatcher and her cronies had led the charge against the Miners, and in the US Reagan had targeted Air Traffic Controllers. Such attacks on the working classes, particularly organised labour, were part and parcel of the drive to turn around the decline in profitability experienced after the end of the long boom.
The Australian industrial relations landscape was strewn with the results of the concerted attacks on unions during the period in question. The roll call of Dollar Sweets, Mudginberri, SEQEB, attacks on the Plumbers’ Union and the deregistration of the BLF, highlight how concentrated and planned the attempts to smash unions were.
All this took place under the auspices of a Federal Labor government and involved the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a body charged with setting Award rates and resolving industrial disputes. Other bodies have superseded the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but the role it played in the attack on trade unions in the 1980s has salutary lessons for class-conscious Australian workers and their allies.
According to Bull, Hill and Gallagher, the arbitration system as it was then called, was “an elaborate system of registration of trade unions”. Underpinning the system was the legal requirement that the trade unions had to be incorporated, that is, the unions became corporations. They could sue and be sued and be subject to fines, injunctions and have their assets seized. The unions could own property and amass substantial funds. They could not dissolve themselves however. The result was “a thoroughgoing attempt at institutionalisation of trade unions within capitalism”.
The institutionalisation of trade unions caught them in a bind. Unlike other corporations whose shareholders were (and still are) not subject to punitive fines, asset seizure and incarceration, unions and individual officials, even rank and file members, could be and were subjected to fines and/or incarceration. The system did deliver a degree of stability and wage rises, but the trade off was substantial.
In 1987, new laws had been enacted by the Federal government that tightened up the punitive side of the system. As pointed out by Bull, Hill and Gallagher, the controls on unions were akin to making them “a labour front”. The class-based nature of this legislation was apparent at the time. “There is not even a pretence but that this legislation is aimed only at the workers and unions. That is its whole purpose. No one ever heard or will hear of penal action of any importance nor of a government ballot in an employer’s organisation nor the operation against an employer’s organisation of any of the many repressive provisions in this legislation.”
The point that Bull, Hill and Gallagher made about the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was that essentially all such bodies reflect ruling class interests. Over time, trade unions were even more adapted to the system. However, the struggle between capitalist ideology and working class ideology continues.
The lessons learned
Drawing on their experience of decades of involvement in working class and trade union struggles Bull, Hill and Gallagher astutely pointed out that the adaptation of unions to the industrial relations system was accomplished through a mixture of co-option and coercion. Acceptance of the system, capitalism, and by extension the imbibing by some trade union officials of capitalist ideology, gave rise to the strengthening of certain political traits. Trade union politics was predicated on the permanence of capitalism. The goal of unions was to operate within capitalism to secure the immediate economic demands of their members. This was contrasted by the three writers to what they called scientific socialist politics.
“Scientific socialist politics accept the trade unions as very important mass organisations of the working class, and accept the vital importance of the struggle of the workers against the adverse effects of exploitation but they hold that the struggle arises from the nature of capitalism itself and can only win final victory when capitalism is ended.”
Such a view, they hastened to add, was not to denigrate the importance for struggling for the immediate demands of workers, but the ultimate objective of scientific socialist politics – socialism – was a world away from the ultimate objective of trade union politics.
What about now?
It is clear that since the pamphlet was published the attacks on the Australian working class and their unions have continued and intensified, with a number of changes to the industrial relations laws passed. In sum, the changes to the industrial relations legislation since 1987 have served to limit, constrain and make illegal more and more trade union activities.
Despite the viciousness of the attacks on the trade unions and the Australian working class over the last twenty or so years, the optimism that Bull, Hill and Gallagher ended their pamphlet with in 1987 still resonates. They suggested that “sustained campaigning is required.” With “patient explanation, agitation, action of all kinds will grow.” For them and for us now, “the Australian people are magnificent in struggle.” We can and will build an independent and socialist Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment