smash the act

8/8/2019 Smash the Act

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smash-the-act 1/17

SMASH THE ACT!LESSONS OF THE FIGTHT TO DEFEAT THE

EMPLOYMENT CONTRRACTS BILL

Workers Power, New Zealand, 1991

INTRODUCTION: LEARN THE LESSONS OF DEFEAT!

Mayday 1991 will be remembered as a day of defeat for the working class. On a day when past victories

of the labour movement are celebrated, the national government was passing into law an Act designed

to destroy the gains won by the labour movement in over 100 years of struggle. In the preceding weeksworkers mobilised in a massive surge of popular protest against the Bill and government spending cuts.

Despite the latest wave of militant demonstrations, rallies, stop works and illegal strikes since the

depression of the 1930s, by May 1 the struggle to smash the Bill had been demobilised and defused.

Mayday 1991 will go down in history as a day of defeat, but not of the working class. Rather, a defeat

caused by the massive betrayal of the working class by the trade union bureaucracy.

The passage of the Employment Contracts Act is a major victory for the Government in its offensive

against the working class. It is designed to deregulate the market, severely limit the power of unions,

and allow employers a free hand in setting the terms of labour contracts. Its real purpose is to destroy

the organised labour movement and with it the ability of workers to resist further attacks on jobs,

wages, conditions and basic rights. It will further divide workers between the few who get collective

agreements on the bosses’ terms, and the reset who will become exposed to the full force of the

deregulated labour market.

The Act will intensify conflict along race and gender lines and generate racist attacks on migrant

workers, and sexist attacks on women workers. If the effects of the Act are so destructive, and workers

were prepared to strike, why did the campaign to stop the Bill end in defeat? We must learn the lessons

of this defeat to avoid another defeat in the campaign to ‘Smash the Act’.

The main lesson to be learned is that the failure to understand the causes of the current crisis leads

to anti-worker ‘solutions’ being advocated by the CTU bureaucracy and the radical left. They see the

crisis as the result of the ‘wrong’ government or ‘wrong’ policy bring about an unfair distribution of

resources – high profits at the expense of low wages.

The CTU bureaucrats attempt to ‘solve’ this crisis by calls for harmony between bosses and workers via

compacts, accords and wages agreements. The radical left, such as the Communist Party, think that the

crisis can be ‘solved’ in the interests of workers short of an all-out, indefinite general strike.

Workers Power doesn’t see the crisis in these terms. We understand that the crisis is one of the capitalist

system itself. It is a crisis of capitalist production which because of its severity will lead to all out class

war. We made it clear from the outset that the Bill was the spear-head of a concerted class-wide attack

1



being launched by the government on behalf of the ruling class to resolve the crisis at the expense of the

working class.

For Workers Power, such a class-wide attack must be met with an equally class wide response. To

decisively defeat the National Government’s legislation, it is necessary to mobilise the entire

working class in an immediate, indefinite general strike. In raising the demand for such a

‘political’ general strike we explained the need for the rank-and-file to organise independently of the state, to prepare to defend itself from the full force of the state’s repressive apparatus, to

defeat the government and to fight for a workers government committed to socialising capitalist

property. Nothing less than an all out strike would defeat the Bill; anything less would lead to our

defeat.

We were proven correct. The CTU campaign against the Bill was not to defeat the Bill but to change it –

for the worse as it turned out – to retain the CTU bureaucrats ‘bargaining role’ at the expense of

workers. On April 18, the CTU leadership massively betrayed the mounting pressure from many thousands

of unionists across the country for a General Strike, calling instead for a token ‘Day of Action’ on April

30.

The CTU leadership was ‘rewarded’ for this act of betrayal, but the changes that it wanted in the Bill.These changes gave recognition to unions to negotiate and handle dispute and grievance procedures on

behalf of workers, but only if the employers agreed i.e. on the employers’ terms. This ‘company union

charter’ was a trade off for the CTU’s role in containing the upsurge of anti-government anger over the

Bill, and its promise to administer tame company unions under the Act!

The ability of the CTU to keep its side of the bargain was aided by the role of the radical left in the

labour movement. He radical left has no understanding of what is necessary to defend the interests of

workers in the current crisis. All it wants is to retain its influence over the labour movement as an

alternative ‘left’ bureaucracy. It confines itself to what it sees as ‘possible’ without challenging the

capitalist state, and limits the struggle to put pressure on parliament for the withdrawal of the Act. In

other words, it is prepared to ensure a solution to the crisis acceptable to the ruling class.

Workers Power alone recognised the seriousness of the crisis, the life-and-death offensive being

launched on the working class, and responded with the correct strategy and tactics in calling for, and

building concretely, and immediate, indefinite general strike. We said what was necessary to smash the

Bill, not merely what the left bureaucrats and their hangers-on think is possible.

Workers Power made it clear from the start that a general strike, if successful, would inevitably become

a political general strike, challenging the right of the National Government to rule on behalf of the

bourgeoisie. We spelled out the tactics that were necessary for the working class to break from the sell-

out bureaucracy and the radical left, to win rank-and-file control over strike action, to generalise it,

defend it, and open the way for a Workers’ Government capable of resolving the crisis in the interests of

the working class.

In this pamphlet we give a detailed account of the lessons of the campaign against the Bill, and show

how our analysis of the crisis, government policy, and the role of the labour bureaucracy and the radical

left, enabled us to advance a revolutionary strategy and tactics. We draw the conclusion that unless we

are able to build a revolutionary party capable of leading the working class in the struggles ahead, we

will continue to suffer ever-worsening defeats at the hands of the ruling class and their agents in the

working class.

2



We call on all workers militants to learn the lessons of the campaign against the Bill. If you are

prepared to take those lessons into the labour movement and fight an all-out indefinite general

strike now! to smash the Act, defeat the National Government, and open the way for a Workers’

Government and a Socialist Aotearoa, then join Workers Power!

