What union response to job losses?

Some good ideas by Aussie unionist, Tim Gooden, Secretary of Geelong & Region Trades & Labour Council, on how the union movement in Australia needs to respond to the economic crisis.

There are concrete proposals here that the union movement in New Zealand should consider. -UNITYblog editor.

The global financial crisis isn’t just clipping the wings of grossly overpaid bank executives and speculators in shonky “financial instruments”. It’s going to hit ordinary working people hard.

Even if the trillions being injected into the bloodstream of the world financial system manage to restore its heartbeat, growth rates will fall and unemployment will rise. A whole generation of workers, who since 1991 have only known economic growth, will find out what it means to lose a job and not find another.

Continue

Why doesn't the EPMU's Work Rights Checklist include the right to strike?

EPMU national secretary Andrew Little. His lips are sealed on NZ workers being denied their most basic right: the right to strike.




by Auckland union activist

The EPMU have released their work rights list. This list, which the EPMU describe as a basic checklist, omits the most basic of all work rights. I have read this list carefully, and missing even from the footnotes and small print, is the right to strike.

This is amazing, as the EPMU has been recently hammered because of the restrictions of the right to strike in defence of their members at Air New Zealand and Fisher & Paykel.

I wonder why on earth this basic right of workers, which is enshrined in the UN charter of workers rights, has been glaringly omitted from the EPMU’s Work Rights.

This omission raises some serious questions of the EPMU leadership.

Did the EPMU leadership leave out this most basic of work rights from their list because the EPMU leadership think that the right to strike is not an important work right? Do they really think workers and unions can make any gains, or even defend themselves, without the right to strike?

Is the EPMU leadership comfortable with the ban on strikes in the ERA?

Or is this omission because they don't want to embarrass the Labour Party, who have refused to repeal the restrictions on the right to strike which were at the heart of the ECA, and have instead increased the restrictions on the right to strike?

At some level I think the EPMU leadership probably believes in each one of these reasons for not championing the right to strike. But the most important one is the last.

See EPMU’s Work Rights Checklist

Truck blockade - positive spin off for Aucklanders

by Ondine Green 4 July 2008 1) Aucklanders report that, as long as they stay off the motorways, traffic this morning is at Sunday morning levels and it's much easier and more pleasant to get into work. In my personal experience, the bus I travelled on was half empty, got to its destination five minutes early, and passed almost as many bicycles coming up Great North Road than cars. The truckies' protest has had the positive spin off of showing Aucklanders what the city could be like without car congestion. Wouldn't it be great if it could be like this all the time? What if - for example - private cars were barred from the CBD on a permanent basis, with free and frequent buses and trains picking up the slack? 2) The truckies are carrying out a political strike. If ordinary workers tried to do this, they would be liable to major fines, asset seizures or even jail time. Why don't nurses, McDonalds workers or electricians have the right to do what the truckies are doing?

Dockers shut down US West Coast ports in protest at Iraq War

by Todd Chretien and Adrienne Johnstone from Socialist Worker, United States 2 May, 2008 Tens of thousands of West Coast dockworkers protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by refusing to work on May Day. Despite threats from the bosses of the Pacific Maritime Association and a decision by an arbitrator that the union couldn't officially schedule its monthly stop-work meeting (which allows the union to call a meeting during a normal shift), rank-and-file workers didn't show up to work, paralyzing billions of dollars worth of cargo up and down the coast. "Longshore workers are not slaves," International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10 executive board member Clarence Thomas told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! "They can't make us work." Dockworkers organized actions in almost 30 ports along the coast, from Washington to San Diego, and their protest coincided with demonstrations by tens of thousands of people around the country who marched and rallied on May 1, International Workers' Day, to support immigrant rights. The ILWU action had solidarity from around the world, including in Iraq itself--dockworkers shut down the crucial port of Basra for several hours in support of the West Coast work stoppage. On the other side of the U.S., in New Jersey, port truckers protested. In Britain, a member of parliament introduced a resolution of support for the ILWU. "It's really important that the ILWU is showing solidarity with all the working people, workers all over the world know about this," said Allan Bradley, who spoke at the march on behalf of himself and other members of the Freightliner 5, UAW members from Cleveland, N.C., who were unjustly fired from their jobs at their truck plant. "The ILWU stood up today, and I'm glad about it." The ILWU action got support from local port truckers as well as antiwar activists. According to Robert Irminger, vice chair of the Inland Boatman's Union for the San Francisco Region, "This morning, about 50 of us went down to the docks with Direct Action to Stop the War and picketed the Union Pacific rail yard. We blocked two gates, and the rail workers held up work for about two hours." ILWU MEMBERS have participated in antiwar protests before, but this was the first large-scale work action by them or any group of union workers in opposition to the war in Iraq. As ILWU Local 34 President Richard Cavalli told a crowd of nearly 1,000 workers and antiwar activists, "George Bush's daughters get married in the White House, and our sons and daughters get buried in Iraq." The ILWU, a multiracial union with a high percentage of Black workers, has long been the target of right-wing politicians and corporations bent on breaking the power of organized labor on the docks, a chokepoint for the globalized economy. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security tried to impose new background checks that threaten the jobs of many workers, justifying these moves with rhetoric about fighting the "war on terror." But ILWU members also made a connection between these attacks and the war. As ILWU Local 10 business agent Trent Willis told the rally, "It doesn't matter if you're a dockworker, a school teacher or a garbage worker--an injury to one is an injury to all. The people who are going to end this war are working people." The work stoppage was the first of several May Day activities in the Bay Area making the link between workers rights and immigrant rights. Local marches took place later in the day in Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, San Jose and Santa Cruz. Antiwar activist and independent congressional candidate Cindy Sheehan, who is challenging Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in November, made the connection, as well. "We have to hurt them in the pocketbooks," Sheehan said, "because they'll never be hurt like my family was, like Iraqi families, like families that have to come across the border." In New Zealand it's illegal for workers to take strike action for political reasons, as these US workers have done. The Labour government has kept in place the harsh restrictions on the right to strike that were first introduced by a National government in 1991.

