Some useful and inspiring quotes from the man who wrote "What is to be done?" in 1901-1902.
Page numbers from the 1973 Progress Publishers pamphlet reprint
Lenin on the need for organisation (Section I A, p11)
We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don't clutch at us and don't besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are "free" to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!
Lenin on the need for alliances (Section I C, p18)
Only those who are not sure of themselves can fear to enter into temporary alliances even with unreliable people; not a single political party could exist without such alliances.
Lenin (and Pisarev) on dreaming (Section V B, pp166-167)
And if indeed we succeeded in reaching the point when all, or at least a considerable majority, of the local committees local groups, and study circles took up active work for the common cause, we could, in the not distant future, establish a weekly newspaper for regular distribution in tens of thousands of copies throughout Russia. This newspaper would become part of an enormous pair of smith's bellows that would fan every spark of the class struggle and of popular indignation into a general conflagration. Around what is in itself still a very innocuous and very small, but regular and common, effort, in the full sense of the word, a regular army of tried fighters would systematically gather and receive their training. On the ladders and scaffolding of this general organisational structure there would soon develop and come to the fore Social-Democratic Zhelyabovs from among our revolutionaries and Russian Bebels from among our workers, who would take their place at the head of the mobilised army and rouse the whole people to settle accounts with the shame and the curse of Russia.
That is what we should dream of!
"We should dream!" I wrote these words and became alarmed. I imagined myself sitting at a "unity conference" and opposite me were the Rabocheye Dyelo editors and contributors. Comrade Martynov rises and, turning to me, says sternly: "Permit me to ask you, has an autonomous editorial board the right to dream without first soliciting the opinion of the Party committees?" He is followed by Comrade Krichevsky; who (philosophically deepening Comrade Martynov, who long ago rendered Comrade Plekhanov more profound) continues even more sternly: "I go further. I ask, has a Marxist any right at all to dream, knowing that according to Marx, mankind always sets itself the tasks it can solve and that tactics is a process of the growth of Party tasks which grow together with the Party?"
The very thought of these stern questions sends a cold shiver down my spine and makes me wish for nothing but a place to hide in. I shall try to hide behind the back of Pisarev.
"There are rifts and rifts," wrote Pisarev of the rift between dreams and reality [Pisarev was a 19th century Russian intellectual and a leading exponent of ‘social utilitarianism’. He held that all art and intellectual endeavour was useless unless it aimed ‘to solve forever the unavoidable question of hungry and naked people’ L.R.]. "My dream may run ahead of the natural march of events or may fly off at a tangent in a direction in which no natural march of events will ever proceed. In the first case my dream will not cause any harm; it may even support and augment the energy of the working men.... There is nothing in such dreams that would distort or paralyse labour-power. On the contrary, if man were completely deprived of the ability to dream in this way, if he could not from time to time run ahead and mentally conceive, in an entire and completed picture, the product to which his hands are only just beginning to lend shape, then I cannot at all imagine what stimulus there would be to induce man to undertake and complete extensive and strenuous work in the sphere of art, science, and practical endeavour.... The rift between dreams and reality causes no harm if only the person dreaming believes seriously in his dream, if he attentively observes life, compares his observations with his castles in the air, and if, generally speaking, he works conscientiously for the achievement of his fantasies. If there is some connection between dreams and life then all is well."
Of this kind of dreaming there is unfortunately too little in our movement. And the people most responsible for this are those who boast of their sober views, their "closeness" to the "concrete" ... .
Monday, May 22, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Government does not go far enough with "unbundling" Telecom
The Government has not gone far enough with its "unbundling" proposal to deal with Telecom’s monopoly of the telephone lines. I agree with the separation of the telephone lines from Telecom’s broadband business, but the "local loop" lines should then be brought back under public ownership.
Monopoly ownership has allowed Telecom to gouge monopoly profits since it was privatised in 1990 by the infamous Rogernomics Labour Government of the day. When Telecom won the 2004 CAFCA Roger award for the worst multi-national, financial analyst, Sue Newberry, showed that Telecom was making over 25 per cent annual returns on its New Zealand assets year after year.
This is why telephone line and mobile call charges are so high in this country – to keep Telecom’s shareholders rubbing their hands when the $800 million profit is paid out each year. The way to stop this is to put this essential infrastructure asset under public ownership and control so it delivers an efficient, modern service at the cheapest possible cost to its customers.
The National party is defending Telecom’s monopoly position, saying that the "market" should be left to decide if, how and when broadband technology should be delivered.
This is like saying the weather should be left to decide which homes are washed away by floods, or the fox should be left in charge of the chickens. National believes this will deliver the best outcomes for New Zealand. As the ads say – "Yeah right!" Telecom’s success in preventing any real competition, along with its deliberate strategy of paying out maximum dividends rather than investing in the development of modern broadband infrastructure, gives lie to that argument.
Since 1986, when privatisation of state-owned assets began, New Zealand has been gold-rush territory for big capitalist concerns. The strategy of these largely foreign investors is one of ‘pump and dump’ – pump the profits out and dump the asset after the vampire urges of these asset strippers is satiated. Then the next lot moves in to take their share – precious little of the private capital investment that we were promised by the promoters of privatisation has ever occurred. Instead New Zealand’s vital transport, energy, communications and other economic infrastructure has been degraded to crisis point in many cases.
Monopoly ownership has allowed Telecom to gouge monopoly profits since it was privatised in 1990 by the infamous Rogernomics Labour Government of the day. When Telecom won the 2004 CAFCA Roger award for the worst multi-national, financial analyst, Sue Newberry, showed that Telecom was making over 25 per cent annual returns on its New Zealand assets year after year.
This is why telephone line and mobile call charges are so high in this country – to keep Telecom’s shareholders rubbing their hands when the $800 million profit is paid out each year. The way to stop this is to put this essential infrastructure asset under public ownership and control so it delivers an efficient, modern service at the cheapest possible cost to its customers.
