National will ‘disembowel’ trade unions—F.O.L.

Press, 29 July 1987, Page 8

National will ‘disembowel’ trade unions—F.O.L.

By

SEAN KENNEDY,

NZPA staff reporter

Wellington Despite misgivings about the economic policies of the Labour Government, a majority of New Zealand’s trade unionists can be expected to vote for more of the same on August 15. According to key union figures, they have little option, for the option under National is worse pain. Union leaders say the labour movement’s opposition to National under the former leader, Sir Robert Muldoon, has helped to harden the Opposition’s industrial relations stance. The secretary of the Federation of Labour, Mr Ken Douglas, said National had learned the lessons of its last three terms in office and unions risked being "disembowelled” if National was elected on August 15. "They’re not going to wait another 8y 2 years before coming after the trade union movement with a skinning knife,” he said. Mr Douglas predicted the destruction of the national award system under a National government, the establishment of workplace agreements, and the introduction into the industrial relations

system of the worst aspects of free market competition. He said National’s industrial relations policy would hit women and Maori workers harder, would significantly increase the breadth of lowpaid workers and raise unemployment. Unions had a better prospect of working with the present Labour Government because it had shown them “significant understanding” in noneconomic matters. “On a wider social and political basis, there’s been more achieved in the interests of working people from this Government, leaving aside the economic question, than any other government, certainly since the first Labour Government,” he said. Mr Douglas cited amendments to the Industrial Relations Act, strengthening provisons for workplace health and safety and the institution of paid leave for trade union officials, as evidence of the Government’s continued commitment to the labour movement. However, he saw a fundamental contradiction between the present free market approach and the role of the Royal Commission on Social Policy. He expected a con-

frontation when Labour, if re-elected, sought to make good its promises to do for the Welfare State what , it had done for the financial sector. The Government was “extremely naive” if it thought it could use a more affluent business sector to finance a comprehensive overhaul of its health, social welfare, and education services. "Irrespective of the Government’s intentions in this matter, the economic power now concentrated in the hands of big business will not allow them (the Government) to implement those sorts of policies,” Mr Douglas said. The labour movement, he said, had to be strong enough to make the Government honour its welfare commitments as well as provide an alternative voice to groups like the Businessmen’s Roundtable; Mr Rob Campbell, an economist and former secretary of the Drivers’ Union, said he did not believe workers expected prosperity overnight and did not regard redundacies and unemployment as peculiar to Labour. “They’ve experienced them under previous governments. What’s important is if they believe it will result in long-term improvement,” he said.

The Opposition lacked credibility with workers because it had turned its back on the interventionist financial policies of the previous Government, although its front bench was largely unchanged. Mr Campbell said it came down to "whether you think the same people have reformed their ways in the last three years.” National’s policies contained a “significant amount of adhoc-ery” — promising individual handouts for political rather than economic gain, z

While the financial pollicies of both main parties intersected, National’s seemed to be politically driven, whereas Labour’s was economically driven. National might reintroduce voluntary unionism and workers could expect to see corporatisation applied differently.

“I think the National Party is pretty close to the Thatcher position, which is making a political virtue of privatisation,” Mr Campbell said. Corporatisation was a concern of the Post Office Union secretary, Mr Ron Burgess. Corporatisation has seen the Post Office split into three separate corporations, and while Mr Burgess said he did not approve of the speed with which Labour had corpo-

ratised, he saw elements of Thatcherism in . National's manifesto. Whereas Labour had retained a hold on the Stateowned enterprises, National might yet sell voting shares and relinquish control. Mr Burgess saw a danger that voters in this election might over-sim-plify the Issues at stake because of the superficial similarity of both financial approaches/ !1 <>’ - ' '"They each have a policy of economic deregulation but applied in quite significantly " different ways,”, he said. Mr Burgess intended to question them closely and then relay the answers to union, members' because “the issues are so different and the (economic) policies have got so close to each other.” | A trade union economist, Mr Peter - Harris, said he believed workers would have; to "vote oh the two main parties’ policies on education, peace and welfare. j He agreed with ,Mr ,_■ Douglas that National would oppose both the * trade unions’ newly acquired education programme and the right of workers to determine whether their union, membership was compulsory or voluntary. ■’