THE CAPITALIST CRISIS

Workers’ Power sees the current crisis as a pre-revolutionary crisis. What we mean by this is that the

crisis is so serious for the future of capitalists in NZ that they must embark on an open class war to smash

the working class in order to survive. Because these attacks threaten the survival of the working class,

spontaneous forms of resistance arise to meet them. However, without the leadership of a revolutionary

party, this spontaneous upsurge will not develop into a revolutionary struggle, and the radical left will

contain the fightback so that the crisis is resolved in a counter-revolutionary way – the defeat of the

working class and the victory of the capitalist class.

The crisis is therefore one of a struggle for survival, one class at the expense of the other. It is not as the

radical left see it, the result of a ‘right-wing’ ideology of market forces and individual rights. This

ideology accompanies but is not the cause of the radical changes that must occur to restore profitability.

Nor is the crisis the result of the ‘wrong’ government or the ‘wrong’ policies under the influence of

foreign capital or the Treasury. The fundamental cause of the crisis is the capitalist system itself and

governmental policies are simply attempts to counteract this cause.

Workers Power argues that recent governments have acted as far as they could to overcome the causes

of the crisis by ‘restructuring’ the economy. The most recent series of attacks from the National

Government are a continuation of policies of governments since the mid 1970s, dictated by the

requirements of international capital facing a growing world crisis. Because of the seriousness of the

world crisis, and NZ’s vulnerable position in the international economy, the National Government has

been forced to openly declare class war. This therefore means that the working class cannot resolve the

crisis in its favour by reforming the state. Our strategy must be the revolutionary overthrow of the state

and the replacement of the crisis-ridden capitalist system with a socialist society.

To grasp this revolutionary perspective it is vital to understand the causes of crises. Capitalist crisis flows

from the inability of capitalism to overcome a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, capitalism

must develop the forces of production, including labour productivity, to make profits, but on the other

hand, it must destroy these same forces.

In the capitalist economy, the productive working class alone produces wealth. The capitalist reaps the

profits by employing workers to work for a period in excess of that required to produce the value of their

wage (or what they need to live on). This excess labour-time produces surplus-value embodied in the

value of commodities which is the source of capitalist profits.

The most important factor determining the rate of profit is the rate of exploitation, not the wage level.

The rate of exploitation is the amount of surplus value as a proportion of the value of the wage. To

increase the rate of exploitation the capitalist relies mainly on increasing the productivity of labour,

enabling workers to produce more commodities in the working day. More commodities produced in a

given time means they have less labour or value in them, and are generally cheaper. Because workers

buy these goods to live on, this lowers the value of the wage without necessarily reducing its real

spending power (it will still buy the same amount of goods and services).

But, to increase the rate of exploitation, the capitalist must invest more and more capital on machines

which allow labour to be more productive. At the same time making labour more productive means

3



fewer workers are needed to work and more workers are made redundant. In order to make a profit on

the growing outlay of machines, the remaining workers must be exploited at an increasing rate.

Eventually, the cost of machines outstrips the capacity of employers to exploit workers more, and a

crisis of falling profits occurs.

Once this is understood it becomes clear that it is not ‘high’ wages which is the basic cause of capitalist

crisis, but rather the inability to drive up the rate of exploitation fast enough to maintain the rate of profit. It is the capitalist system, not the working class that must take the blame for causing crises!

THE WORLD CRISIS OF CAPITALISM

The result is that the contradiction between increasing production, and falling profits, periodically

surfaces in the form of economic crises and depressions. The history of capitalism is punctuated by long

periods of economic stagnation and deepening depressions – 1880s, 1930s, and the period from the mid

1970s to the present. There is little doubt that despite the revolutionary changes in Eastern Europe and

the victory over Iraq, these events are not evidence of capitalist prosperity and stability. Rather the

reverse, they are symptoms of the long-term decline and disintegration of world capitalism. We are

living through the third period of prolonged world crisis in capitalism’s history, and the impact of this on

New Zealand is extreme.

In this context the National Government’s attack on the labour movement can be understood as part of a

world-wide offensive by the international ruling class to solve their crisis at the expense of workers and

peasants. This offensive takes the form of mounting attacks on the organised labour movement in the

imperialist countries and advanced semi-colonies to break their resistance to the deregulation of the

labour market, cuts in social spending and increased exploitation.

In the Stalinist states (Soviet Union, Eastern Europe etc) the imperialist offensive takes the form of

pressure on the bureaucracy to re-introduce capitalist market relations at the expense of workers and

peasants. In the poor semi-colonies and colonies the offensive takes the form of a shift towards outright

military invasion and recolonisation as in Panama and Iraq. In all these examples, imperialism resorts to

increasingly open use of force and the military to impose its solutions to crisis.

The crisis in NZ is relatively extreme therefore, because of NZ’s place in the world economy. Over the

period of the post-war boom, NZ could protect its internal market and allow domestic manufacturing to

grow, by expanding its agricultural exports. This allowed rising profits, based on full employment in

protected manufacturing, and a ‘welfare state’ to maintain a healthy, educated workforce fit for

exploitation. But this prosperity was based on a weak foundation, and the end of the post-war boom and

international downturn from 1971, brought with it agricultural protection and barriers to exports,

undermining and then destroying the basis of the protected domestic economy. The result was a crisis of

falling profits.

The response of the NZ capitalist class was to open up the economy, to deregulate controls over capital

and labour and to ‘restructure’ production to become internationally competitive. The policies of the

Muldoon government from 1975 were designed to begin this process. It began restructuring industries like

textiles, rubber and car assembly, but its ability to move down the free market road was limited by the

interests of farmers and the unions opposed to cuts in state subsidies. It then switched its emphasis to

‘think big’ – making the economy self-reliant in basic energy resources, but the cost of borrowing for

these major projects saw NZ’s level of indebtedness climb steeply. Divisions in the government’s ranks

over economic policy brought the ‘snap election’ in July 1984 and the election of the 4th Labour

Government.

4



‘Rogernomics’ took restructuring much further and faster. Instead of attempting to borrow to stimulate

consumption, it aimed at cutting costs of production at all costs. It removed agricultural subsidies and

used its links with the CTU bureaucracy to force major destruction of jobs, wages and conditions on the

working class. It went further down the free market road with the corporatizing and privatising of much

of the state productive sector. During its 6 years in office the Labour government deregulated much of

the economy including the money market and the exchange rate. However, the Lange ‘centre’ baulked

at cutting social spending and undermining its traditional support base in the labour bureaucracy. Theleft and centre split from the Rogernomics right over the demolition of the welfare state, incapacitating

the government.

