Stoppages serious because they cause losses

Press, 31 August 1977, Page 30

Stoppages serious because they cause losses

GLENN HASZARD

No-one could say that the] las* year has been a good! one in terms of industrial) harmony. There were more stoppages, more fir 3 and more! workers involved than ever! before. It is difficult to compare] i- with 1951, the year of the; waterfront strike, because]: the 1951 strike affected sevimportant industries and 1 lasted many weeks, while 1. :t year the stoppages affected many different in- ; dustries for shorter periods. E ; last year more than , 200,000 workers were involved in stoppages.

Of course stoppages are only one aspect of industrial [relations. Absenteeism and industrial

accidents are of equal importance, although they seldom reach the headlines, partly because there is a dearth of information about them and because they occur on a daily basis throughout the country. The causes are as numerous as the events. in 1973, more than 2M days were lost and nearly SIOM compensation or damages paid as a result of industrial accidents. This article will not delve into the realm of industrial relations at the micro level — th® relationship between master and servant to use the traditional expression, or boss and worker in modern parlance.

But it is probably fair to say that at this level New Zealand has a high degree of co-operation and harmony. This may be due to the small scale of most industrial enterprises, where a greater degree of social intimacy is possible.

Nor will this article atte. .pt to analyse the trends towards worker participation. Suffice to say that we have a long way to go. Stoppages are serious because they cause losses — in wages, production and sometimes overseas markets.

Stoppage may occur over grievances affecting conditions of work, sympathy with other workers, or to back up wage claims.

Where they concern conditions of work there is likely to be strong feelings at grass roots level. Where

(they concern wage claims. 'they are more likely to be: I part of the “adversary” system of collective bargaining, j Direct action is the I union’s ultimate weapons, ! which used sparingly can be ivery effective. Used too | frequently, it serves only to alienate public opinion and j squeeze the employer to the extent that jobs may be lost or firms might be put out of business. The causes of stoppages are many. It is known that they are more likely to occur in large centres and in work places where large numbers are employed. They

occur more frequently among manual workers and the worst affected industries are the freezing, building and construction, and water-front-shipping industries. About two-thirds of all stoppages occur in these industries.

The two most serious stoppages in the Canterbury area were by drivers, in August last year, and by freezing and related trades

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGES — THE WORST THREE YEARS

workers, in November.

Both groups took action in support of wage claims, although the freezing workers’ stoppage, a national load out ban, w-as more specifically over the travel allowance issue.

Most stoppages are over wages. Hilde Behrand, Reader in Industrial Relations at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, did a questionnaire in the Republic of Ireland in the early 19705. to ascertain the feelings of workers over wages.

She concluded that "employees have come to expect pay increases at regular intervals not as a matter of contribution but as a matter of right. “It is difficult to reverse the learning process that has gone on under the influence of inflation for two and a half decades and which has created the expectations that every increase in pay will be followed by another,” she said.

In times of economic hardship such as New Zealand is suffering at present, there is sometimes a loss in spending power or real wages. This makes matters worse for wage and salary earners as well as the rest of the community.

Weekly wage rates rose by 16.4 per cent in 1974, 10 per cent in 1975 and 11.9 per cent last year. But last year the purchasing power of wages fell by 3.1 per cent. And that figure. which economists call effective wages, is a measurement of the spending I power of gross wages, not net wages. It does not take into account the very high tax rates on those gross wages.

What happens in the annual wage round is that workers put in remits to their annual union conferences. These are vetted by the union leaders and the claims are taken to the employers’ organisation which has counter claims. Along with claims for wage increases are claims for improved working conditions or fringe benefits. The "adversary” system dictates that the employer will seek the minimum payout. while the union will seek to extract the maximum possible. Hopefully, the result will be somewhere in between.

