The Guardian 27 June, 2007
Editorial
Trade union independence
The real question to be asked is not whether the Labor Party is too close to the trade union movement but whether the trade union movement is too close to the Labor Party.
Ever since the social partnership agreement (Accord) of 1983 was foisted on the trade unions by the Hawke Government the trade union movement has lost more and more of its independence and been pushed onto the path of class collaboration with employers.
Trade union leaders will remember the mantra that: Employers were a friendly lot who were all fair and reasonable. All trade unions had to do was restrain wages, sit down and co-operate with employers, and work out agreed policies
The last few years of Howard’s IR legislation have shown that this is not true, and for that matter, has never been true.
For its part the Hawke-Keating governments adopted economic rationalist policies that brought about the privatisation of public enterprises and services, financial deregulation and so-called "competition policy". And yet monopolies formed and grew into giant corporations. Labour-hire companies flourished. They started to dismantle the award system and introduced enterprise agreements and individual work contracts. There was very little resistance from the trade union movement even though these policies hurt workers and were contrary to trade union policy.
To some trade union leaders, kow-towing to the Labor Party held out the prospect of comfortable seats in parliament with all the perks and lurks that go with that. They also collaborated with the ALP in the mistaken belief that they would be able to influence Labor Party governments to adopt worker friendly policies.
The fact that the Labor Party leadership was firmly in the hands of the extreme right-wing was overlooked. This right-wing clique was decisively biased in favour of employers and against the interests of workers and trade unions.
This has now been taken to an even higher level by the Rudd/Gillard leadership. How is one to interpret the statements of Julia Gillard made to the National Press Club on May 30 other than as unashamedly anti-trade union bias? She said that "under a Rudd Labor Government, there will not be a single moment where our construction industry is without a strong cop on the beat". She also boasted that, "During the reform period [of the Hawke-Keating governments] the decline in trade union membership levels averaged 5 per cent per year, compared to an annual average fall of 2 per cent under the Howard Government".
This is attitude towards trade unionism is further confirmed by the forced resignation of Dean Mighell (ETU) from the ALP member and the proposed expulsion of Joe McDonald (CFMEU). This can hardly be explained by objection to the use of some swear words but is rather a penalty for a militant stand in their trade union work.
There is to be "zero tolerance" of such trade union leaders but one can guarantee that nothing is to be said or done against employers who routinely rip-off their workers.
The trade unions should be independent organisations which include in their membership everyone who works in a particular industry irrespective of political persuasion, religious belief or racial origin. As such, the Labor Party has not and does not represent all trade union members.
While the trade unions created the Labor Party at its formation in 1891 and were therefore the "fathers" of the Labor Party, it was not long before the "son" began to lord it over its father. The Labor Party carefully selected trade union leaders for seats in parliament and when in government appointed others to fill seats in various other government posts — on the Arbitration Commission, the Reserve Bank Board and other government instrumentalities.
Prospective trade union leaders are routinely asked to join the Labor Party and may find that if they do not join, their development or election will not be supported, irrespective of their abilities.
This does not mean that trade unions should never support the Labor Party to defeat the likes of a big business Howard government. It does mean that they should be free to support other alternatives if doing so is in the interests of the workers who make up their membership. It is important that trade unions be organisationally independent and free to adopt and campaign for their own political, economic and social policies even if they contradict those of the Labor Party.