The National party is defending Telecom’s monopoly position, saying that the "market" should be left to decide if, how and when broadband technology should be delivered.
This is like saying the weather should be left to decide which homes are washed away by floods, or the fox should be left in charge of the chickens. National believes this will deliver the best outcomes for New Zealand. As the ads say – "Yeah right!" Telecom’s success in preventing any real competition, along with its deliberate strategy of paying out maximum dividends rather than investing in the development of modern broadband infrastructure, gives lie to that argument.
Since 1986, when privatisation of state-owned assets began, New Zealand has been gold-rush territory for big capitalist concerns. The strategy of these largely foreign investors is one of ‘pump and dump’ – pump the profits out and dump the asset after the vampire urges of these asset strippers is satiated. Then the next lot moves in to take their share – precious little of the private capital investment that we were promised by the promoters of privatisation has ever occurred. Instead New Zealand’s vital transport, energy, communications and other economic infrastructure has been degraded to crisis point in many cases.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
SFWU AGMs Oppose Rule Changes
Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) members in Auckland are rejecting the rule changes proposed by their leadership that would deprive them of the right to directly elect their leaders.
The rules being voted on at the round of Annual General Meetings currently under way around the country provide for the national and regional leadership of the SFWU to be elected at delegates’ conferences rather than by the votes of all members. The make-up of these delegates’ conferences is not decided by the members. Rather the delegates who wish to attend are required to submit a written "expression of interest" in attending. The National or Regional executives then determine the size and composition of the delegates’ conference to elect the leaders whose positions are up for election.
At the national level, the elected positions concerned include the National Secretary (a full-time paid position) and the National President (an unpaid, voluntary post). The three Regional Secretaries (full-time paid officials) and Regional Presidents (again, unpaid volunteers) would be elected the same way at the regional level. (The SFWU is essentially a federation of three regions, Northern – with the largest membership – Central, and Southern.) The Secretaries have a four-year term, the Presidents face re-election every two years.
Given that the Regional Secretaries and Presidents sit on (and have a big influence in determining the membership of) their respective Regional Executives, and the National Executive includes the National Secretary and President as well as the six aforementioned regional officers, there are clear conflicts of interest in this arrangement.
The people seeking re-election are effectively in charge of the process of selecting the people who will be voting for (or against) them in the elections held to fill the positions they, as incumbents, currently hold.
The rule changes were rammed through the union’s 2004 Northern Region conference by Darien Fenton, before she won a Labour Party list seat in Parliament in September 2005. The official registration of the new rules took place on September 21, just days after the election result was known.
However, these new rules were required to be re-submitted to the membership this year after the union obtained legal advice that the rule-change meetings held in 2004 had not been properly notified.
This puts the union in a quandary as the current National Secretary was elected under the newly registered rules after the position of National Secretary was vacated by Darien Fenton on her accession (or is that ascension) to parliament.
The four omnibus resolutions being put to the membership seek: (1) the membership’s endorsement of the 2004 rule changes; (2) their acceptance of the result of the elections already held under these rules; (3) their approval of the actions taken by the officers of the union (principally John Ryall) since their election under the faulty 2004 rules; (4) their endorsement of some further (2006) rule changes that seek to make the rules consistent with the intentions of the earlier (2004) changes.
In Auckland, concerned members and delegates have circulated letters and leaflets, exercised their rights to speak at meetings, and otherwise organised to oppose the recommended resolutions. The result is that where there has been debate at the AGMs on the rule changes they have been overwhelmingly rejected in all but one or two meetings. At one stage the votes were running two to one against. Only the late night convening of some factory site-meetings where oppositional voices were not able to be heard has partially rescued the situation for the leadership.
The most startlingly shocking aspect of the AGMs has been the direct intervention of Darien Fenton MP into the voting process. Fenton, whose office is on Auckland’s North Shore, has attended several AGMs and spoken in favour of the Resolutions. Many members see this as inappropriate and an attempt to wield undue influence. Despite Fenton’s best efforts meetings like the large one held at the Papatoetoe Town Hall last week have still voted down the resolutions (134 against, to 92 for, on Resolution 1 at this meeting).
After the Papatoetoe meeting, Fenton was observed haranguing a delegate who had spoken strongly in defence of union democracy and against the resolutions. The delegate was visibly shaken by the vehemence of Fenton’s verbal assault on him.
The rule change debacle has impacted on the election of Fenton’s successor as SFWU Northern Region Secretary (Fenton was a dual office-holder before her departure to Parliament).
The Union’s Rules require an election to be held to fill the vacant Northern Region Secretary position. Nominations were called last December but the election still has not been held. It has been postponed twice; once in February because of improper notification (this seems to be an endemic problem for the SFWU), and secondly in March after the election rules themselves came into question. The election will now not be held until June, after the completion of the round of AGMs and the ratification (or not) of the Rule changes.
Fenton’s anointed successor, one Lisa Eldret (Fenton’s "wing-person" and Assistant Regional Secretary in the Northern office), is being strongly challenged by the experienced and respected trade unionist Jill Ovens. Ovens is the former full-time, paid President of ASTE, the technical teachers’ union, and was until recently the CTU Women’s Convenor and representative on the CTU National Affiliates Council.
Ovens has been a senior organiser with the SFWU in the health and aged-care sectors (Northern Region) for the last year and a half, and now heads the "Healthy Pay, Healthy Hospitals" campaign in the region. She has gained the respect and support of the Northern SFWU office staff and organisers, as well as the members and delegates she has been working with.
A suspicious mind might think the real reason the election has been postponed twice is because the "numbers" were against the chosen one. An old adage of Labour Party politics is that you never hold a vote unless you know in advance that the outcome will be favourable to you.
The SFWU is a living example of the operation of the "iron law of oligarchy" that the sociologist Robert Michels exposed in the German workers’ movement nearly one hundred years ago. Michels examined how large organisations, particularly trade unions and political parties, tend to create structures that perpetuate the status quo and undermine their own internal democracy even though they may be publicly committed to defending democracy in society as a whole. Control of information, resources, staffing, and election processes are the means by which incumbent leaders maintain their power. Michels was extremely pessimistic that anything could be done to combat this tendency (hence his description of it as an "iron law").