But what happens when

I one group of workers gets a pay increase is that all the others want the same or better. Increases are seldom handed out on a plate by employers. Unfortunately, for the very reason that strikes have become a necessary tool in the bargaining process, there has been a wave effect through the organised labour movement. I More traditionally docile] I unions have seen their wage:

relativities declining when compared with unions that have been prepared to take action. In the last five years, therefore, there has been a growing militancy on the part of these “white collar” unions — bank officers, [insurance workers, and State servants.

Professor Elliot Jacques, an English sociologist specialisng in issues of wage deternination, put the issue .Tearly when he said: “We ire faced with one of the treat issues of industrialised democracies and their political institutions. Pay relativities is an enormous power field in which highly organised sectors of society push and shove each other as their members struggle to breath economically, to get a standard of living which, if not fulsome, is at least reasonable compared with what the rest are getting. If the relative pay of any group is raised, there is an immediate surge of feeling.” Writing of the British situation, Professor Jaques says

that not only do felt inequalities exist, but there is no remedy other than the threat of damaging expression of power. It is useless to say that powerful groups of workers should not be allowed to damage the rest of us, says Professor Jaques, because we

are nearly all organised in such groups and directly involved. His solution is that employee associations must themselves decide where they stand relative to each other. This solution is what the New Zealand Government would dearly love. If only the Federation of Labour and the Combined State Service Organisations could get together and act as voluntary arbiter on pay issues so that everyone could get their fair share of the cake!! But Sir Thomas Skinner is no fool. To take on the role of arbiter would be political suicide. The president of the F.O.L. would himself become the ogre of every worker who felt he was not getting a fair deal. He would become the target of the Left, hell-bent on displacing him. But he is no fool. So what has happened is that after nearly seven years of statutory wage control, the Government has restored collective bargaining. This is because it realised that incomes policies or “wage freezes” are not the great solutions they were once held out to be. If they do work, they are invariably followed by an escalation in wages when they are lifted. But free collective bargaining will not bring industrial harmony, even when backed up by the threat of more statutory wage restraints.

i The resolution of disputes has been helped to a large Sextent by the Government’s mediation and conciliation services, which have been enlarged. But they do not overcome the causes. There has been a growing trend in industry to appoint industrial relations managers to handle disputes. This is a step in the right direction. To a certain extent industrial stoppages are endemic and cannot be eradicated. Professor J. L. Young, Director of the Industrial Relations Centre, at Victoria University, argued in 1970 that healthy industrial relations required a fair degree of conflict. It could be argued that conflict represents an escape valve for worker discontenand in that way acts as a useful means of improving industrial relations. If severely restricted it may only result in more absenteeism, or a higher labour turnover, which itself is costly in terms of training. Greater worker participation may be the key to improved relations in industry, but only an upturn in the economy can really guarantee greater harmony, providing the increased wealth is equitably distributed. An upturn in the economy is largely dependent on external circumstances, but a little bit of hard work, discipl i n e , responsibility, efficiency and patience would undoubtedly go a long way to help.

i<H A <MHf l W

Firms Workers Work days Average days lost per Stopaf- Duration Year pages fected (days) involved lost worker 1951 109 354 3464 36.878 1,157,390 31.38 1970 323 693 1968 110,096 277,348 2.52 1976 485 942 1984 200.947 488.165 2.43 (From: New Zealand Year Book. 1976, and Monthly Abstract Statistics.)

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGES — CAUSES Other work SymYear Wages Hours ment tions pathy Other 1971 147 9 37 55 9 63 1972 106 69 51 13 20 1973 159 9 106 81 6 33 1974 123 11 66 137 8 35 1975 139 24 107 97 15 46 (From: Prices, Wages and Labour Statistics, 1975, p. 74.)

INDUSTRIAL STOPPAGES — DISTRIBUTION SouthYear land ton bury land Total 1971 202 43 28 313 1972 152 44 26 266 1973 227 63 39 41 394 1974 213 66 29 47 380 1975 248 80 40 37 428 (From: Prices, Wages and Labour Statistics, 1975.)