industrial relations
8 Apr 2008
Lessons from the Waterfront
Job security, not union rights, lies at the heart of Australia's continuing support for the labour movement, writes Mark Bahnisch on the 10th anniversary of the Waterfront Dispute
Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the first act of the Waterfront Dispute of 1998 - the lockout of Patrick's workforce on the Melbourne docks.If a week is a long time in politics, 10 years must be an age. But some events continue to have ripple effects, their symbolism speaking to the enduring nature of the conditions that caused them. The Waterfront Dispute is one of these; it is still very much alive in our historical consciousness, as demonstrated by the controversy last year over the ABC's mini-series, Bastard Boys.
Such was the impact of the Dispute that the Coalition campaign team, last year, thought they had found a smoking gun for their attack ads with footage of Julia Gillard, then an industrial lawyer, assisting the MUA.
In an interview with the Australian Financial Review's Steven Scott yesterday, the then Workplace Relations Minister, Peter Reith, claimed ownership of the Dispute as an iconic moment for the Howard Government. Its significance, he argued, went beyond what he described as the need for reform. Reith compared the Dispute to Thatcher's actions in the coal strike, or Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' union. "It was one of those situations where the Government stood firm ... Our big dispute was on the waterfront."
The Dispute lives on for the MUA too. The union held a minute's silence on work sites yesterday, and is commemorating the anniversary with a week-long program that includes a talkfest, a dinner, the unveiling of a mural, and cultural activities.
The MUA has also been seeking to uncover documents which would demonstrate that the Howard Government was an active party to what was judged by the Federal Court as a "conspiracy".
"Conclusive certificates", issued under Freedom of Information laws by the former government prevent the release of the reports in question, and Julia Gillard has invoked the convention that confidential advice to former Cabinets remains closed - even to the current Government. One such report has surfaced - a document prepared for the Howard government entitled Waterfront Strategy - and UNSW historian Christopher Sheil believes that it provides prima facie evidence that "the Howard Government plotted the 1998 confrontation on Australia's waterfront", as the Sydney Morning Herald report put it.
Image thanks to Fiona Katauskas.
It is probable that the evidence won't be laid out publicly for another two decades, when Cabinet confidentiality expires. Just as the US Democrats eschewed the impeachment of George W Bush, Australian governments don't like to look too closely into the activities of their predecessors, lest the same happen to them when they've been in office long enough to create a record of malfeasance and incompetence. And as the Coalition's attack on Gillard during the 2007 campaign suggests, the Labor Party of 2008 isn't keen to be tied too closely to a union whose alleged tactics the Waterfront Strategy report made much of as a possible lever for winning the public relations battle.
Minutiae aside, Reith's statements this week leave no doubt that the Howard government was happy to claim ownership of the Dispute. That was almost certainly a mistake. Australians were used to governments being arbiters of industrial disputes, not boots-and-all participants. The Coalition temporarily learned its lesson, proceeding by stealth with deunionisation until it was unexpectedly handed a Senate majority in 2004.
That the unions seized the Waterfront moment to try out a dual strategy of community campaigning and legal action, rather than the "war on the wharves" some had hankered after, is ground well covered. But what's less well understood is that the Waterfront Dispute not only trialled the tactics that would later be used to great effect against WorkChoices, but also demonstrated something enduring about the source of unions' political and social support in contemporary Australia.
What most struck the public about what transpired on Melbourne's docks was the sight of employees locked out of their workplace by security guards with balaclavas and dogs. Job security became the enduring theme in public opinion, and the removal of unfair dismissal protections was the reason voters rejected WorkChoices, and the Howard Government with it - not the abrogation of union rights.
Unions are well aware that sentiment for workplace rights now far outweighs the willingness to unionise - hence the ACTU's Rights At Work campaign. That also explains why the first Labor government in over a decade is now putting some distance between itself and the commemoration of an event which continues to carry a powerful emotional charge for its allies in the labour movement.
That is the enduring historical importance of the Waterfront Dispute. Not only did it prefigure a change in the alignments of the industrial relations battle which endures today, but its symbolism will continue to shape Labor's industrial relations agenda in government. Despite all the policy detail that was released last year, and the first tranche of legislation this year, there are still large unanswered questions about how Labor will manage its relationship with organised labour. That's something scholars of the Waterfront Dispute - and activists on both sides - might profitably ponder.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
During 36 years of continuous employment and being a Union Member, I hated Unions for their mendacity and the single minded pursuit by Secretaries of political Office, and members were merely those who paid for their expenses.
I had some vicious fights with some Union Reps., none of which I won. They are worst when the Government is Labour, because they are sucking up to Labour Officials and Government, with a view to progressing to their ranks. Union Members are used as ‘collateral damage’, very expendable.
But now, many years since I have been a Union Member or employed, I am still very much of the opinion that Unions are an absolute necessity, with full rights, because without them, workers are totally vulnerable to Bosses. Governments, like Howards’s and to some extent’ Rudd’s, are now totally in the sway of Big Business, and are very much anti-union.
I am now very much a supporter of the ACTU Rights at Work Campaign.
Dazza.
I largely agree with Dazza’s comments. Like Dazza I’m retired and although I once was an unpaid official with my union (it called itself an Association) it has been a long time since I was a member. I was a supervisor on the wharf, and worked mainly at Webb Dock, but had been gone from the wharf for six years by the time of the Waterfront Dispute. I still know many people who were caught up in it.
One excellent worker, a clerk, was chased out by the thugs and dogs at the outset of the Dispute when they burst in on the midnight shift. A colleague, a superintendent, who was not one of the favoured "required" few was at home. His mobile phone suddenly ceased to work. Calls to Patrick stevedores went unanswered. After a period of time he endeavoured to obtain some work or even go "on the dole". When it was realised he was a ‘retrenched Patrick employee’ he told me that he was informed that he was not entitled to any help whatsoever. Note, this man was not a member of the wharfies union, he was a superintendent. Due to no fault of his own he was targeted by the then government.
The way these men were treated was appalling. To add insult to injury the negotiations which were underway between management and unions were close to fruition. Clearly Howard and his tattered lackeys did not want that, it wasn’t in the Neo-Con manual.
The bitterness engendered by this sordid affair still persists. I watched the Dispute from the vantage point of a customs broker, trying to help our clients obtain their goods from the waterfront. Although none of our clients went out of business, a number were desperate by the time it ended. It cost business dear. Fortunately for Howard and his nasty mates Australia is a civilised place and our politicians cover their tracks very well, as Mark Bahnisch details in his excellent article. Though it will be years in the future, Howard’s duplicity will be uncovered when the documents become available. His place in history is therefore assured, but it may not be the place for which he hopes.