Well, members of the SFWU in Auckland (and possibly the rest of the Northern Region) give supporters of union democracy reason for optimism. They are showing at their AGMs that it is not true that "oligarchy" always triumphs. The members have a voice and they are showing that they know how to make it heard.
The rules being voted on at the round of Annual General Meetings currently under way around the country provide for the national and regional leadership of the SFWU to be elected at delegates’ conferences rather than by the votes of all members. The make-up of these delegates’ conferences is not decided by the members. Rather the delegates who wish to attend are required to submit a written "expression of interest" in attending. The National or Regional executives then determine the size and composition of the delegates’ conference to elect the leaders whose positions are up for election.
At the national level, the elected positions concerned include the National Secretary (a full-time paid position) and the National President (an unpaid, voluntary post). The three Regional Secretaries (full-time paid officials) and Regional Presidents (again, unpaid volunteers) would be elected the same way at the regional level. (The SFWU is essentially a federation of three regions, Northern – with the largest membership – Central, and Southern.) The Secretaries have a four-year term, the Presidents face re-election every two years.
Given that the Regional Secretaries and Presidents sit on (and have a big influence in determining the membership of) their respective Regional Executives, and the National Executive includes the National Secretary and President as well as the six aforementioned regional officers, there are clear conflicts of interest in this arrangement.
The people seeking re-election are effectively in charge of the process of selecting the people who will be voting for (or against) them in the elections held to fill the positions they, as incumbents, currently hold.
The rule changes were rammed through the union’s 2004 Northern Region conference by Darien Fenton, before she won a Labour Party list seat in Parliament in September 2005. The official registration of the new rules took place on September 21, just days after the election result was known.
However, these new rules were required to be re-submitted to the membership this year after the union obtained legal advice that the rule-change meetings held in 2004 had not been properly notified.
This puts the union in a quandary as the current National Secretary was elected under the newly registered rules after the position of National Secretary was vacated by Darien Fenton on her accession (or is that ascension) to parliament.
The four omnibus resolutions being put to the membership seek: (1) the membership’s endorsement of the 2004 rule changes; (2) their acceptance of the result of the elections already held under these rules; (3) their approval of the actions taken by the officers of the union (principally John Ryall) since their election under the faulty 2004 rules; (4) their endorsement of some further (2006) rule changes that seek to make the rules consistent with the intentions of the earlier (2004) changes.
In Auckland, concerned members and delegates have circulated letters and leaflets, exercised their rights to speak at meetings, and otherwise organised to oppose the recommended resolutions. The result is that where there has been debate at the AGMs on the rule changes they have been overwhelmingly rejected in all but one or two meetings. At one stage the votes were running two to one against. Only the late night convening of some factory site-meetings where oppositional voices were not able to be heard has partially rescued the situation for the leadership.
The most startlingly shocking aspect of the AGMs has been the direct intervention of Darien Fenton MP into the voting process. Fenton, whose office is on Auckland’s North Shore, has attended several AGMs and spoken in favour of the Resolutions. Many members see this as inappropriate and an attempt to wield undue influence. Despite Fenton’s best efforts meetings like the large one held at the Papatoetoe Town Hall last week have still voted down the resolutions (134 against, to 92 for, on Resolution 1 at this meeting).
After the Papatoetoe meeting, Fenton was observed haranguing a delegate who had spoken strongly in defence of union democracy and against the resolutions. The delegate was visibly shaken by the vehemence of Fenton’s verbal assault on him.
The rule change debacle has impacted on the election of Fenton’s successor as SFWU Northern Region Secretary (Fenton was a dual office-holder before her departure to Parliament).
The Union’s Rules require an election to be held to fill the vacant Northern Region Secretary position. Nominations were called last December but the election still has not been held. It has been postponed twice; once in February because of improper notification (this seems to be an endemic problem for the SFWU), and secondly in March after the election rules themselves came into question. The election will now not be held until June, after the completion of the round of AGMs and the ratification (or not) of the Rule changes.
Fenton’s anointed successor, one Lisa Eldret (Fenton’s "wing-person" and Assistant Regional Secretary in the Northern office), is being strongly challenged by the experienced and respected trade unionist Jill Ovens. Ovens is the former full-time, paid President of ASTE, the technical teachers’ union, and was until recently the CTU Women’s Convenor and representative on the CTU National Affiliates Council.
Ovens has been a senior organiser with the SFWU in the health and aged-care sectors (Northern Region) for the last year and a half, and now heads the "Healthy Pay, Healthy Hospitals" campaign in the region. She has gained the respect and support of the Northern SFWU office staff and organisers, as well as the members and delegates she has been working with.
A suspicious mind might think the real reason the election has been postponed twice is because the "numbers" were against the chosen one. An old adage of Labour Party politics is that you never hold a vote unless you know in advance that the outcome will be favourable to you.
The SFWU is a living example of the operation of the "iron law of oligarchy" that the sociologist Robert Michels exposed in the German workers’ movement nearly one hundred years ago. Michels examined how large organisations, particularly trade unions and political parties, tend to create structures that perpetuate the status quo and undermine their own internal democracy even though they may be publicly committed to defending democracy in society as a whole. Control of information, resources, staffing, and election processes are the means by which incumbent leaders maintain their power. Michels was extremely pessimistic that anything could be done to combat this tendency (hence his description of it as an "iron law").
Well, members of the SFWU in Auckland (and possibly the rest of the Northern Region) give supporters of union democracy reason for optimism. They are showing at their AGMs that it is not true that "oligarchy" always triumphs. The members have a voice and they are showing that they know how to make it heard.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Police rape trial
It is inspiring to see brave women standing up against rapists. The police cannot sweep this one under the carpet. Only a police force based on, and in, the community can be relied upon. Bullies and power-trippers have no place in society's internal defence force.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Air NZ workers forced to accept "marriage-breaker" deal
Under threat of closure of their workshop the Christchurch Air New Zealand engineers voted to accept a union-management deal that one worker described as a "marriage-breaker" because of the onerous weekend shift work involved.
