National and the CTU
August 4th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarAn item in Trans-Tasman caught my eye:
The PM was quite bolshie this week about the CTU’s open letter and threats to cut off political co-operation. He reminded the CTU’s Helen Kelly he’d broken a National Party promise by heeding union pleas not to break what he called the union “monopoly” on collective bargaining. It’s something the CTU should “think about,” he said.
So let’s see if I have this right.
Prior to the last election the CTU ran advertisements and explicitly campaigned against National. They even targeted senior MPs in video ads.
Now if a business group such as BusinessNZ had run such a campaign against the Clark Government, they would have been frozen out of even getting to have meetings with Ministers.
Instead John Key gives the CTU direct access to him. And even better he agrees to hold off on implementing two of National’s election policies – employer consent for access, and removing the union monopoly for collective bargaining.
So just think about this. He has a National/ACT majority. He could implement his entire election policy and in fact some of ACT’s. But instead he agrees to defer two policies to keep happy the very same organisation that campaigned against him.
18 months later, he announces that one of the two deferred policies will be implemented. A policy that was explicit election policy. And on the basis of this, the CTU claims it will call for strikes, industrial action and refuse all co-operation.
There is a lesson in this for John Key. As admirable as it is to be Mr nice guy, and try actually extend the hand of friendship to the CTU, despite them campaigning explicitly against you, it was always doomed to fail. The CTU will always put first its desire to get Labour into office, and was always going to turn around and crap on you. They just needed the excuse.
I mean does anyone really think it is a rational decision to declare you are now against all free trade agreements and will try and stop them, just because a union now has to let an employer know at least a few minutes in advance if they want to visit?
The PM should get on and implement the remainder of the 2008 industrial relations policy. Unions should indeed not have a monopoly on collective bargaining. A group of employees should be able to negotiate a collective contract themselves without needing to form a union.
Likewise a lawyer should be able to represent a group of employees, and negotiate a collective contract on their behalf. You do not need a union to negotiate a collective contract. Labour merely passed a law requiring it. Under the former law, there were quite a few collective contracts that did not involve unions.
Related posts:
- Business NZ Conference Part VI
- Maori Seats policy not a bottom line for National
- A battle too important to concede
- Union vs Union
August 4th, 2010 at 9:07 am
John Key betrays us again.
Who would have thought?
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Now if a business group such as BusinessNZ had run such a campaign against the Clark Government, they would have been frozen out of even getting to have meetings with Ministers.
You mean they do not support National? I am pretty sure that they did not make donations to Labour but would be interested to see if they have donated funds to National. So that there is a proper debate National should disclose all donations that it has received over the past 3 years. Then we can discuss the rights and wrongs of groupings supporting the different parties.
And Ministers met with business leaders all the time, even though they knew what their political allegiances were.
[DPF: BusinessNZ has never ever made a donation to a political party. Nor has it ever campaigned for or against a political party. This is in total contrast to the CTU which does]
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 9:21 am
I’ve always said Helen Clark had bigger balls than John Key, look what she did with a majority?
Both retrospective and anti democratic laws come to mind.
When the full reality of the ETS and the proposed Foreshore and Seabed law (comes into effect after Christmas I don’t think Key or National can rely on a second term.
We voted them in to undo Labour’s crap not continue it.
Similarly we did not give them a mandate to take away any of our rights or ownership and give it to another racial group.
That the world is in financial shit and the risk of worse to come is still very much there,
Vote:Key/National is not acting as if that is the case possibly to our peril. ( I guess it’s ok if you have $50 in the bank as you have options, ordinary people don’t).
August 4th, 2010 at 9:29 am
I’m with you Mickey there should be upfront disclosure of all donations.
But not just monies lets also allow for time and manpower like the Unions aid and shared advertising and printing budgets too!
These need to be properly accounted for and allocated against the parties limits.
Yes you are correct Ministers met with business leaders all the time just as they met with Union leaders and socialised with them to when they were in opposition, who got the better reception I wonder Business leaders or Union officials?
