Union anger aired over wage round

Press, 9 May 1985, Page 4

Union anger aired over wage round

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

Union resentment at the Government’s interference to contain the last wage round surfaced at the Federation of Labour conference yesterday. It was referred to first by the F.O.L.’s secretary, Mr Ken Douglas, then, in more detail, by the secretary of the Auckland branch of the Engineers’ Union, Mr Jim Butterworth. Mr Butterworth said that the hidden pressure applied on settlements last time should be exposed. He was referring among other things to threats by the Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, that employers granting high pay claims could expect retaliation in the form of raised import quotas.

Mr Butterworth said “the contradictions” which had beset the tripartite talks last year had grown much sharper. The process worker was now 18 per cent worse off than when the freeze was lifted and the trades person, 8 per cent worse off. By contrast, company profits had increased 65 per cent on average and, at the top end, significantly more. Given this discrepancy, he

asked what basis could be found for getting an agreed guideline. “I cannot really see you succeeding this time and if that is the case, are we going to be in the same position we were last year — that is attempting to get some agreement in the award negotiations.” Last year, the Engineers’ Union, the Drivers’ Federation, and the Electrical Workers were first up in the wage round and after bizarre midnight negotiations involving the F.0.L., the Employers’ Federation, and the Government, they established the wage path at 6.5 to 7.02 per cent. Mr Douglas yesterday came to their defence against oblique criticisms from delegates further down the line who felt they had settled too low.

He suggested that if they had not “kicked the round off,” those unions travelling in their wake would not have got the claims they had.

Tension again emerged when the Hotel Workers’ Association tried to pursue its campaign to have the F.O.L. go for wage increases on a flat-rate basis. The association’s northern secretary, Mr Rick Barker,

set the ball rolling by moving that the F.O.L. seek to have the tripartite guideline expressed in dollar figures rather than as a percentage. He said the percentage system had been in effect for 10 years and had worked to trap those at the bottom of the scale by allowing those with the biggest pay packets to scoop the biggest increases while those with the skimpiest pay packets had got “a few cents a month and that is their lot.” But the motion was lost, 160 votes to 267. Among those opposing it were the Engineers’ Union and the distribution unions — the storemen, drivers, and shop employees. Among those supporting it were the Meat Workers’ Union and two unions with big concentrations of low-paid members: the Cleaners’ and Clerical Workers’ unions. Mr Rob Campbell, of the distribution unions, said the arguments against a flat rate were that: • It would be difficult to win acceptance from the Combined State Unions because of the wider pay scales in the public sector. • It would prove inflexible in some award negotiations. • It would exert a down-

ward pressure on wages for skiilea workers as the market was bidding these up and to lose the tradesmen’s support would be to lose industrial muscle and to lose an upward pressure on pay which was felt throughout awards.

He also said that the divisions which the issue had exposed were over tactics rather than strategy and that it was F.O.L. policy this round to concentrate on lifting bottom line pay rates.

This accord was shown in the unanimous adoption of a resolution calling on the F.O.L. to push for legislation establishing a minimum living wage as a matter of priority.

Mr Douglas said the F.O.L. and C.S.U. executives had agreed that the approach to the tripartite talks would be to focus on the low-paid and defined this as earning $21,000 a year or less. They would be looking for a mechanism to establish a wage minimum and not to establishing a guideline at all. In fact if a guideline were to emerge, it would reflect the weakness rather than the strength of the union movement, he said.