Speech: "Working with Politicians" - Ross Wilson, 16 November 2006

I have been looking forward to coming and celebrating the tremendous victory in the Progressive Enterprise dispute. I‘m sorry that I couldn’t have been here last night to toast that victory and the milestone of your 20th anniversary as a union.

And  I also want to acknowledge the leadership in that dispute by Laila. I know the responsibility and pressures that a major dispute brings and I have no hesitation in saying that Laila showed courage, determination and  intelligence (not to mention great media skills) in the face of what was undoubtedly an all out attack by Australasia’s largest employer to destroy your union. So well done Laila.

But can I also congratulate all of you. You all played an important role in that dispute and, along with hundreds of thousands of other unionists built up the public and financial support that defeated this Goliath.

I have been asked to talk about working with politicians but I want to first talk a bit more about this dispute, partly because it is this sort of action, and victory, which strengthens our industrial and political influence.

We know that there are forces in play in society that do not want an active democracy. They even suggest that unions should not be “involved in politics”.

In thinking about this speech I thought that I could usefully look at the Progressive dispute, and the work of your union, in the broader context of human rights and democracy.  It is important, particularly when we see the blatant political attack on the union movement in Australia, to emphasise the vital role that unions play, and can play, in modern society.

The point I want to make and explore a little with you today is that the Progressive dispute, and the work of your union, highlight the role of trade unions as institutions of democratic society.

The dispute also brings sharply into focus the inequality of bargaining power which organizations like the Business Roundtable deny exist.

It is because of that sort of power disparity that our Employment Relations Act is based on the rights guaranteed by international law to workers in the 179 countries which belong to the ILO:

• The right of workers to organise together in collectives or unions for their common advancement and

• The right of those workers, as unions, to bargain collectively with their employers over wages and conditions of employment.

So the right to organise is a human right guaranteed by international law. A challenge to that right is not only a challenge to our law but to basic international human rights.

The Progressive dispute raises questions about the adequacy of our employment law particularly for vulnerable workers like your distribution workers, who have merely chosen to exercise their internationally guaranteed human right to collectively negotiate with their employer.

That vulnerable workers who use the proper legal processes to improve their wages and conditions of employment can be subjected to a lockout by huge corporate power to starve them into submission points to a weakness in the Employment Relations Act.

So we’re preparing to once again campaign for further strengthening of the ERA to ensure that vulnerable workers cannot be denied the right to claim a national collective agreement and a fair settlement by the economic clout of their employer.

There was a lot of symbolism and psychology in this dispute.

The New Zealand employers and politicians stood aside while the large Aussie corporate took us on.

And there was no question that when they took you on, they took all of us on.

We had to win, and we did. I probably felt that almost as strongly as you did.

And, as a union movement, we can feel proud that we have rebuilt our strength and confidence to the point where we get the overwhelming response we did from unions to our call for solidarity and financial support.

It has been my practice since I became CTU President to support any unions involved in industrial action.

If union members vote for strike action that is good enough for me.

But this dispute from an early stage had a different feel about it.
The lockout action.
The arrogance (and incompetence) of the employer.
And the almost complete  lack of interest by the employer to approaches by myself, Sharan Burrow from the ACTU, and Phil O’Reilly at Business NZ.

They didn’t want to settle………… until they saw the tidal wave of public support for you members coming towards them.

Let us be under no illusion that business and political interests were watching the Progressive dispute very closely. And we have come out of it strengthened industrially and politically as a movement.

That is important for our political work. Rebuilding our strength, unity and credibility as a union movement has been vital in building our influence in Government and achieving the legislative and policy gains which have resulted.
 
And we know from the experience of the previous decade how quickly those gains can be destroyed.

We only have to look at the National Party’s Election policy on industrial relations to see what they had in store for us. And their ongoing campaign with the Mapp Bill confirms that nothing has changed.

And Mapp is on record as saying that if they National had been elected we would have got the Australian Work Choices legislation here…..because that is what business hankers after.

 It was the well know  international financier George Soros who said not so long ago:
“Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of unholy alliances between government and business.  This is not a new phenomenon.  It used to be called fascism…..  The outward appearances of the democratic process are observed, but the powers of the state are diverted to the benefit of private interests.”

And for those of you who weren’t in the union movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and to remind the rest of us, let me just recall that one of the important lessons we learned from the 1990s was that as unions we have to fight politically for our role as institutions of democratic society. We have to increase the public awareness that a political attack on unions is an attack on democratic society.

And that is why I frequently make the public statement (which I know many are a bit tired of hearing) that the CTU, with more than 350,000 affiliated union members, is the largest democratic organization in New Zealand.
 
I do so because it helps to define that important civil society, and political, role.

Which brings me to your topic; working with politicians.

I suppose the first point that I should make is that, although some of our unions are affiliated to the Labour Party, the CTU is not.

In an MMP environment we have established a clear process for working with political parties and that is primarily based on support for CTU policy and objectives on a broad range of issues.

In the year before a General Election we begin our own process of policy development.

We have our own CTU conferences but we also call for policy proposals from affiliated unions and begin our internal debates; what should be included in our CTU Election policy statement and how policies should be prioritized?

When that has been finalized and approved by our National Council we begin an engagement process with political parties which are likely to support them.

 That doesn’t mean all political parties, although we do have some dialogue with all political parties.