Interview with US anti-war unionist

On May Day 25,000 US West Coast dockers went on strike for a day against the war in Iraq. All 29 ports along the West Coast of the United States were shut down. Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! spoke to Jack Heyman of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. This is a transcript of the interview that took place on 2 May. AMY GOODMAN: International Longshore and Warehouse Union brought the port operations to a halt from Long Beach to Seattle in defiance of their employers and arbitrators. We’re joined on the phone from San Francisco by Jack Heyman, an officer with the International. Welcome to Democracy Now! Jack Heyman. Can you talk about the significance of what happened yesterday? JACK HEYMAN: Well, yeah. We were really proud here on the West Coast, as far as the longshore union, the ILWU, making this stand, because it’s part of our legacy, really, of standing up on principled issues. And this, I think, is the first strike ever—well, I would call it a stop work, work stoppage, whatever you want—workers withholding their labor in demand—and demanding an end to the war and immediate withdrawal of the troops. AMY GOODMAN: What about the significance of the arbitrator saying that the longshoremen should not go out on strike? JACK HEYMAN: Well, you know, the interesting thing about this action is that not only did we defy the arbitrator, but in a certain sense we defied our own union officials. The union officials did not want to have the actions that we organized up and down the coast. And the arbitrator’s decision is simply—we don’t take our orders from the arbitrators. We don’t take it from judges. The rank and file goes out and does what it has to do. We did that in 1984, when the ship came in from South Africa, the Nedlloyd Kimberley. We refused to work that ship for, I think it was ten or eleven days. And that was in defiance of what an arbitrator said and also against what our union officials were telling us. So we’ve got a strong tradition in the ILWU of rank-and-file democracy, workers’ democracy, where we implement what we decide in a democratic fashion. And our action took place based on a motion that came out of our caucus, which is like a convention of all longshoremen represented up and down the coast. And we decided to stop work to stop this war, and that’s what was carried out. AMY GOODMAN: The action within Iraq in solidarity with your strike, can you talk about that? JACK HEYMAN: Well, I think that really was the icing on the cake, because we were appealing for solidarity actions. And I know there was some actions in New York with the college teachers at a New York community college and teach-ins with students and so forth; there were postal workers that had a few moments of silence, a few minutes of silence in New York, Greensboro, North Carolina, and out here in the Bay Area; but really, the most stunning solidarity came from the port workers in Iraq, who struck in solidarity with us. And that was really a very courageous move, because they’re literally under the gun of a military occupation there. AMY GOODMAN: What are your plans now? JACK HEYMAN: Well, what this action was was raising the level of struggle from protest to resistance, and we’re hoping that these kinds of actions will resonate to other unions and workers. It’s already catching on with some of the port truckers. Actually, they’ve been doing actions for quite awhile. While it’s not mainly based on the war—I think they’re very much affected by the high price of fuel—they’ve been shutting down ports over that issue, but also immigrant rights, because many of them are immigrant workers. And I hope that this will be an example to other workers that we have the power, we’ve got to use it. And that’s how we can bring this war to a halt.

Productivity/exploitation/profits

Bunnings workers fighting for better wages

 

By Pat O’Dea  
EPMU member 

Employers have long bemoaned the historically high employment rate, which has removed the whip of redundancy from workers’ backs. For workers, a tight labour market, is one where it is hard to find a job. But for employers a tight labour market is one where they can't lay off workers as freely as they like for fear of not being able to replace them. 

For the last few years, employers have harked back to the days of Rogernomics where thousands of jobs could be slashed at a single blow. The Rogernomics policies saw large sections of the economy privatized and downsized, with huge resulting rises in productivity, due to getting fewer workers to do more. On average the productivity rate of workers in NZ has grown by about 1% per year since 1945, except during the Rogernomics period 1985-90, which saw rises in productivity of annually 2.9%. 