David is also correct the law needs rewrititing so that anyone can represent workers even individual lawyers, after all this is a liberal democracy isn’t it?
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 10:13 am
“The PM should get on and implement the remainder of the 2008 industrial relations policy.”
And he should… only he had the intestinal fortitude to do it.
When will Neville Key learn to muster some courage and get on with the job he was elected to do, instead of his endless pandering and appeasing to racists and socialists?
C’mon Mr. Key grow some balls and act accordingly.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 10:13 am
John Key was quite right to take a conciliatory approach with the CTU even though they were inevitably going to crap on him. The other point to remember is National does need broad support from the electorate to continue to have a very workable majority (ie not have to boollick Winston Peters) in 2011 and 2014. IMO John may be better off to defer ‘breaking’ union dominated collective bargaining until after 2011. The current situation is not intolerable and the worst downside would be losing votes to ACT.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 10:17 am
So Key holds off on implementing election policy to appease the CTU, but when National Party members complain mightily about Nick Smith’s ETS madness we are told it was in the manifesto and to STFU.
Thanks John.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 10:21 am
DPF – This is disingenuous. The CTU always has to defend its members’ positions, and be seen to defend them, as vigorously as possible. It makes no difference to them whether the PM has an electoral mandate because they cannot simply acquiesce to something their members (by which I mean the unions rather than individual union members) oppose. They can’t just shrug and say “oh, well, the PM is a nice guy, he’s treated us well up to now, so we’d better go along with this”.
The CTU is not a political party. They do not exist to promote the best interests of NZ Inc. They exist to promote their members’ interests. So they will come into conflict from time to time with the Government.
You are therefore right about there being a lesson in this for the PM. But I don’t believe his irritation is real. He can’t be naive enough to have expected anything else from the CTU.
I would also like you to explain where and when the CTU said it was against all free trade agreements. I might have missed this. But it looks like you made that bit up.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 10:30 am
mickysavage : You mean they do not support National? I am pretty sure that they did not make donations to Labour but would be interested to see if they have donated funds to National.
In the words of Agent 86 “Missed it by that much”.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Why on earth are Unions allowed to have unfettered access which gives them greater “rights” of entry than the Police?
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Key backs away from the Employment Contracts Act (no doubt his preferred choice) just as Abbott backs off Work Choices – both have an eye on the polls. This is a government totally obsessed by polls and focus groups.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:13 am
All_on_Red (2) Says:
August 4th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Why on earth are Unions allowed to have unfettered access which gives them greater “rights” of entry than the Police?
Where on earth does that come from?
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Bugger, can’t have a government trying to do what people want, can we.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Polls and focus groups aren’t reliable. This is a government which doesn’t govern, just tries to do what it thinks is popular. It is a government bereft of policy or principle, whose leader spends most of his time out of the country.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am
I would much rather have a political party which puts a stick in the sand and tells voters: “This is what we believe, if you believe it, too, then join us and vote us into power.”
But this lot gives voters the message: “Tell us what to believe and we’ll believe it.”
Working for Families is a choice example. Key called it “Communism by stealth” when in Opposition, yet adopted it virtually in full to get elected. Hoiw can you ever trust such a man?
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am
I cannot understand why some people think John Key would be a stronger leader if he ran roughshod over public opinion and didn’t make the effort to work co-operatively with influential groups. It is a sign of his maturity as a leader and a compliment to NZ that we can be adult enough to appreciate it.
Vote:The reaction of the CTU reflects badly on them and their political intentions. What an own goal! Oppose FTA’s and the chances of more and better jobs! Soil NZ’s reputation with fellow Trade Unionists in the US!
Long may Key carry on as he has so far. Helen Clark’s obstinacy and aggressiveness made me uncomfortable and I don’t think it’s the Kiwi way to set out to alienate whole groups of people as she did with Maori.
I think how the CTU is behaving is an indicator of what Little would be like as a political leader – jaw out and a pugilistic style.
August 4th, 2010 at 11:33 am
A lot can happen between an election campaign and nearly two years into a term. I’d hope any government would be prepared to observe, investigate, listen and react to what is changing and what the electorate wants (and be prepared to go against general opinion if they believe strongly enough that it is justified). Far better than making policy decisions and sticking to them pedantically no matter what.
