verging_on_random

The end of unions?

January 17, 2007 on 9:14 pm | In Uncategorized |

Kim Beazley’s been reading the tea leaves. He reckons that the next election will see either the Liberal Party or the trade unions struggling for survival. Since majority opinion (and in this instance I’m part of the majority) favours another win for Howard this year, Kim’s prediction is that “it would be difficult to see a recognisable union movement surviving a decade”.

The grounds for this argument are that the WorkChoices legislation will make it too hard for unions to retain membership. Well perhaps he’s right but I rather doubt it.

The forerunners of today’s trade unions started to develop early in the 19th century. Members were subject to criminal sanctions - indeed some of our earliest convicts were transported for participating in trade union activities. Early trade unions were militant activists who were prepared to break the law and risk serious personal consequences to support their cause.

Over time, the laws of England and other English-speaking countries were changed to give trade unionists immunity from civil and criminal liability, as long as their actions met certain conditions. WorkChoices has made those conditions quite a lot tougher but they still give unionists quite a lot of freedom to do things that would otherwise be unlawful. Trade unionists in 2007 face nothing like the legal impediments that their counterparts confronted in 1807.

Being a trade unionist in many countries has often meant risking harassment, imprisonment or worse. During the Suharto years in Indonesia, defying the approved national trade union organisation by setting up a local workplace body was a serious offence. Likewise in PR China and the USSR in its heyday. But workers still did it because they believed in the justice of their cause.

There are no significant legal barriers to trade unions operating in Australia under the WorkChoices legislation. If they cease to exist it will be because workers don’t believe in collective action any more, or at least not enough of them to make unions viable. If that’s what happens let’s call a spade a spade and not hide from reality by blaming the Howard Government for oppressing unions.

If our economy stays buoyant for another 10 years then Kim may well be correct - there might not be a recognisable trade union movement. However I think that’s unlikely. I think it’s more likely that a few recessions and individual industry crises will make enough workers nervous to keep some sort of trade union organisation going. If a few state governments return to the Coalition, as must happen eventually, that will accelerate the process as state public servants rediscover the benefits of solidarity.

Ironically, it’s likely that the most effective unions will be the most militant ones: unions that know how to make the best use of their limited rights to take direct action, or who can judge when they can get away with unlawful direct action. Knowing that their whole existence depends on having the enthusiastic commitment of members it will be in their interests to generate a sense of grievance amongst workers. The 1983-96 Accords era of co-operation and consensus will most likely be characterised by future union leaders as a massive strategic error by the likes of Bill Kelty and Laurie Carmichael.

If Labor wins under Rudd a whole different set of issues will arise. The unions will be desperate to have Labor introduce legislative changes that future Coalition governments would find hard to reverse. Rudd might be loathe to do this of course, and since even the most rabid ALP supporter would concede that Labor won’t control the senate, there will be lots of scope for further IR fun and games.

But unions cease to be a recognisable movement in Australia? I doubt it, at least not within 10 years. But if it does happen let’s be clear about the fundamental reason: it will not be down to evil conservative oppression. It will reflect the fact that workers no longer see any point in belonging.