Dennis O’Brien told the NZ Herald business reporter that the sacrifice he and the other workers were being asked to make was "extreme". Under the "job-saving" scheme promoted by the leaders of the EPMU and AMEA unions, he and others will have to work part or all of 47 weekends a year. At the moment they only work one weekend in three. Mr O’Brien said the new shift-roster will put unreasonable strain on family life. Wages will also be cut by about $15,000 a year.
Mr O’Brien originally voted "no" to the deal but last Thursday he changed his vote to "yes" for a slightly modified offer. "There was a small carrot and a very big stick," he said. He thought it was better to live to fight another day.
Air NZ will now keep the wide-body airframe maintenance work in New Zealand, but 200 jobs will go. The unions had previously brokered a deal that saw 110 engine-maintenance jobs lost. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, had added to the pressure to accept the deal by urging workers to change their vote. Nevertheless, nearly one third of the Christchurch-based workers still voted "no".
The unions’ acquiescence over the engineering job cuts has been taken as a green light by the company for hundreds of other job cuts. Another 500 office-based job losses were immediately announced after the union acceptance of the 200 engineering job cuts. Andrew Little of the EPMU said it was "unbelievable" that these cuts were to be made. But the lack of resolve by himself and other union leaders over taking action to save the engineering jobs, means the company thinks it can do whatever it likes with impunity.
Little could have led a political and industrial campaign to mobilise support from the public to save the jobs. The Government should have stepped in to take full control of Air NZ, a company that is already 80 per cent publicly-owned. The unions could have fought for that to happen instead of selling members pay and conditions to save some of the jobs threatened.
There have now been 900 job cuts involving cleaners, engineers and office workers. More are to come. The cost-cutting plan put forward by former chief executive Ralph Norris more than two years ago was for 1500 jobs to go. Airline analyst, Peter Sigley, from the financial company Goldman Sachs JBWere, praised the new chief executive, Rob Fyfe, for being an aggressive manager of costs and for not being afraid to make difficult decisions. "Fyfe has stepped into the guts of the business in terms of its cost base," he said. Some might say he is ripping the guts out of the business.
Despite fuel cost rises, Air NZ chairman John Palmer announced that the airline balance sheet was in good shape with more than $1.1 billion cash in the bank and a projected profit expected this year of $140 million. The total savings made through the job cuts are less than $50 million.
As the Alliance says, the loss of jobs is completely unnecessary. It is not about the engineering operation or the airline as a whole losing money. It is all about return on capital. The heavy engineering workshops have been one of the main revenue earners for Air NZ for years.
The Government has the responsibility to stop the wanton economic vandalism by Air NZ management. The job cuts are a major blow to our strategically important transport infrastructure. It is a matter of concern for all New Zealanders and should be top priority for this Labour Government.
No jobs should go and no cuts should be made to workers’ pay and conditions. The Government must step in and take control of the situation.
The Alliance believes the cost-cuts are being made to get the airline ready to be sold back into full private ownership.
Dennis O’Brien told the NZ Herald business reporter that the sacrifice he and the other workers were being asked to make was "extreme". Under the "job-saving" scheme promoted by the leaders of the EPMU and AMEA unions, he and others will have to work part or all of 47 weekends a year. At the moment they only work one weekend in three. Mr O’Brien said the new shift-roster will put unreasonable strain on family life. Wages will also be cut by about $15,000 a year.
Mr O’Brien originally voted "no" to the deal but last Thursday he changed his vote to "yes" for a slightly modified offer. "There was a small carrot and a very big stick," he said. He thought it was better to live to fight another day.
Air NZ will now keep the wide-body airframe maintenance work in New Zealand, but 200 jobs will go. The unions had previously brokered a deal that saw 110 engine-maintenance jobs lost. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, had added to the pressure to accept the deal by urging workers to change their vote. Nevertheless, nearly one third of the Christchurch-based workers still voted "no".
The unions’ acquiescence over the engineering job cuts has been taken as a green light by the company for hundreds of other job cuts. Another 500 office-based job losses were immediately announced after the union acceptance of the 200 engineering job cuts. Andrew Little of the EPMU said it was "unbelievable" that these cuts were to be made. But the lack of resolve by himself and other union leaders over taking action to save the engineering jobs, means the company thinks it can do whatever it likes with impunity.
Little could have led a political and industrial campaign to mobilise support from the public to save the jobs. The Government should have stepped in to take full control of Air NZ, a company that is already 80 per cent publicly-owned. The unions could have fought for that to happen instead of selling members pay and conditions to save some of the jobs threatened.
There have now been 900 job cuts involving cleaners, engineers and office workers. More are to come. The cost-cutting plan put forward by former chief executive Ralph Norris more than two years ago was for 1500 jobs to go. Airline analyst, Peter Sigley, from the financial company Goldman Sachs JBWere, praised the new chief executive, Rob Fyfe, for being an aggressive manager of costs and for not being afraid to make difficult decisions. "Fyfe has stepped into the guts of the business in terms of its cost base," he said. Some might say he is ripping the guts out of the business.
Despite fuel cost rises, Air NZ chairman John Palmer announced that the airline balance sheet was in good shape with more than $1.1 billion cash in the bank and a projected profit expected this year of $140 million. The total savings made through the job cuts are less than $50 million.
As the Alliance says, the loss of jobs is completely unnecessary. It is not about the engineering operation or the airline as a whole losing money. It is all about return on capital. The heavy engineering workshops have been one of the main revenue earners for Air NZ for years.
The Government has the responsibility to stop the wanton economic vandalism by Air NZ management. The job cuts are a major blow to our strategically important transport infrastructure. It is a matter of concern for all New Zealanders and should be top priority for this Labour Government.