Polls and focus groups are only two of many public monitoring tools.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Maggie
Union staff can walk into any business which has union members at any time and go any where they like and talk to their members at any time regardless of what that member is doing at that time for their employer. They do not have to have consent from the owner of the business or even contact them to see what times might be suitable.
They can just turn up and go wherever they want to.
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/union-access-to-the-workplace/
The Police cannot do that.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Mickey as usual you miss the point entirely. The point being made was the difference in how Clark and Key would handle a group running a campaign against them. Clark would immediately go into Stalin mode and declare them non-persons to punish their insolence. Key was prepared to talk to them and maintain a working relationship. Which do you think is constructive and which is petty control-freak revenge ?
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Putitaway @11 51 That is why I considered DPF’s choice of “the hand of friendship” would have been more accurate as “maintaining a dialogue”.
Vote:BTW can anyone explain where “right of access for Union reps” fits with current Health and Safety legal constraints and employer responsibilities. I see a deal of conflict here..
August 4th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
All_on_Red, rather than “unfettered access” it all hinges on your understanding of “reasonable”.
“Employers must allow union representatives to come into their workplaces, and union officials must exercise access in a reasonable way. When entering workplaces, union representatives must:
* do so at reasonable times
* act reasonably, having regard to normal business operations
* comply with any existing reasonable health, safety and security procedures
* notify the employer or occupier of the reason for entry and the representative’s identity and authority to represent the union. If the employer or occupier is not there, the union representative must leave a written notice.
None of these things entitle an employer to unreasonably refuse a union representative access to the workplace.”
http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/union/rights.html
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“Now if a business group such as BusinessNZ had run such a campaign against the Clark Government, they would have been frozen out of even getting to have meetings with Ministers.”
That’s a false analogy DPF. What the CTU’s campaigning against is employers designating representatives for workers, then making a phoney collective agreement (in practice they’re collective, under the law they’re individual), then kicking unions out of the workplace, saying that the workers already have a representative.
This is what the Employment Contracts Act allowed.
Now, if the labour party somehow were able (and likely) to make it very difficult to join an employers association, you might have a point…
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
PaulD:
An employer can claim that they are too busy to disallow access. All they need to do is lie – and i’ve seen them do it plenty.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
National’s simply trying to re-introduce the Employment Contracts Act. Anyone who’s familiar with the territory can see that.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The CTU has to maintain a degree of conflict with National or else be seen as crossing the picket line. Just as the union faction in Labour is prepared to die in the ditch maintaining an ideological stance on not letting workers choose whether to cash in their 4th week of leave. In the next election campaign I think this single issue will prove pivotal. The left can easily be branded as anti-choice / nanny knows best. While about half the people I have canvassed (in casual conversations) on this issue have said they’d prefer to take all their leave, everyone has said they’d rather have the choice than not.
Vote:The unions are fading into irrelevance, and I give Key some credit in (assuming this is actual strategy and not just an accidental result of lack of fortitude) playing a long game. By co-opting so much of Labour’s policy he’s removed much of the raison d’etre of the unions. When their biggest complaints are against eminently reasonable (and, in the case of the 4th week leave issue, pro-worker via the power to chose) policies then what value do they provide to members?
The unions will not readily relinquish their grip on the Labour party, and in their dying struggle they’ll eat their host from within in order to stave off their own inevitable death.
August 4th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
rightnow –
it all depends if economies become more global or more national in structure. If the former’s true the influence of unions will continue to decline, but if it’s the latter, the opposite will happen.
Unfortunately peak-oil’s around the corner, which will encourage a nationalist approach i fear. We live in interesting times.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
PaulD
Vote:Right so they can turn up during business hours (Reasonable) and if the owner isnt there, walk on in anyway.
The Police cannot do that so why do we grant this “right” to Unionists. Surely they should have to ask BEFORE they turn up and then the employer cannot unreasonably stop them.
Fine point of difference but very important.