But even so, the Labour Government had done its job on behalf of the ruling class in ‘softening up’ the

working class for the next round of attacks. Its attacks on workers were so extreme and far reaching that

spontaneous resistance to these attacks took the form of a mass desertion from the Labour Party of

unions and working class voters. Maori voters stayed away from the Labour Party in droves, many

preferring to vote for ‘tinorangatiratanga’ – Maori sovereignty. Labour had clearly ceased to have any

value to the ruling class in delivering the workers votes, let alone with their hands tied. In November

1990 an openly right-wing National government was elected with a policy of Rogernomics-plus.

NATIONAL’S CLASS OFFENSIVE

The new National Government wasted no time declaring class war on the labour movement with its

December 19th ‘economic package’. It promised to cut benefits from April 1 by up to 25% to reduce

‘dependence’ on the state, to make health and education increasingly ‘user pays’, and introduced the

Employment Contracts Bill to destroy the power of the unions in the labour market. The cuts in benefits

and the social wage (education, health, housing etc) will force the 300,000 unemployed to compete for

jobs on the bosses’ terms or face a 26 week stand-down. At the same time the Employment Contracts

Bill Act will pressure workers to accept individual contracts on the bosses’ terms.

The combined effect of these attacks is intended to eliminate the organised resistance of the labour

movement to the new work practices by reducing the working class to an impoverished mass of

individuals competing to offer themselves as super-exploited wage slaves.

The prescriptions of the Porter Report for further free market reforms, wage levels set by productivity

and a reduction in social spending by half, signal the next round of attacks on workers. The passage of

the Act sets the legislative framework for company unions and productivity deals in the new

internationally competitive industries that the ruling class wants.

To guarantee profits in these new enterprises, the capitalist class must drive up the rate of exploitation

by making fewer workers produce much more, and under conditions set by the bosses. This reduces the

total wage bill and increases the total surplus-value, increasing the rate of exploitation.

Therefore, the combination of attacks on wages, conditions and trade union rights are designed not to

cut wages to ‘maximise’ profits as the radical left argues, but to introduce ‘new’ work practices to drive

up the rate of exploitation (productivity) and a return to profitability.

Yet increasing exploitation in this way does not guarantee increased profits if bosses are taxed to pay for

the social wage of the unemployed. The social wage is actually paid by the employers, indirectly, out of

their gross profits. If the social wage is not ‘productive’, because it maintains the health, education and

housing needs of the unemployed, whom capitalists cannot employ, it is a drain on their profits. The

social wage also acts as a disincentive to work if the unemployed don’t have to compete for jobs to stay

alive.

5



Therefore to satisfy the bosses the deregulation of the labour market needs a pincer movement – on the

one side the cut in benefits and the social wage (which also reduces taxes as a drain on profits) to force

the unemployed to compete for work, on the other side, the attack on the organised labour movement

to eliminate its collective strength. Workers Power confidently predicts that the next round of welfare

cuts will further undermine the social wage, and that the statutory minimum wages and hours will be

screwed down by general fall in wages.

PRE-REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION

Given the severity of the crisis, and the forms of resistance put since 1988, we are clearly entering a

pre-revolutionary situation which can be resolved only in one of two ways. Either, we overcome the past

defeats, and steer growing resistance in all its forms into the fight for an all-out indefinite strike which

will bring us into a political showdown with the Government. Or, the spontaneous fightbacks will be

contained by the labour bureaucracy and the radical left leading to the destruction of the working class

and its organisations.

Workers Power considers that an all-out general strike to smash the Employments Contract Act remains

the strategy for advancing the struggle. The campaign against the Bill showed that thousands of militant

workers took up the call for a general strike and began to mobilise. It also showed that the bureaucracy

in playing its class collaborationist role exposed itself to many workers. If it had not been for the role of

the radical left in holding back the struggle, our intervention to break the militants from the

bureaucracy would have been more successful. The lessons to be learned from this struggle are vital.

They may make the crucial difference between success and failure next time.

THE CTU CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE THE BILL

It was inevitable that once the full implications of the Bill became known, combined with the attack on

benefits and cuts to welfare, the National’s class-wide attack would generate a spontaneous upsurge of

working class protest. For this reason, the CTU held back from an early campaign against the Bill until

March. But because the Bill made no provision for trade unions, the CTU was forced to oppose it and tryto change it. It decided to launch a campaign to mobilise moderate protest. In this way the CTU

leadership could appear to be leading the workers against the Bill while in reality demonstrating its

capacity to serve the ruling class by holding them back.

We pointed to this sell-out role in several leaflets and in Redletter 71 and 7 (March and April). In a

leaflet on March 12 we condemned the bureaucratic sellouts:

“The official response of the C.T.U. to this vicious attack has been nothing short of pathetic. At

meeting after meeting our so-called leaders have refused to admit that what is necessary is an

all-out attempt to defeat the Bill and stop it becoming law. Instead they have committed all

their errors to persuading the Government to eradicate some of its worst aspects. These

bureaucratic mis-leaders are attempting to suck-up to the bosses by arguing that if the Bill goesthrough it will lead to ‘anarchy’ and ‘uncivilised’ behaviour. (Ken Douglas speaking to the Select

Committee, Friday March 8) – i.e. workers will take action without it being hamstrung by union

officials.

“The only thing these gentlemen are interested in is to protect their own jobs and conditions.

This is made brutally clear in the first issue of Working Life (inappropriately sub-titled ‘The

‘Action’ Newspaper of the Auckland Unions’. In the list of “things to do” the main demand is to

“make certain that the union can still represent you” – not to organise to defeat the Bill. In the

6



same issue the old working class slogan ‘United we Stand’ is reduced to ‘United we Bargain’.

With leadership like this it is no wonder that the bosses are pushing for even stronger measures

to take against us e.g. suspending non-striking workers.”