No jobs should go and no cuts should be made to workers’ pay and conditions. The Government must step in and take control of the situation.
The Alliance believes the cost-cuts are being made to get the airline ready to be sold back into full private ownership.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Thanks from Air NZ worker
Hi Len,
Thanks for your support on the ANZES (Air NZ Engineering Services) issue. You're one of the few outsiders who can see this disgraceful situation for what it really is. I have attached a document to this email which shows the type of bullying we are expected to endure!
Kind Regards,
John Kooloos
You're welcome John,
You and your fellow workers are being subjected to unwarranted and uncalled-for pressure from all sides. The Government is acting disgracefully. Helen Clark's outburst is tantamount to 'scabbing' on your members' justified fight to retain hard-won conditions in the face of an employer determined to increase profitability at the expense of the workforce.
The Government was elected by a massive turnout of workers in the election. They should put the workers' interests first. As majority shareholder, they should step in and sack the present management if it will not back off from its plans to cut jobs and slash conditions in this vitally important industry.
Andrew Little of the Engineers Union, and even some of the AMEA union officials, are reluctant to put the government on the spot and would rather concede than fight. I still think industrial action based around an occupation of the workshops could mobilise support from the general public against the wanton economic vandalism being proposed by Air NZ.
Good luck and best wishes from myself and the Alliance Party.
Yours in solidarity,
Len Richards
Alliance Co-leader
Thanks for your support on the ANZES (Air NZ Engineering Services) issue. You're one of the few outsiders who can see this disgraceful situation for what it really is. I have attached a document to this email which shows the type of bullying we are expected to endure!
Kind Regards,
John Kooloos
You're welcome John,
You and your fellow workers are being subjected to unwarranted and uncalled-for pressure from all sides. The Government is acting disgracefully. Helen Clark's outburst is tantamount to 'scabbing' on your members' justified fight to retain hard-won conditions in the face of an employer determined to increase profitability at the expense of the workforce.
The Government was elected by a massive turnout of workers in the election. They should put the workers' interests first. As majority shareholder, they should step in and sack the present management if it will not back off from its plans to cut jobs and slash conditions in this vitally important industry.
Andrew Little of the Engineers Union, and even some of the AMEA union officials, are reluctant to put the government on the spot and would rather concede than fight. I still think industrial action based around an occupation of the workshops could mobilise support from the general public against the wanton economic vandalism being proposed by Air NZ.
Good luck and best wishes from myself and the Alliance Party.
Yours in solidarity,
Len Richards
Alliance Co-leader
Helen Clark blames workers for job losses
Prime Minister Helen Clark has blamed the workers for refusing to accept the wage cuts and loss of conditions involved in the union-management deal that was negotiated to try and save half the 600 threatened Air New Zealand engineering jobs.
It is scandalous that the Government, a majority-shareholder in the company, refused to intervene to overturn the decision to close the Air NZ heavy engineering maintenance workshops. Instead, Ms Clark has said she was disappointed that a "small majority" of workers rejected the brokered deal.
The fact is hundreds of Air NZ workers voted down the deal which would have meant their shifts could be changed with little notice and their pay would be cut. Why should workers have to take cuts to save their own jobs?
The loss of the engineering jobs is completely unnecessary. It is not about the engineering operation losing money. It is all about return on capital.
The heavy engineering workshops have been one of the main revenue earners for Air NZ for years. The projected savings from the workshops' closure are only $20 million a year in a company that made a $250 million profit last year.
It is the Government's responsibility to stop the wanton economic vandalism threatened by Air NZ management. The loss of our country's heavy aircraft repair capacity would be a major blow to our strategically important transport infrastructure. It is a matter of concern for all New Zealanders and should be top priority for this Labour Government.
No jobs should go and no cuts should be made to workers' pay and conditions. The Government must step in and take control of the situation.
It is scandalous that the Government, a majority-shareholder in the company, refused to intervene to overturn the decision to close the Air NZ heavy engineering maintenance workshops. Instead, Ms Clark has said she was disappointed that a "small majority" of workers rejected the brokered deal.
The fact is hundreds of Air NZ workers voted down the deal which would have meant their shifts could be changed with little notice and their pay would be cut. Why should workers have to take cuts to save their own jobs?
The loss of the engineering jobs is completely unnecessary. It is not about the engineering operation losing money. It is all about return on capital.
The heavy engineering workshops have been one of the main revenue earners for Air NZ for years. The projected savings from the workshops' closure are only $20 million a year in a company that made a $250 million profit last year.
It is the Government's responsibility to stop the wanton economic vandalism threatened by Air NZ management. The loss of our country's heavy aircraft repair capacity would be a major blow to our strategically important transport infrastructure. It is a matter of concern for all New Zealanders and should be top priority for this Labour Government.
No jobs should go and no cuts should be made to workers' pay and conditions. The Government must step in and take control of the situation.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Supersize success
The "Supersize my pay" rally/stopwork meeting held at the Auckland Town Hall yesterday would have to be described as a resounding success. The NZ Herald said 300 attended, but closer to 500 eventually turned up. There were quite big contingents of Maori Party and Green Party supporters: Pita Sharples spoke, as did Sue Bradford. Most of the activist left turned up and of course quite a few (50 -100??) actual fast food workers who were the ones the rally was supporting. Matt McCarten spoke, providing a couple of good quotes for the Herald - "serfs in our own country" and - "There comes a time in everyone’s lives, when we have to make a stand for justice. This is one of those times." The CTU was represented by its vice president, Carol Beaumont. The CTU gave the campaign to raise the wages of the low-paid its full support. Laila Harre spoke from the NDU. She had a delegate with her who told how they organised a supermarket chain. Other unions like the SFWU and AUS had banners or spoke giving support. Child Poverty Action Group had a speaker as well.
The reggae rapper band pumped out the sounds. Rosita Vai of NZ Idol fame (former KFC worker) sang two songs. Michele A'Court and another comedian did their turns and there were some excellent video and slide presentations about the pay campaign.
