F.O.L. calls for immediate wage order from Govt

Press, 8 May 1985, Page 1

F.O.L. calls for immediate wage order from Govt

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

The Federation of Labour conference yesterday overwhelmingly endorsed an executive recommendation calling for an immediate wage adjustment.

Only the National Union of Railwaymen voted against the resolution and then only because its representatives wanted it extended more explicitly to reject the Government’s economic performance. This won only limited support among the more than 300 delegates and was defeated comfortably when put to the vote. More closely fought was the battle by the Hotel Workers’ Union to have any increase applied for ‘‘in dollar terms” rather than as a percentage. After this amendment had been lost on a hand-count by the narrow margin of 132 to 125, the union called for a card vote which was also lost, this time 196 votes to 253.

Support for the flat rate rise was strongest among those unions representing low-paid workers because they would stand to benefit most from it. Included among them were the Cleaners and Clerical Workers’ Union and, perhaps surprisingly, the Meat Workers’ Union.

Conspicuous among the

opponents of the move was the powerful Engineers’ Union, intent to preserve the skills margins within awards.

Another amendment proposed by the hotel workers was that it be spelt out that any adjustment would be in addition to and not instead of the September wage round but this was later withdrawn on the assurance of the federation’s secretary, Mr Ken Douglas, that the F.O.L. did not see them as alternatives but wanted both. The final resolution calling for a wage increase was silent on whether the increase would be sought as a flat sum or as a percentage of earnings. Mr Douglas said it was better left as a negotiating point. Another reason might be that, given the pressures each way, it is a matter best left to the executive to decide.

The recommendation put to the conference and the debate surrounding it showed the complexity that now exists in the relationship between the F.O.L. and the Government.

It began by congratulat-

ing the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, on his election win and by recognising that the F.O.L. had helped put him and his team in office and wanted to keep them there. The improvement of working and living standards depended on building industrial strength and on developing “a principled cooperation” with the Labour Government, it said.

The conference expressed concern, however, about the impact and direction of economic policy and particularly, at the burden that was being carried by working people. It said an immediate wage increase was needed to relieve the plight of low-income earners and identified them as the proper focus of attention in the tripartite wage talks. Mr Douglas said the resolution had been brought forward on the first day of the four-day conference to give delegates “a key opportunity” to discuss the economy and related issues.

He warned them, however, that “a lot of people outside” would be looking for “a major work-out against the Government”

and that they could expect “the new job delegate for the low-paid, Mr R. D. Muldoon” to capitalise on any disillusionment or concerns they might express.

The executive was obviously determined to keep the economic debate as lowkey as possible and was praised by one delegate for the conciliatory attitude it had adopted in its recommendation.

To please one, however, is not to please all: The railwaymen said they could not support the motion as put because it was misleading and proposed that an excerpt from the opening address of the federation’s president, Mr Jim Knox, be added to reflect union feeling more accurately. In the four paragraphs the union wanted added, Mr Knox attacked the Government’s calls for wage restraint in the face of deregulation of the financial sector, tightening of the money supply, relaxation of import controls, reduction of subsidies. taxing of State enterprises, raising of taxes, and the freeing-up of prices.

Those measures had been strongly rejected by the F.O.L. when hint first came of them last year, he said. “We rejected the strategythen, as we still do now, on the grounds that it puts New Zealand on a low-wage treadmill, cuts away the security of the domestic economy, and requires working people to take a disproportionate share of the burden of deficit reduction,” he said. One delegate objected to taking these remarks out of context and certainly they were balanced in Mr Knox’s address by commendations on the Government’s union legislation, its nuclear ban, and its policy on sports contacts with South Africa.

Mr Knox also acknowledged that the Government had inherited “a shambles" and would need time "to sort the mess out” but reminded it that the good will of the trade union movement was conditional only and could not be fully guaranteed without “certain reforms.”

Many delegates were victims of the same dilemma and the discussion on the resolution quickly became embroiled in whether open criticism of the Government should be encouraged. Some thought it healthy and necessary. Among them was Mr Ted Gallagher, of the Meat Workers’ Union who said, “A lot of workers who have voted Labour all their lives are now saying they will vote elsewhere next time. They (the Government) have two years to amend their ways and we want them to amend their ways because we want them to stay in power.” Similar sentiments were expressed by Mr Tony Rowan, of the National Union of Railwaymen. He said thousands of people were dissatisfied and felt Labour was not "delivering on its promises” and that

having got the Government elected he did not want to see it tossed out after one term through its own folly. Mr Len Smith, of the Labourers' Union, said the real basis of the criticism was to strengthen the Labour movement so that unions could organise their members into getting the Government returned in 1987. He asked delegates to consider the alternative, saying that National in power had frozen wages for three years while prices rose 26 per cent, and had redistributed tax to help the rich at the expense of the poor.

Mrs Hilary Brown, of the Canterbury LaundryWorkers’ Union, said trade union activists felt a conflict of loyalties under a Labour Government, prompting Mr Rex Jones (Engineers' Union) to reply that to be critical was not to be disloyal.

Others, however, felt that there were dangers in allowing the cracks to show. Mr Ashley Russ, of the Carpenters’ Union, fell into this category.

“I am not in the business of criticising an eight-month-old Government to the point where we may set off opposition to it which we may not be able to control," he said. He reminded delegates that at last year’s conference they had been talking about the wage freeze and voluntary unionism.

Mr Wes Cameron, of the Meat Workers’ Union, made much the same point when he said, “Who the hell wants Muldoon back?”

“There are some people who are more concerned about their trade union image than they are about working people,” he said. “The first way to express our real concern about the low-paid is to have some faith in this Government and some faith that it is not Labour in name only ! and that, given time and encouragement, it will make New Zealand a better place to live in.”