Again, in another leaflet on April 2 just before the ‘week of action’ we said:

“Since we wrote our last leaflet, many of the things we predicted have happened. In their desire

to get round the Employments Contracts Bill, rather than launch strikes against it, the

leaderships of several unions have ‘led’ their members to defeat. In union after union the

leaderships have used fear of the Bill to get the members to accept huge concessions on wages,

youth rates and a massive increase in casual work. The Hotelworkers have conceded punitive

weekend rates, youth rates and a massive increase in casual work. Polytechnic lecturers aren’t

asking for wage rises, and the airline clerical workers had their strikes called off, as their leaders

did not want to challenge the bosses’ court.

“However, the biggest disgrace has been the prostration to the once mighty wharfies. In return

for a ‘promise’ that their jobs would be safe, they have split their union apart. Instead of

bargaining across the country, thus uniting their members, they have agreed to port by port

negotiations which will set them at each others’ throats. If this is what our leaders are preparedto give away before the Bill becomes law to what depths will they stoop when it’s in place?

“Coupled with these sell-outs is an increasingly desperate attempt on the part of the

bureaucracy to stifle any criticism or alternative viewpoint. At meeting after meeting their first

concern is to ensure that no motions are allowed from the floor – genuine proposals from the

membership are the last thing these officials want – after all motions for immediate and

indefinite strike action may expose their real interests – to protect their own jobs, wages and

conditions in hobnobbing with the bosses. After letting members give vent to their anger and

desire to take action, they are then asked to endorse the officials token plans – anyone not doing

so would of course be seen as a splitter.”

THE ‘WEAK’ OF ACTION

The ‘week of action’ proved to be the CTU’s trump card with the Government. In Auckland the health

workers rally on April 3 was defused with a resolution to vote on a 24-hour strike on April 29. The

national day of action for the Education sector on April 4 concluded with no decisions on further action.

Yet despite all the CTU efforts to ‘stagger’ union marches and rallies to “keep the pressure on the

Government”, by April 10 the PSA march and rally in Auckland attracted a great deal of support from

other unions including the striking Seafarers, Timber Workers who had gone out for 24 hours, and the

Northern Local Government Officers.

The meeting in the Auckland Town Hall saw a capacity crowd cheering calls for a 24-hour general strike

coming from NLGOU and the Timberworkers. The Seafarers went one better and called for an indefinite

general strike. The Ken Douglas took the stage and diverted the call for a general strike. He said he

would make sure that no workers suffered after the Bill was passed by ‘unleashing solidarity action.’ The

CTU strategy was not to fight just the Bill now, but the whole economic policy of the Government later!

HISTORIC BETRAYAL

7



Within a week the CTU affiliates had met and by a margin of 50,000 votes (240,000 to 190,000) defeated

the proposal for a 24-hour general strike on April 30. In the May Redletter we wrote at length on this

historic betrayal:

“On April 18, Ken Douglas and the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) leadership declared for all to

see that they were the bosses’ lackeys. Their decision not to call for a general strike to stop the

Employment Contracts Bill on April 30 was an outrageous betrayal of the working class. The Bill isdesigned to smash all unions which are not tame company unions. The CTU leadership in refusing

to mobilise the power of the organised labour movement to stop the Bill, has exposed its class

collaborationist role in siding with the bosses against the working class. It has sold out the

campaign to Stop the Bill, and allowed tougher anti-worker provisions to be including in the Bill

in a deal which gives the CTU a legitimate role in forming company unions.”

The official explanation for the betrayal was that support for a general strike was not 100%! Though they

had been ‘empowered’ by their memberships to vote for a general strike, the PPTA, Nurses Association

and PSA, all pulled back for the same reason, their votes making the difference in the outcome. We

pointed out that blaming workers for not being 100% in support was an old excuse for bureaucratic class

collaboration:

“Blaming the workers is a pathetic cover for the fact that the labour bureaucrats have always,

since they were first regulated into existence as state functionaries in 1894, accepted the

bosses’ rule. Today, in the depths of another depression, they also accept the need to

deregulate the labour market to restore profits. Naturally, they would prefer to be ‘consulted’

to avoid being deregulated out of existence as well. But they have no intention of risking any

working class action getting in the road of their class collaborationist plans.

“After all they have already worked hard to prove their credentials to the bosses over the last six

years at the expense of 300,000 unemployed, falling real wages and growing cuts in the social

wage. Their complicity in containing working class anger over this period was rewarded by a

Compact with the Labour Government shortly before its defeat in November 1990, but that

failed to convince most workers. Now the National Government which succeeded Labour in officeneeds much bigger concessions. When the Bill was introduced in December it was clear that its

plans did not include recognition of the historic services of the labour bureaucracy.

“In its first draft there was no recognised role for trade unions in the Bill. This upset not only the

CTU whose fate hinged upon the freedom of choice of employers, it upset many employers, who

have found the CTU willing bedfellows in negotiating favourable site and enterprise agreements

such as those at Nissan and Fisher and Paykel. So the CTU and the big employers jumped back

into bed to make submissions to the Select Committee to amend the Bill and legalise the

‘responsible’ role of unions where the bosses agree to collective agreements – that is, company

unions.

“The trick was to persuade the anti-worker National Government that its ‘traditional’ enemies,the unions, can still serve a useful purpose in delivering compliant workers ready for exploitation

in a closed company shop! Surely a government that idolises Japanese industrial relations would

‘buy’ into a deal for tame company unions!”

On the 18th of April, the CTU bosses got wind of the changes they wanted in the Bill, and diverted the

pressure for a one-day strike into a ‘Day of Action’ on the 30th. When the Bill was reported back on the

24th it was clear that the CTU had got what it wanted – a few minor concessions which allows unions to

be bargaining agents, to be party to collective agreements, represent workers in disputes and grievance

8



procedures, and allow new workers to join existing agreements – provided, of course, that employers

are in agreement! Meanwhile the bosses had tacked-on more savage anti-worker provisions, further

limiting strike action to the negotiating phase of collective agreements which a single employer, and

allowing employers to suspend non-striking workers!

These measures on balance make the Bill much worse in its effects on workers than the original Bill.