Sharples spoke strongly against poverty and in support of the low paid and beneficiaries but Sue Bradford said only United Future had so far decided to support her bill to abolish youth rates for 16 and 17 year-olds. She said she hoped Sharples' speech meant the Maori Party would vote for the bill going to the select committee. The word is that Labour will probably support it going to select committee as well. Some Labour MPs and the CTU are backing the bill.
Workers' Charter were distributing their new tabloid newspaper. I congratulated John Minto, its editor, on the quality - 12 pages in colour. Jill Ovens' article about the SFWU pay equity campaign for low-paid hospital workers, with a picture of her on a picket line, was prominent (on page 3). The big question is how the paper will be able to sustain itself, and how frequently they can get it out. Dean Parker wrote a piece in this first edition about the Wharfies Transport Worker paper that was published in the run-up to the 1951 stoush. It was a true worker's paper. It had the social base of an important section of workers.
Workers' Charter might struggle to emulate the popularity of the wharfies' paper; one edition of that paper had a run of 100,000 copies (the union only had 7000 members).
The Workers Charter (draft) features prominently in poster form as the centre-fold. The charter is starting to sound more and more like the Alliance manifesto as it is amended (by whom?) with each new public appearance. It talks of the battle for democracy and human dignity. It calls for a complete transformation of society, with democracy extended into every sphere of the economy and the state. The demands include "The right to public control of assets vital to community well-being" and "The right to organise for the transfer of wealth and power from the haves to the have-nots".
The reggae rapper band pumped out the sounds. Rosita Vai of NZ Idol fame (former KFC worker) sang two songs. Michele A'Court and another comedian did their turns and there were some excellent video and slide presentations about the pay campaign.
Sharples spoke strongly against poverty and in support of the low paid and beneficiaries but Sue Bradford said only United Future had so far decided to support her bill to abolish youth rates for 16 and 17 year-olds. She said she hoped Sharples' speech meant the Maori Party would vote for the bill going to the select committee. The word is that Labour will probably support it going to select committee as well. Some Labour MPs and the CTU are backing the bill.
Workers' Charter were distributing their new tabloid newspaper. I congratulated John Minto, its editor, on the quality - 12 pages in colour. Jill Ovens' article about the SFWU pay equity campaign for low-paid hospital workers, with a picture of her on a picket line, was prominent (on page 3). The big question is how the paper will be able to sustain itself, and how frequently they can get it out. Dean Parker wrote a piece in this first edition about the Wharfies Transport Worker paper that was published in the run-up to the 1951 stoush. It was a true worker's paper. It had the social base of an important section of workers.
Workers' Charter might struggle to emulate the popularity of the wharfies' paper; one edition of that paper had a run of 100,000 copies (the union only had 7000 members).
The Workers Charter (draft) features prominently in poster form as the centre-fold. The charter is starting to sound more and more like the Alliance manifesto as it is amended (by whom?) with each new public appearance. It talks of the battle for democracy and human dignity. It calls for a complete transformation of society, with democracy extended into every sphere of the economy and the state. The demands include "The right to public control of assets vital to community well-being" and "The right to organise for the transfer of wealth and power from the haves to the have-nots".
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The Alliance is a party for the working class
by Len Richards – Alliance Co-leader
The Alliance contested the 2005 election as a party for the working class. As such, the Alliance campaigned for the defeat of National and the extreme right-wing elements that supported Brash’s campaign.
It was the large turnout of working class voters, especially in South Auckland, that assured Labour enough seats to form a government. Labour must repay that support with measures to improve the lot of the working class people, many of whom are struggling to survive on pitifully low incomes.
The Government has said it will raise the minimum wage to $12 in 2008 "if economic conditions permit". This is not good enough.
The immediate abolition of youth rates would be start, and Sue Bradford’s private members bill to that effect should be supported by all who claim to be "with the workers", including Labour MPs.
The Greens and Workers’ Charter are pushing for an immediate increase in the minimum wage to $12 an hour. This, the Alliance supports as well. However, if the minimum wage was set at two-thirds of the average wage ($21.13 in November, 2005), in line with the ILO Standard, it would be $14 an hour, and this would make a real difference to hundreds of thousands of workers.
Despite six years of a Labour Government, low hourly rates and the loss of overtime rates mean low-paid workers are worse off in real terms then they were 15 years ago. Workers have to work long hours just to make ends meet.
In real terms, wage rises are barely keeping up with rising prices. Unemployment may well be low by international standards, but many jobs are part-time or casual. Insecurity haunts working class suburbs.
Casual workers often miss out on basic entitlements such as sick leave or parental leave, and they are easily dismissed.
The State has allowed wages and conditions to be driven down by contracting out services such as cleaning in hospitals and doing nothing to ensure workers get a living wage and decent conditions.
The Alliance says we need to:
Increase the minimum wage: The Alliance policy is for a minimum wage of $15 an hour. We oppose discriminatory youth rates. Everyone (those with jobs and beneficiaries) should get an income they can live on.
Control excessive hours: We supports the introduction of a 35-hour working week with no loss of pay and immediate introduction of 4 weeks annual leave. Workers should have the right to refuse unreasonable hours or shift work, and mandatory overtime rates.
Introduce responsible contracting: Where employers get public money to deliver services, we think they should be required to meet national standards in pay and conditions.
Protect casual workers: We fight for protections for casual and part-time workers and make it possible for them to carry over service from job to job so they qualify for public holidays, sick leave and parental leave.
Secure a right to redundancy: All workers should have the right to a minimum redundancy payment, but many do not have the power to negotiate this. Our policy is for minimum redundancy of 4 weeks pay, plus 2 weeks pay for every year of service.
Address pay equity in the private sector: Pay inequities in the private sector as well as the public sector will be reduced when we have free childcare, after-school care and when the work that women commonly do is rewarded with decent pay.
Extend Paid Parental leave: We fight for 12 months paid parental leave for all women workers, including casual and seasonal workers. We also support 2 weeks paid parental leave for partners.
