Striking primary teachers,in Wellington, November last year. (Photo: Hagen Hopkins / Getty Images)
Striking primary teachers,in Wellington, November last year. (Photo: Hagen Hopkins / Getty Images)

PoliticsNovember 20, 2018

Why didn’t we strike under National?

Striking primary teachers,in Wellington, November last year. (Photo: Hagen Hopkins / Getty Images)
Striking primary teachers,in Wellington, November last year. (Photo: Hagen Hopkins / Getty Images)

For a long time, it seemed that strikes were a thing of the past – and then, under an ostensibly more worker-friendly government, they came roaring back. So why now? Trade unionist Alastair Reith provides a view from the left.

This year has seen the welcome, long overdue return of strike action to New Zealand. As it’s gone on, I’ve noticed an unfortunate talking point sneaking into the discussion. “Why didn’t you strike under National, why are you only doing this now? Give Labour and Jacinda a chance!”

It’s an interesting question. Why were strikes so low, for so long? Was it a case of union officials not wanting to take action, and the rank and file following that? Or were union members not ready to take action, despite officials being up for it? I suspect some combination of both.

The recent wave of strikes is partly coincidence. Major collective agreements, such as those of the nurses and teachers, happened to be in bargaining this year and the mood for action was there. When the rank and file have made loud and clear their determination to improve what’s on the table, the question of whether a strike will happen answers itself, though plenty of heated debate is (and was) possible around what form the strike takes and how far it goes.

But this isn’t enough to answer the question. Public sector workers had major collective agreements come up under nine years of National, and similar industrial action was not taken. Other unions did strike; when I was a Unite store delegate at McDonald’s, my union waged a successful campaign of strikes, media engagement and community pressure that forced the company to give secure hours to staff. Wharfies went toe to toe with Ports of Auckland, Bunnings was rocked by strikes across the country, junior doctors walked out, and more besides: ANZ bank tellers, AUT academic staff, KFC workers, bus drivers… the list could go on. Yet year after year, strikes figures remained stubbornly low, and few of these strikes lasted even a whole day, let alone days on end.

Rather than asking ourselves why workers have begun striking now, it may be more useful to consider the background to why it didn’t happen for so long.

A legacy of defeat

Unions’ defeats in the 1980s and 90s  – and the shameful lack of bottle shown by those who should have opposed the Employment Contracts Act in 1991 – left a crushing legacy. New Zealand workers took those lessons to heart, and despite the inspiring and brave struggles of so many during those trying times the end result was a generation that grew up with less experience than our parents or grandparents of how workers can strike, and win.

I’ve always thought it is a mistake to call Kiwis apathetic. We care about all sorts of stuff, deeply, but the strike simply slipped out of most people’s lived reality following two or three decades of retreat and defeat. Why gamble on something so risky and alien, when you can just buy a ticket to Australia and get a 50% pay rise? Why should we gamble so much on a scrap?

From an institutional perspective, it’s worth noting that unions face a tightly restricted legal environment. The threat of injunctions is real, and solidarity strikes are illegal. It’s all very well to call for them anyway, but the officials charged with overseeing our unions are unwilling to risk asset seizure, potential bankruptcy, the loss of resources pooled by members over generations and, of course, the loss of their own jobs.

At a certain point, whether on the picket line, in the courts or via parliamentary allies, these anti-strike laws will need to be challenged. No union has so far wanted to be the first one to do it, for obvious reasons.

Class war by the rich

As the profitability of the employing class was threatened by the increasing ground won by organised labour, they turned on us in the late 1970s and 80s, dealing a series of kill shots to key powerful unions around the Western world. The miners and printers in Britain, the builders labourers in Australia, the air traffic controllers in the US. Here in NZ, the boilermakers were deregistered by Muldoon. Rapid deregulation and massive cutbacks to state services under the Labour government of the 1980s left union strongholds in places like the freezing works and the railways depleted of members, and the broader movement confused  –  this is our party in government, why are they attacking us?

The resulting demoralisation and infighting left the unions without an unbroken shield wall in 1991, when the National government  –  elected, ironically, on a (quickly betrayed!) platform of kinder government than what came before it – unveiled its Employment Contracts Act and tried to force everyone onto individual agreements.

From then until now, it’s largely been survival mode. Unite’s emergence was a welcome addition to the ranks, and there have been some organising drives by existing unions to break into new territory. But for the most part, the key industrial disputes of the past decade have been defensive ones against employer clawbacks, and most union growth has been through amalgamations. The overall trajectory has been marked by ongoing loss of members, and the loss of 90% of the private sector.

Lowered horizons

Neo-liberal capitalism doesn’t sell itself as any kind of utopia. The facts are too well established, the families sleeping in cars too hard to deny, the basic tenets of the Kiwi dream  – a home, a car, a holiday with the family here and there  –  too obviously out of reach for so many. Rather than denying these facts, the mantra of the ruling class is to denigrate those in poverty: the problem is not a yawning chasm between rich and poor, with low wages for some and obscene profits for others, and an out of control housing market. The problem is kids (somehow!) spending $40 a day on smashed avocado. The reality, they say, is that there’s no alternative.

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force,” wrote Karl Marx in 1845. With even the most passionate free-marketeers unable to credibly deny our planet of slums sliding toward climate catastrophe, the rulers of the Western world have instead fought to destroy any conception that a different world is possible.

Middling progressive reforms like paid parental leave were fiercely resisted by Helen Clark in New Zealand, and public healthcare dismissed as impossible by Hillary Clinton in America as recently as two years ago. The mild social-democratic programme of Jeremy Corbyn in Britain is hysterically derided by critics as a return to Stalinist Russia, and the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer permanent proof that the other path leads nowhere. Pepsi was bankrupt, Coke reigns supreme.