Clearly the CTU has protected its bureaucratic interests at the expense of the working class.

APRIL 30 DAY OF ACTION

Having sabotaged the campaign for a general strike, the CTU was able to defuse another potentially

dangerous ‘Day of Action’ on April 30th by isolating the Heath Sector workers strike action. Other unions,

responding to rank-and-file anger at the CTU sell-out such as the secondary teachers voted to take strike

action on the 30th. But the CTU had been successful in ‘disorganising’ united action, so that individuals

sectors like the health unions were vulnerable to being ‘picked off’ by successful legal injunctions.

It was therefore fairly predictable that the health workers strike would be stopped by injunctions in

Auckland and Otago. Nevertheless the ‘day of action’ turned into the largest national industrial rally

seen for years. The PPTA was out for a day; Electrical workers also. The CTU bussed workers from allaround Auckland, so the turnout was around 30,000.

The mood on the march was militant with many chanting for a “general strike now!” But the Auckland

CTU leadership with Bill Andersen in charge was determined to stop the mass rally calling for a general

strike. Following the ‘soothing’ music of the Herbs and uninspiring speeches from Angela Foulkes the CTU

national vice-president, and Jim Knox, Andersen put forward a long resolution ‘condemning’ the

Government for everything from the ECB to canning sports roundup [radio show]. Sections of the crowd

began to call for a general strike, and two CPNZ members attempted to get onto the stage to put a

motion for a 24-hour general strike. They were physically prevented from doing so, and the meeting was

quickly closed much to the anger of many present.

The outcome of this ‘campaign’ is that, after May 15, under the Employment Contracts Act, the scene isset for a new ‘social contract’ between the Government and the CTU, in which both parties recognise

the basic right of employers to accept or reject collective agreements (contracts). To ensure that

employers agree to collective agreements which recognise unions as negotiating agents, the unions will

have to limit workers’ wages and conditions to the bosses’ drive to increase productivity and the rate of

exploitation.

In the changes to the Bill, the Government legislated for union coverage as a trade-off for the CTU

bosses’ complicity in implementing the move towards site/enterprise agreements and company unions.

But the CTU bosses will have to prove themselves capable of still functioning as the agents of the

bourgeoisie inside the working class!

The lessons to be learned from the ‘officials’ campaign are clear. The CTU bureaucrats are preparedto sacrifice the interests of the working class to defend their own sectional interests. Their

campaign was merely to persuade the government that they could still act as its agents in the labour

movement and so continue to ‘earn’ their privileges. Their reward was the ‘Company union

charter’. But the result of that betrayal has been their exposure to a layer of politically advanced

workers who now recognise the need to organise independently of the CTU as well as the employers.

The urgent issue facing these advanced workers is how to develop a strategy and tactics which

enables them to break not only with the bureaucracy, but from the radical left as well, and to carry

the struggle forward to victory.

9



OUT OF THE CTU FRYING PAN INTO THE STALINIST FIRE

Just as the militant unionists attempt to break out of the bureaucratic straight jacket, they are in danger

of jumping straight into the Communist Party’s popular front between the ‘left’ bureaucracy and the

national bourgeoisie. What the CPNZ says is ‘possible’ for the working class at any stage, is in reality

what is ‘acceptable’ to the ‘left’ bourgeoisie. A popular front is a coalition between workers’

organisations and sections of the bourgeoisie. The CP’s ‘united front of labour’ is such a front, as is New

Labour’s programme.

Such a front is designed to replace the existing National Government with a government more

‘sympathetic’ to workers. This might be a government which includes disaffected National backbenchers

arising out of a defeat of the National Government. It could even extend to the Muldoon-Peters group

which wants a return to the ‘economic nationalism’ of protectionism, devaluation, lower interest rates,

higher wages and benefits to boost consumption, and higher taxes to pay for state spending.

The effect of the popular front with bourgeois representatives is to limit the actions of workers to those

which are compatible with defeating the National Government and returning a government committed to

economic nationalism, in the mistaken belief that this will enable workers to benefit from more jobs,

better wages and conditions, and protection of basic rights. As we have argued above, given the nature

of the crisis, such as strategy is self-defeating.

In reality the popular front disarms the working class in the face of the ruling class offensive. It prevents

us from taking the independent action necessary to embark on a political general strike. It is therefore

necessary for revolutionaries to expose the role of the radical left such as the CPNZ in collaborating with

the bourgeoisie, enabling workers to break out of the popular front trap.

The CPNZ has a certain left ‘credibility’ in the labour movement based on a record of involvement in

trade union, housing and unemployment struggles. In the April Redletter we explained why we thought

the CPNZ could not give a revolutionary lead to the working class in the campaign against the Bill.

“Regular readers of Redletter will know that over the past two years we have put the policies of the CPNZ under the microscope. We have examined the origins of Stalinism as a parasitic growth

on the working class; the Stalinist’s betrayal of the German working class to Hitler in 1933; the

CPNZ’s popular front programme; the CPNZ’s defence of Albania as a socialist ‘fatherland’ –

including, most recently (Redletter , 71) the restoration of capitalism without a counter-

revolution! The CPNZ leadership has consistently refused to respond to our challenges to public

debates on these ‘life and death’ issues.

“The CP claims to represent the vanguard of the working class in New Zealand. (The job of the

CP is to help the working class become more conscious, united and organised in class struggle –

Peoples Voice, 17-4-91, p3). We will test this claim in the light of its role in the fight against the

Employment Contracts Bill. It also claims to be a party, which it clearly is not. While it has more

roots in the working class than any other ‘revolutionary’ organisation in NZ, it certainly has no

mass base. It is still unable to lead significant sections of the workers in struggle, nor challenge

the hold of the trade union bureaucracy. The correct name for such a group is a fighting

propaganda group which must survive, if at all, on the basis of its political programme. It has to

politically accumulate members from the vanguard at the same time as explaining to the whole

class what is necessary to win any particular battle. We believe it fails to do the latter and will

not achieve the former.