Legalise the right to strike: Workers should have the right to strike to enforce their Collective Agreement, to oppose lay-offs, to support other workers, and for political reasons.
Introduce workplace democracy: Workers should have a say in the way work is organised. The Alliance will push for stronger employment legislation to ensure greater workplace democracy.
The Alliance contested the 2005 election as a party for the working class. As such, the Alliance campaigned for the defeat of National and the extreme right-wing elements that supported Brash’s campaign.
It was the large turnout of working class voters, especially in South Auckland, that assured Labour enough seats to form a government. Labour must repay that support with measures to improve the lot of the working class people, many of whom are struggling to survive on pitifully low incomes.
The Government has said it will raise the minimum wage to $12 in 2008 "if economic conditions permit". This is not good enough.
The immediate abolition of youth rates would be start, and Sue Bradford’s private members bill to that effect should be supported by all who claim to be "with the workers", including Labour MPs.
The Greens and Workers’ Charter are pushing for an immediate increase in the minimum wage to $12 an hour. This, the Alliance supports as well. However, if the minimum wage was set at two-thirds of the average wage ($21.13 in November, 2005), in line with the ILO Standard, it would be $14 an hour, and this would make a real difference to hundreds of thousands of workers.
Despite six years of a Labour Government, low hourly rates and the loss of overtime rates mean low-paid workers are worse off in real terms then they were 15 years ago. Workers have to work long hours just to make ends meet.
In real terms, wage rises are barely keeping up with rising prices. Unemployment may well be low by international standards, but many jobs are part-time or casual. Insecurity haunts working class suburbs.
Casual workers often miss out on basic entitlements such as sick leave or parental leave, and they are easily dismissed.
The State has allowed wages and conditions to be driven down by contracting out services such as cleaning in hospitals and doing nothing to ensure workers get a living wage and decent conditions.
The Alliance says we need to:
Increase the minimum wage: The Alliance policy is for a minimum wage of $15 an hour. We oppose discriminatory youth rates. Everyone (those with jobs and beneficiaries) should get an income they can live on.
Control excessive hours: We supports the introduction of a 35-hour working week with no loss of pay and immediate introduction of 4 weeks annual leave. Workers should have the right to refuse unreasonable hours or shift work, and mandatory overtime rates.
Introduce responsible contracting: Where employers get public money to deliver services, we think they should be required to meet national standards in pay and conditions.
Protect casual workers: We fight for protections for casual and part-time workers and make it possible for them to carry over service from job to job so they qualify for public holidays, sick leave and parental leave.
Secure a right to redundancy: All workers should have the right to a minimum redundancy payment, but many do not have the power to negotiate this. Our policy is for minimum redundancy of 4 weeks pay, plus 2 weeks pay for every year of service.
Address pay equity in the private sector: Pay inequities in the private sector as well as the public sector will be reduced when we have free childcare, after-school care and when the work that women commonly do is rewarded with decent pay.
Extend Paid Parental leave: We fight for 12 months paid parental leave for all women workers, including casual and seasonal workers. We also support 2 weeks paid parental leave for partners.
Legalise the right to strike: Workers should have the right to strike to enforce their Collective Agreement, to oppose lay-offs, to support other workers, and for political reasons.
Introduce workplace democracy: Workers should have a say in the way work is organised. The Alliance will push for stronger employment legislation to ensure greater workplace democracy.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Workplace deaths count for nought
The tragic death of 15-year-old Inia Motu as he worked a school holiday job with his father at the Whitford Landfill near Auckland, the ninth workplace death this year, highlights the inadequacy of Government protection of manual workers on the job in New Zealand. Workers die while reports are written, and nothing changes.
Inia was driving a tractor when it rolled and crushed him. The machine had a roll cage but unless the young man was strapped in, he was at risk. Although a seat belt was fitted, he was not wearing it. The Department of Labour is investigating the training and supervision of the 15-year-old.
Of the nine people killed at work so far this year, seven of them were crushed to death.
The lack of urgency and efficacy of government departments charged with taking action to end the senseless slaughter of workers on the job is epitomised by the inadequacy of the information gathering systems that should be exposing the full extent of the problem.
According to 2002 reports by the Labour and Statistics departments, workplace and work-related deaths are under-reported because of the variety of agencies collecting the information. The Department of Statistics was charged with collating and publishing comprehensive data but this has not happened yet.
OSH investigated an average of 44 fatal workplace accidents per year in the years from 1990 to 1994, a period when a ten year independent joint study by Otago and Auckland university researchers published in 1999 found an average of 67 work related injury deaths of workers actually occurring. If bystanders were included in the tally the average was 74 deaths per year.
Taking just the workers, this means that over 34 per cent of workplace injury deaths were not investigated or counted by OSH. In fact, OSH does include deaths of "members of the public", i.e. bystanders, in its investigations so the under-reporting rate could have been as high as 40 per cent. (Note: There is a six-month overlap in the two sets of figures, but this does not materially affect the result of the comparison.) This under-reporting by OSH continues to this day.
This is because OSH does not deal with all work related injuries. Road deaths of truck drivers, for example, are investigated and counted by the Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA). Deaths involving aircraft and ships are dealt with by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Maritime Safety Authority (MSA) respectively. And some workplace deaths are just not reported to OSH.
Bob Hill, the then General Manager of OSH, wrote a hard-hitting article in 2002 describing how the cause of the 73 workplace fatalities the previous year varied; "they were strangled, burnt, shot, beaten, decapitated, electrocuted, drowned and crushed to death."
He wrote that: "The true cost of work-related death is under-acknowledged by New Zealanders." He referred to the 1999 university study, saying that it identified 820 work-related deaths from 1985 to 1994. Of these, he said, OSH recorded only 327 i.e. less than half. He says this shortfall was not just because many of the deaths fell out of OSH’s jurisdiction, but also because some deaths that should have been reported, were not.