The ruling class and its dominant narrative kept horizons low, and this fed directly into the declining strike rate of the 1990s and 2000s. Suicide, drug abuse and emigration replaced collective industrial struggle as the response to capitalism’s every day abuse. It went on for far too long.

A new beginning

Resistance, however, cannot be postponed indefinitely. Like pent up steam, the discontent of ordinary people must eventually find an outlet. The long overdue replacement of John Key’s government with a somewhat more progressive coalition put a change of direction in everyone’s mind. If those at the top can alter course and change some of the rules, why can’t we do the same in our workplaces?

A basic principle of the labour movement is that you never cross a picket line. As we witness the return of strikes to the New Zealand landscape, it’s our responsibility to support and encourage them in any way we can. Unfortunately, some on the left have fallen short of this task. Accusing striking workers of being National Party agents, of undermining the government: this is scab talk.

We do not owe the Labour-led government our quiet servitude, and they haven’t demanded it. Throughout history, those who passively rely on politicians to improve their lives tend to receive very little. If we want to change this country, we need to make it happen ourselves. Workers taking strike action is something to celebrate, indicative of a more hopeful and confident mood among ordinary people. If we win these fights and improve our lives, we set the standard for others, and move our whole society in a better direction. Only good things can come of it, and it’s wonderful to see.

Alastair Reith lives in Wellington. A former store delegate at McDonald’s and national executive member of Unite, he has worked for the Maritime Union of New Zealand and the Rail & Maritime Transport Union. He now works in not-for-profit communications, and is a member of the Public Service Association. All views expressed are entirely his own.

Keep going!
Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand delivers a speech at the United Nations during the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand delivers a speech at the United Nations during the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

PoliticsNovember 19, 2018

Will Jacinda Ardern’s words on the ‘war on drugs’ amount to more than platitudes?

Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand delivers a speech at the United Nations during the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand delivers a speech at the United Nations during the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

It’s one thing to commit to ‘treat drugs as a health issue’, and another to put that pledge into concrete action, writes Ross Bell of the NZ Drug Foundation

Jacinda Ardern refused to sign up to President Trump’s War on Drugs statement at the United Nations General Assembly last month. We applaud her for that stand, but her position – that drugs should be treated as a health issue – must be demonstrated with real action back in New Zealand where we face some current challenges.

Trump has issued a call to re-weaponise the drug war. This prompted Human Rights Watch to warn that, if this approach influences global policy, we can expect a return to the worst abuses of the drug wars (bulging prisons, unsafe communities, corrupt governments). This seems likely, as illustrated by Philippines President Duterte’s murderous actions.

Choosing to stand with a number of progressive-thinking countries, New Zealand did not sign, with Ardern saying, “We want to do what works, so we are using a strong evidence base to do that.” This positioned us apart from Trump – a point not lost on global media.

The prime minister’s statement is consistent with New Zealand’s global position over the past few years. As former drug policy minister Peter Dunne noted, he had made similar comments when representing New Zealand at UN drug policy forums.

This shifting tone is an important way to send a message to society about the need to show compassion and support to individuals and families struggling with drug problems.

Politicians now need to be very careful that their fine words aren’t made empty platitudes by a failure to follow up with practical and significant actions that genuinely “treat drugs as a health issue”.

The government has a chance to prove this. It is currently considering how to respond to two big issues: the need for short-term, rapid responses to address the current synthetic drugs public health emergency and the longer-term, systemic transformation of prevention, harm reduction, and treatment interventions recommended by the Mental Health and Addiction (MH&A) Inquiry.

In the latest issue of our magazine Matters of Substance, frontline health and social service agencies describe solutions they consider would immediately reduce the harm and deaths from synthetic cannabinoids. None of these proposals include greater Police powers and tougher penalties, yet sadly this is one of the first actions the government is likely to pursue as it classifies substances as Class A within our obsolete drug law. Is this one of those “Remuera solutions” Winston Peters warned us against?

We’ve also just released an economic cost-benefit analysis by Shamubeel Eaqub on our model drug law – Whakawātea Te Huarahi. This provides a strong justification for drug law reform combined with significant investment in health interventions, which should help guide the government’s decision making on responding to the MH&A Inquiry recommendations and as it constructs its inaugural Wellbeing Budget.

There is strengthening, mainstream demand for this type of reform.

Just this weekend, a well-known psychologist, a criminal defence lawyer, and addiction treatment providers (the Salvation Army and Odyssey Auckland), joined our call to decriminalise drug use and ensure availability of social and health interventions instead. These commentators arguing that regulation would make drugs safer, and decriminalisation would remove one of the biggest barriers to people seeking help.

Every politician who spoke in recent debates on tougher penalties for synthetic drug suppliers was at pains to say they didn’t want to target people who use drugs in any crackdown. They may not comprehend it, but it seems that there is consensus forming across the house on a possible way forward on drug reform (is it naïve to take their words at face value?).

This was not lost on Green Party drug policy spokesperson Chlöe Swarbrick, who gave an absolutely barnstorming speech in a parliamentary general debate challenging members to end their hypocritical positions on drug law. It’s often Chlöe as the lone voice in the house on sensible drug law, but she’s led the establishment of a cross-party group on drug harm reduction which could break this political stalemate.

The PM made us proud on the world stage, but with 45 recent deaths from synthetic cannabinoids, the need to turn her good words into deeds has taken on greater urgency.