10



“Unlike many communist parties around the world which previously owed allegiance to Stalin’s

reactionary theory of ‘socialism in one country’, the CPNZ has not ‘made its peace’ with

capitalism. Indeed its paper – the People’s Voice – positively bristles with the rhetoric of class

struggle and the need for socialism. It has even been prepared to admit that glorious Albania has

betrayed the international working class and reintroduced the capitalist market.

“Closer to home it subjects the trade union leaders Ken Douglas and Bill Andersen, to torrents of criticism for their spineless leadership and adaptation to the bosses (something which we

heartily endorse!). Why then, do we believe that it is not up to task of defeating the

Employment Contracts Bill, let alone leading the struggle for socialism?

Firstly we would argue that it fails to point out clearly and unequivocally that what is necessary

to defeat such a class wide offensive is a class wide response – an all out indefinite General

Strike. While it correctly criticises the lack of action of the CTU leadership and even makes the

point that the concept of a one day ‘general strike’ is inadequate. Its General Secretary (Grant

Morgan) argues “The class enemy can take such a limited general strike in their stride. To be

effective a general strike must be longer than one day, or else there needs to be a series of one

day general strikes called” (PV , No3, p27). How much longer, 2 days or 3? How long a series – at

what intervals – fortnightly, weekly?

“Such dithering is hardly likely to inspire workers or worry the bosses. Is this the revolutionary

leadership a genuine Party would give? To defend their line, individual militants have argued that

they ‘don’t wish to tell the class what to do’, that ‘the demands must come from the class

itself’. This economism (an adaptation to the class’s existing consciousness) is hardly the

hallmark of a vanguard party of the type that Lenin constantly argued for!

On further investigation it becomes even clearer that the CP argue no way forward for the rank

and file members of the trade unions themselves. Their criticism of the CTU leaders is aimed

almost exclusively against Douglas and Andersen, than against the role of the bureaucracy as a

whole. Indeed we are told that the ‘majority of officials (are)...pretty close to the rank and file’

(PV , No 3 p31). Are these the officials that sold-out the wharfies and the hotel workers? Perhapsthey’re the ones who called off the Airline clerical workers strike or the ones who have refused

to accept motions from the floor at meeting after meeting?

“No comrades, Marxists understand the role of the bureaucracy to be the agents of the ruling

class within the workers movements. That is why real revolutionary communists (Trotskyists) call

for all workers actions to be under rank and file control; for the election of strike committees;

for all officials to be paid the average wage of the workers they represent, and instantly

recallable; no secret negotiations with the bosses; all claims and settlements ratified by mass

meetings etc. Nowhere do any of these demands appear in Peoples Voice.”

THE LEFT BUREAUCRACY

In line with the Stalinist politics, the CP believes that the present sell-out bureaucrats should be

replaced with ‘left’ ones who will then run the movement on behalf of its members. What else can we

assume they mean when they argue that what is necessary is simply to ‘overturn of class collaboration

that presently dominates the upper echelons of the labour movement (PV , No 3, p27). The very fact that

bureaucrats are not bound by the same wages and conditions as the rest of us means that even if they

put on a ‘left’ face they cannot be relied upon. Their main aim will always be to secure their own jobs –

as negotiators, ‘honest’ brokers between the bosses and the rank and file. If the rank and file ran their

11



unions and carried out their own negotiations, there would be no need for the bureaucracy. This fact

frightens them more than anything the bosses are currently proposing where they will still have a role

(albeit minor) to play.

The inability of the CP to take the lead in the campaign against the Bill was confirmed during the ‘weak

of action’. It had no tactic to ‘defeat’ the Bill. It did not raise the demand for a 24-hour general strike

during the week of action. It argued for ‘mass industrial action’ instead. Its main slogans during thisweek were ‘Defeat National’s Laws’ and ‘Continue a mass action campaign after May 1”.

Though the CP had members in some of the major unions present, it did not intervene in the April 10 PSA

meeting to demand the CTU call a general strike on April 30. Instead it held a public rally in Aotea

Square. By the April 30 ‘day of action’ however, the CPNZ was actively calling on the march for a

‘general strike now!’ and attempted to get a “24-hour general strike’ motion put at the rally which

followed. At the May Day rally in Albert Park the next day, a CP motion for a 24-hour general strike on

the day the act comes into force, was passed by the 200 workers present.

How do we explain the CP motion for a 24-hour ‘general strike’ (which the PV itself says ‘the class

enemy can take in its stride’) being put on May 1 instead of April 4? The obvious answer is that the CP

does not base its programme on what is necessary to smash the Bill and how to achieve it, but on what is possible or acceptable to the bourgeois partners in its ‘united front of labour’. Its role therefore is to

try to limit workers demands to make them ‘acceptable’ rather than raise any demands that might be

‘unacceptable’ to their bourgeois partners.

At every stage of the campaign against the Bill the CP lagged behind the most militant workers. It has a

stage-ist, instalment plan approach to socialism. It waits for militants to spontaneously arrive at tactics

before it raises them. This was clear on the question of the general strike, it is also clear that the same

approach will be followed in the ‘next stage’ of the campaign. In the article ‘Next Stage of Anti-Bill

Campaign’ in the Peoples Voice, 17 April 91k p.4, it states:

“The CP’s National Executive believes that we have entered the next stage of the campaign to

defeat the Bill, where class conscious workers need to wage a struggle inside the unionmovement to get definite agreement on a definite tactical programme of militant actions that

continue until National’s union-busting legislation is defeated.”

The CP, while it follows rather than leads the most advanced layers of workers, cannot act as a vanguard

of the working class. It cannot intervene as a force to say what is necessary in order to make it possible.

As we have explained, this is because it, along with other radical left groups, do not have the confidence

or interest to give a revolutionary lead to the working class in the struggle for a socialist revolution now.

This is why, ultimately, one-day strikes, two-day strikes, ‘indefinite’ defensive strikes which are not

seen as the necessary start of an all-out indefinite general strike, are all popular frontist. They are

directed at subordinating the labour movement to its petty bourgeois allies, to bring about a

parliamentary solution to the crisis, holding back the working class from the only tactic that canprevent its certain defeat.