To overcome this shortcoming in data collection, the Department of Statistics was appointed "Information Manager" under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC Act) to collect information on workplace injury and death. The Act gives the Information Manager (i.e. the Department of Statistics) the power to require government agencies to provide injury related information. According to the Department of Labour, the Statistics department has the responsibility for compiling comprehensive injury data held by ACC, CAA, MSA, LTSA, NZHIS (New Zealand Health Information Service; a division of the Department of Health) and OSH.
However, the only statistics available from the Department are those from the ACC claims for workplace injury deaths. This data comes with the disclaimer that not all work-related fatalities have claims submitted for them and therefore not all work-related deaths are included. Included in the data, though, are some claims for workplace deaths due to injury caused by occupational disease, a whole other category of under-counted work related deaths.
According to the Statistics Department’s Injury Statistics 2001/2002 Work-related Injuries report, their research the previous year showed:
* No single agency collects information on all the work-related fatal injuries.
* Even when the information from all the relevant agencies is pooled, the total still falls short of the actual total.
* The undercount occurs in part because deaths from occupational diseases are under-represented. As well, some work-related fatal injuries are not identified or reported as such, in part because the element of work-relatedness is not recorded by the agency responsible.
On taking on the responsibility of co-ordinating the workplace fatal injury data collection in 2002, the Department of Statistics said it would take three years to "develop a system to manage injury information". An analyst in the Department told me, however, that "not much progress" had been made with the fatalities. He said a "scoping exercise" was underway to integrate the ACC information with that from the NZHIS and that there were no plans to collect information directly from other agencies like the CAA, the LTSA and the MSA because that information is supposedly available from the NZHIS.
The analyst said the Statistics department hoped to have the integration ACC and NZHIS data "up and running" by the middle of this year so we will have "a better idea" of the number of work-related deaths. However, he said, this information will still be suspect because of the "unreliability of coding" from ACC. The so-called E-Codes used to classify causes of death do not indicate if fatalities occurred at work. This has to be inferred. The independent university study published in 1999 had the same difficulty in utilising the raw NZHIS mortality data.
The lack of urgency in implementing the clear intention of the IPRC Act to collect accurate statistics on workplace injuries and deaths and the inadequacy of the scoping exercise being carried out is a scandal. To prevent accidents and deaths at work, accurate information is the first requirement. The Department of Statistics has been given the legislative power to require the information to be collected but seems reluctant to use that power.
At least six Government departments and agencies are involved in this fiasco; Health, Labour, Transport, Police, the NZ Defence Force and Statistics. The latter should be told by the Government to require the relevant agencies that all work-related injury deaths be recorded as such and the information passed on to the Department of Statistics. In other words "the element of work-relatedness" must be required to be recorded by any agency dealing with fatalities.
As Bob Hill concluded in his 2002 article:
"With ... comprehensive data, we will begin to see the true cost of workplace death and injury to New Zealand, and all parties concerned will have the information to better target action to minimise risks and prevent work-related injuries and deaths.
"Nobody should die in the workplace. The 73 deaths investigated by OSH last year (2001/02) are an appalling waste of life and a source of immense suffering to the victim’s families, friends and workmates, as well as an economic cost both to their employers and to the country as a whole."
In July 2003 the Government established a new independent advisory committee called predictably the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (NOHSAC). This committee reports to the Associate Minister of Labour.
In its Second Annual Report in June 2005, NOHSAC estimated that there were 100 deaths from occupational injury and up to 1000 deaths from occupational disease in New Zealand each year. In the year from July 2004 to June 2005 OSH investigated only 46 fatal workplace accidents; again, less than half. The report said: "The Department of Labour and other government agencies do not know how many people die from work-related causes each year. More than 80 per cent of work-related deaths (mostly due to disease rather than injury) are not documented or reported, and are not investigated."
It goes on to describe the limitations of the present data collection methods and holds up Finland as an example New Zealand could follow. There, a separate agency has operated since 1945 collecting and disseminating information on occupational health and safety. It has 900 people either employed by or working for it. NOHSAC calls for a similar agency to be set up in New Zealand.
A 1996 government inquiry slated the "non-existence of meaningful (occupational health and safety) statistics, which has been the case for 20 years, (and) cannot be allowed to continue." Ten years later little has changed, in spite of the trial work done by the Department of Statistics.
NOHSAC says an independent, autonomously functioning and funded agency should operate an Occupational Disease and Surveillance System (ODISSY) that would "ensure that the appropriate data is collected" rather than just relying on data that has been collected by various agencies for other purposes.
Inia Motu’s family, and the families of the hundreds of workers who die from work-related injuries and diseases every year would heartily agree that it is time that those deaths counted for something: that we should learn from these unnecessary tragedies to prevent similar ones in the future.
The Government needs to act with urgency to rectify the present unacceptable situation. Workers continue to be killed while Ministers and bureaucrats sit on their hands.
Friday, January 06, 2006
No room in the Herald
At the suggestion of another blogger I submitted my piece entitled Little Room for Marx? about Andrew Little and his attutitude to Marx and trade unionism to the NZ Herald for publication in their "Perspectives" pages. I have just got off the phone with John Gardiner, the person who puts those pages together. He told me my piece would not be used because it "did not fit in". He said it was not of "general enough interest" to be published. He claimed to have more than enough submissions and my one "did not make the cut".
It is funny that over the last period the "Perspectives" pages have found room for overseas articles, reprinted from the Independent for example, along with a typically incoherent ramble from Mike Moore, which suggests to me a shortage rather than a surfeit of material.
Is this more a case of the inherent bias of corporate-owned media against radical anti-systemic ideas showing through?
For more on the systematic bias of the media in Britain see Media Lens http://www.medialens.org/
It is funny that over the last period the "Perspectives" pages have found room for overseas articles, reprinted from the Independent for example, along with a typically incoherent ramble from Mike Moore, which suggests to me a shortage rather than a surfeit of material.
Is this more a case of the inherent bias of corporate-owned media against radical anti-systemic ideas showing through?
For more on the systematic bias of the media in Britain see Media Lens http://www.medialens.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)