Before the last election we had fairly detailed discussions with Labour, the Greens, the Maori Party, and NZ First. 

Following that process, and consideration of the commitments received, we then discussed our Election Strategy.

Again, this is decided on the record of support for our policies and legislative measures (ERA, HSE, ACC, Parental Leave etc).

Many of you will be familiar with our decision because it was clearly signalled in our election leaflet; ticks for Labour and the Greens, a question mark for the Maori Party, and crosses for all the rest.

From the time of the election result we are active in influencing the form of the Government and, to the extent that we can, the Ministers in our key portfolios. We were consulted and had the opportunity to put our views to Helen Clark and her key advisers.

With the formation of the Government our job is to lobby and influence the Government on policy and strategy for the benefit of working people and unions.

Sometimes those are immediate measures like the Holidays Act or the ERA, and sometimes we are trying to influence longer term economic and social development strategies.

I suppose every CTU president has a different approach and style but, with support from affiliated unions, and help from some very talented staff, mine has been:

• To focus on issues rather than personalities, and substance rather than rhetoric. We attempt to ensure that our public statements and submissions  are based on facts and reasoned argument, and we believe that in taking this approach we have progressively built credibility and respect for our views on a wide range of issues.

• We meet regularly with Ministers and officials and track and influence what sometimes feels like an avalanche of policies and legislation we are consulted on.

• But the bottom line is the fact that we are speaking for more than 350,000 union members (voters). That we as CTU unions have built and unified and coherent voice for working people has given us an increasing level of political influence. I am very conscious that I am there as the elected president and that any  influence I have derives from that fact.

• Although we work closely with the parties in Government, we also endeavour to maintain our independent position. We publicly criticize policies if necessary, but only after we have first made our position very clear. And we will engage in a scrap with Ministers behind close doors if we have to. If the issue is important enough we take it up with the Prime Minister.

• We acknowledge the plurality of MMP politics and we encourage unions and union members to be politically active, preferably in parties that support our policies. We have been working more closely with the Maori Party (particularly through our Runanga  and Vice President Maori Sharon Clair)  and NZ First, and believe that our work (and our campaign) has been a major reason why neither party will support the final passage of the Mapp Bill.

• Campaigning is an essential part of our work. When we campaign effectively around an issue we hugely increase our chances of success. Our campaign against the Mapp Bill is a recent example, but wage campaigns are also very important. Your activity can really make a difference!

The CTU has also been working hard to lead unions into constructive engagement with business and government on the economic and social development issues which are so important  to provide decent work and incomes for working New Zealanders.
We know that now is the time, when we have seen good economic growth and relatively full employment, to make the investment in education and skill development, to work on improving workplace performance and organisation, to improve workforce participation, and to create decent jobs with higher incomes.

But we also have a broader and shared responsibility as a union movement.  We are leading the public debate on economic and social development to move to a higher value higher skill and higher wage economy, because while businesses can (and are in increasing numbers) shifting their production to China, workers can’t.

 They don’t want to live in China, but more to the point: We want to build our future in Aotearoa New Zealand.
 
So the CTU has developed, and is involved with, a broad range of initiatives which are aimed at ensuring that unions and workers participate in the major changes that we have to make as a country to move up the economic value chain to survive in a global economy.

We have to continue to put the challenge to business. The World Bank has said repeatedly that New Zealand is the best place in the world to do business in, we have had economic growth of nearly 20% in five years, and business has been booming. 
Yet , at the General Election, as soon as there was a whiff of tax cuts, Rogernomics and labour market deregulation…………… business interests simply abandoned all their professed intentions to work with government and other stakeholders on economic development and the investment path to a high wage, high skill economy.

Some might argue that that is a reason for keeping business, and Business New Zealand, at arms-length. I don’t agree.

Our role must be to challenge those failed policies from the 1990s and to continue to build the social democratic agenda on the basis of models like Finland and Ireland.

That includes challenging them to discuss industrial relations and wages as part of industry and skill development strategies.

We have a national interest to consider; the national interest of developing economic and social development strategies which are going to provide decent work and incomes for working New Zealanders, and for our children and grandchildren.
And an essential part of those industry development and productivity strategies is an incomes strategy to ensure that workers get their fair share.
If we are going to commit to the changes we need to make as a country to build our skills and knowledge, to help transform our industry sectors so they can compete against the world, there has to be some evidence that business and government will not just stand aside while big corporates like Woolworths use their overwhelming economic power to deny workers on marginal wages a fair share of their huge profits.

Many say that the class war is over. We know it is not. The Cold War is over but the fall of the Berlin Wall gave Capitalism a new arrogance. The struggle for a fair share and for social justice remains, and it is unions who have a huge responsibility, industrially and politically, to lead the charge on behalf of working people.

We are taking up that challenge.  We still have a business community which hankers after the power it had in the 1980s and 1990s.  It is focused on compliance costs when the real challenge is investment and innovation.

I believe that we as unions are winning the public debate. We saw that with the overwhelming support in the dispute. We are seeing it in increased union membership…….last year was the biggest annual increase since 1990.

We have made a lot of progress since the New Right anti-democratic ascendancy of the 1980s and 90s. But we have a long way to go. But we have every reason to have confidence that, with our active industrial and political participation, we can continue the positive path we have built over the past seven years.