FROM GENERAL STRIKE TO WORKERS GOVERNMENT

Unlike the radical left which follows behind advanced workers, Workers Power tries to offer a lead. We were the onlyrevolutionary organisation to call for an immediate, indefinite general strike and at the same time advance specificconcrete tactics how to build it. We have been criticised by the CPNZ and the Permanent Revolution Group [PRG] forcalling for an immediate, indefinite general strike. They say that an indefinite general strike cannot be immediate. It

12



could not happen on April 4 or April 30. They accuse Workers Power of ‘ultimatism’ or ‘childishness’ for believing thatit can. We are neither.

We say what is necessary. The government is engaged in an all-out attack to smash the labour movement. A generalstrike is necessary. Anything less means defeat. It must be as long as necessary to smash the Act and defeat thegovernment’s attack. That means indefinite. When? Now! What this means in practice is that starting NOW wegeneralise all industrial action toward that end. If our critics have trouble understanding this, many militant workers

we spoke to did not.

Our March 12 leaflet was headed “Strike to smash the Employment Contracts Bill”. It warned of the bureaucrats sell-out deals in ‘rolling over’ awards to get union coverage under the Act. It called for rank-and-file control of unions;strikes for new awards; the generalising of strikes – no group to settle until all claims are agreed – and for animmediate general strike to defeat the Bill.

As the ‘week of action’ neared we put out another leaflet titled “All out on the 4th”. This leaflet also combined a seriesof detailed tactics such as ‘ripping up bad awards’. It argued that April 4th “could be the start of a General Strikeagainst the Bill”. We used the influence we had to say what would be necessary to make April 4th the start of anindefinite general strike. We called on health workers who struck on the 3rd to stay out, and to Seafarers to bring theirstrike forward by a week. The odds against this happening were long, but nevertheless it had to be said to combat thedisorganising tactic of the CTU to prevent united action. The call “All out from the 4th” that appeared in the April

Redletter was a call to generalise the day of action concretely – to form a concrete bridge from the isolated actions of many unions through a united day of action to an immediate, indefinite, general strike.

When we first raised the demand for a general strike on March 12 we said:

“now is the time for all workers to strike together. Only if that is done will we be able to organise the masspickets and workers defence squads to stop the scabs and the uniformed strike breakers. For make no mistake,if we attempt to resist the bosses offensive they will throw all the forces at their disposal at us. The NationalGovernment will see a general strike as a test of its ability to rule, and we must be prepared to defeat thegovernment and fight for the election of a Workers’ Government committed to socialist policies.”

In the April Redletter which was produced for April 3, we explained further what we meant by a “general strike”:

“Workers Power is the only revolutionary organisation in New Zealand calling for a general strike against theEmployment Contracts Bill. The Stalinist Communist Party refrains from calling for a general strike because ithas no confidence in the working class’ ability to defeat the bill.

The Permanent Revolution Group’s slogan “Towards a General Strike” is confused. It implies that a generalstrike is not necessary to stop the bill, or may be necessary but is not possible, yet! Either way anything short of the call for an immediate general strike and all-out action to build it is pathetic posturing.

As communists we do not base our programme on what the working class thinks is possible- most workers arewilling to take action, but they are not going to take all-out indefinite strike action to stop the bill without theintervention of a revolutionary leadership.

The recent history of bureaucratic sell-outs on jobs, wages and conditions, means that there are no examples of

labour victories that inspire workers into action. On top of this the so called ‘left’ has no confidence in theworking class or in themselves being able to win any struggle against the state.

Yet, if we based our programme on the existing expectations and consciousness of even the most militantworkers we would not be communists, we would be crass opportunists offering no leadership to the class tochallenge the betrayals of its present misleaders. We would sink into the mire of defeatism and despair andallow the ruling class to walk all over us without a fight.

No! We base our programme on what is necessary for the working class to win the class war against thebosses. This is why we say that the current crisis of capitalism in NZ can only be resolved in one of two

13



ways. Either the bosses smash the labour movement in a class-wide attack to restore their profits, or we asa class, resist, fight back and smash the bosses state.

There can be no half-way solution negotiated by the union bureaucrats as in the past. The bosses can no longerafford to pay for negotiated deals, or the union officials whose role it has been to mediate between the rulingclass and the working class. They want tame company unions on their terms. Groups like the Stalinist CPNZ orthe fake-trotskyist PRG, who think that the bill can be defeated by methods short of an immediate general

strike, are covering-up for the sell-out bureaucrats.

In the present crisis conditions, the union bureaucrats can only survive if they act as agents of the bosses insmashing the labour movement. This is why they are using the threat of the bill to block strike action to stop it,to cravenly prove to the ruling class that they can still deliver ‘social peace’. Their reward, they hope, is to getan amendment to the bill which preserves their historic role as the labour lieutenants of capital i.e. agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class.

The only way to prevent the bosses using the bill to smash the labour movement and with it the organisedstrength of the working class, is to take advantage of our class strength – uniting across our whole class towithdraw our labour – the general strike. A general strike is not a token one – day stoppage which plays into thehands of the bosses. It is an all-out indefinite strike of the labour movement!

Calling for a general strike is not something we do lightly. A total withdrawal of labour brings capitalism to ahalt. It stops the production process at its source – the workplace – and halts the making of profits for thebosses. Other sectors of society are paralysed, posing in stark form the question – which class rules?

A general strike therefore, is a challenge on the part of the organised working class to the class power of thebourgeoisie. Striking exposes their dependence on our wage-labour. Picketing against strike-breakers conteststheir ‘right’ to hire and fire against us, and to use the courts, the police and the army to enforce these ‘rights’against us. A general strike calls forth every measure the bourgeoisie can muster to preserve its class rule. Itteaches workers that the law, the police and the armed forces are used by the ruling class to maintain itsexploitive system.

In calling for a general strike, revolutionaries must spell out these consequences in order to forewarn andforearm the class for the battles ahead. We do not choose to go into battle disarmed. So we must use the time

available to prepare the methods necessary in the struggle for state power.

The most likely reaction of a National government to a general strike would be to declare a state of emergencyand use its emergency powers to make all strike action, picketing, and acts of solidarity illegal, as in the 1951strike. Whether the strike means victory or defeat for the working class – one fact is certain withoutfighting their can be no victory.

Capitulation to the bill now means certain defeat – a return to the unregulated labour conditions of the1870’s. But the struggle for an immediate general strike means that the working class is prepared to use itsstrength to form workers councils to defend its existence, to bring down the Bolger government, and fightfor a Workers Government to end the crisis-ridden capitalist system and establish a genuine socialistsociety.”

During the ‘week of action’, Workers Power propagandised publically for an immediate indefinite general strike andadvanced detailed tactics to build a ‘concrete bridge’ from rallies and stopworks to the general strike. We distributedthousands of leaflets and sold hundreds of Redletters over this week. By April 10 the powerful PSA march and rally of 3000 in Auckland cheered and clapped calls for a 24hour general strike put forward by unionists. The pressure wassuch that when Ken Douglas spoke he talked about the need to ‘defeat’ the Bill. But he then deliberately derailed theobvious mass support for a general strike into an indefinite future campaign against the whole government economicstrategy.

We see the weak of action as a vindication of our politics. The fact that 3000 workers were prepared to support thecall for a general strike condemns the radical left with members in those unions for failing to raise the general strike

14



demand concretely. The CP did not raise the demand for a 24 hour general strike until April 30. The PRG tells us in itsApril 26 leaflet that over this period it was putting forward motions for an “indefinite general strike, as soon aspossible, until the Bill is withdrawn”. We have pointed out the dangers of empowering motions.

To call for an “indefinite general strike as soon as possible”, is worse than a 24-hour strike on a definite day, and notmuch better than Ken Douglas’ promise to fight the Bill sometime in the future. It presents no ‘concrete bridge’ overwhich the rank-and-file can pass, and so remains an abstract and indefinite empowering demand. To make matters

worse the PRG argue that the purpose of the indefinite general strike is “defensive” and capable of getting the Billwithdrawn short of a political general strike. This is opportunistic. It appeals to those with illusions in the ability of thelabour movement to force the government to reverse its basic labour market policy without a challenge to the classnature of the capitalist state!

As we have argued above, radical left groups who do not understand the pre-revolutionary nature of the crisis willadapt to the ‘left’ reformist politics of the labour bureaucracy. Independent working class action is subordinated toparliament. This was clearly confirmed by the role of the ‘left’ following the betrayal of the campaign by the CTU onApril 18 and the report back on the Bill on April 24.

Workers Power alone reported that the Bill was now worse than before! We said that this confirmed our predictionthat tactics which fell short of the all-out General Strike would in fact play into the hands of the CTU and the government. And that the failure to call for and build the General Strike made the ‘lefts’ accomplices in this betrayal

i.e. a “cover” for the CTU/government deal.

However this sellout was so blatant, many understood it without the offer of guidance by the ‘left’. We continued topropagandise for “All out on the 30th”, following the same strategy of offering tactical advice – to get out and supportthe health strike and to ‘turn the 30th into an immediate indefinite General Strike. The Auckland PPTA voted on the24th to come out on April 30. This was forced on the leadership after strong criticism of the combined education CTUdelegates for voting against a general strike.

Obviously other unions needed to do the same to turn April 30 into the start of a general strike. As it was, despiteeverything the CTU had done to disorganise the campaign against the Bill, the ‘Day of Action’ saw around 30,000 turnout in Auckland and 60,000 nationally. This in the face of the sellout CTU campaign was a measure of the realpotential for a general strike. Mass sentiment on that march was for a general strike. Because of our small size andlack of influence we were unable to turn that mood into a concrete demand. The CP itself was physically prevented

from putting its 24hr strike resolution. The real measure of our limited success was that the CTU bureaucrats only justkept control, and in doing so exposed their role as the agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement.

For Workers Power the struggle against the Bill confirmed our perspective, strategy and tactics. Short of an all outindefinite general strike now!, defeat of the working class is inevitable. There was no fault on the part of workers.They were, and are, prepared to fight. Many more workers have learned the lesson that not to fight means sure defeat.Next time they will be much more critical of the bureaucracy and prepared to take action independently of the CTUleadership. In a pre-revolutionary situation such independent working class struggle would inevitably turn a tokengeneral strike into a political general strike which would challenge the labour bureaucracy and the government. It wasfear of this outcome which forced the CTU to contain the struggle, and the radical left to ‘cover’ for this sell-out. Italso explains the extreme haste with which the government rushed through the legislation.

Workers Power will continue to raise the demand for an indefinite General Strike Now! to Smash the Act. We do this

to state what is necessary to prevent further defeats. We stand by our revolutionary politics. What we lack at thisstage, as a small propaganda group, is the ability to intervene decisively to break the most advanced layers away fromthe radical left and its popular front. The danger of working class struggle being co-opted by the left labourbureaucracy remains. We appeal to militant and class conscious workers to join us and build a revolutionary partycapable of leading the struggle for a socialist revolution.

- Call for an immediate national conference of all unions to decide on a general strike to smash the act!- Form rank and file committees of militants to initiate and control industrial action!- Sack union representatives who have signed sellout deals and replace them with accountable delegates.

15



- Tear up agreements which sellout hard won rights and conditions for the sake of union recognition underthe Act.

- Strike for new contracts which reclaim lost conditions and which include:1. a living wage indexed to inflation2. Penal rates for unsocial hours3. 32 hour week without loss of pay4. Union coverage under rank and file control

-Form strike committees, workers’ defence committees, and food distribution committees against attemptsto break strikes.

- Demand the Bolger government resign.- For a Workers’ Government committed to:

- JOBS FOR ALL – A SHORTER WORKING WEEK - A LIVING WAGE SET BY WORKERS COMMITTEES- NATIONALISATION OF LAND – RETURN STOLEN LAND TO MAORI- EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL OPPRESSED GROUPS- NO IMMIGRATION CONTROLS

- SOCIALISE INDUSTRY AND BANKS UNDER WORKERS CONTROL

- A SOCIALIST AOTEAROA WITHIN A SOCIALIST UNITED STATES OF THE

PACIFIC

16



17

smash the act

Documents