The Rogernomics era was followed by the Ruthanomics period, where these attacks on working people were legislatively cemented in place though the notorious benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act. These laws made it very hard for working people to fight back to recover their losses under even a growing economy. This allowed record profits to be made by the rich, while workers and beneficiaries real incomes declined. 

In fact, even under the present so called "Tight Labour Market" productivity per worker has still been growing at 1.1%. But this is not enough for employers. This is because they’re in competition with other employers in oppressive regimes like China and Thailand, who are paying their workers even less to do more. 

In his famous works 'Wage Labour and Capital', and 'Value Price and Profit', the 19th century economist, philosopher and activist Karl Marx dissected the economics behind the competitive drive for increased labour productivity. Marx, instead of using the employers term "increasing labour productivity", instead called this phenomenon what it really is "increasing the rate of exploitation. " 

Marx said that if workers (or their organisations) join in this race to increase productivity they are joining what would later come to be called the race to the bottom. In Marx's own words "every worker is competing against every other worker, and in the end competing against himself as a member of the working class." 

Marx recognised that the rate of exploitation (productivity) per worker can be increased by two main ways, by increasing the use of automation and technology, and secondly and more bluntly by lengthening the working day or getting workers to work harder and faster for less money. 

Marx wasn't a Luddite. He wasn't against the use of technology, but suggested that increasing automation should be used to increase workers leisure time and wages instead of creating, as it does now; greater profits and unemployment. He also recognised that this would require a determined struggle between labour and capital. 

Overall the productivity of NZ workers has increased over 60% since the end of the Second World War, due to automation, computerisation etc. In that same time relative incomes for workers have stayed stable or even declined. It’s mainly the massive growth in employers’ profits which has benefited from this huge increase in productivity. 

These huge increases in productivity haven't increased workers welfare. Only seizing more of this increased production off the bosses can do that. 

This has been achieved through fighting for higher wages through the unions, or imposing higher taxes on the rich which was the policy of the first Labour Government. 

In fact nowadays most of the tax burden falls on working people, and is rightly seen as an imposition, originally it was only the rich who were taxed. Income tax for workers was only brought in, in this country in 1958. 

In EPMU News, 20 March, (see below) Peter Conway, the CTU’s economist, was quoted as saying that unions and workers should be looking to boost productivity in partnership with employers. But as Marx pointed out this is to embrace the bosses’ logic and be caught in a competitive race to the bottom for workers. 

So what’s the alternative to Peter Conway’s plan for unions to get behind the employers drive for greater productivity, in the hope of being gifted a few more crumbs from the rich man's table?  

Here are my suggestions: 

1) Practically, workers and their organisations should be fighting for the removal of limits to the right to strike which was the base of the Employment Contracts Act and the current Employment Relations Act. 

2) We should be actively opposing and not quietly supporting the Free Trade Deal with China. 

3) We should be organising mass events to put pressure on the government to heed to the CTU's call for $15 minimum wage in '08. 

4) We should be calling for the cancellation of the tax cuts. Because this is being tied to the employers call to cut government spending which is part of the social wage. If there are to be any tax cuts they should be only for working people and beneficiaries. 

5) Productivity agreements and partnership deals with the employers, which have been shown to be so disastrous for the workers at Air New Zealand and Fisher and Paykel, should be replaced with resolutions to protect the independent interests of workers. 

6) Current plans by employers to bring in indentured low wage work teams from China under the free trade deal, be countered by union resolutions that these workers be paid no less than unionised workers doing the same work. In this way we can undermine employers plans to get workers to compete against each other. 

And so undermine the competitive model, which underpins the race to the bottom. And replace it with a model of international workers solidarity. 

Overall, the collaborative model of unionism being promoted by Peter Conway needs to be dumped and replaced by a more combative and unashamebly pro-worker model, independent of employers profit driven interests.  

More can be done to lift labour productivity  

From EPMU News, March 20, 2008  

Productivity statistics released this week show that lifting labour productivity in periods of relatively low unemployment remains a challenge. 

The figures show that labour productivity rose by 1.1% on average each year in the 2000 to 2007 period. 

This compares with 2.9% in the 1985-90 period, when labour inputs fell and there were large scale redundancies and rising unemployment. 

CTU economist Peter Conway says that while 1.1% is not a bad result, if we can lift the level of capital investment, focus on up skilling the workforce, and foster best practice at a workplace level, then labour productivity can rise. 

“The CTU has been working with Business NZ and the Government to raise awareness about the importance of productivity, develop appropriate tools for productivity improvements and support pilot projects. 

“Lifting the skill levels of the workforce, including new entrants, applying the best technology, and building decent workplaces is where the focus needs to be. This includes the need for improved levels of literacy and numeracy.” 

Peter Conway says unions recognise that creating a high wage economy will require not only good collective bargaining arrangements, but sustainable increases in productivity.

What union response to job losses?

by Tim Gooden Secretary of Geelong & Region Trades & Labour Council Geelong, Australia The global financial crisis isn’t just clipping the wings of grossly overpaid bank executives and speculators in shonky “financial instruments”. It’s going to hit ordinary working people hard. Even if the trillions being injected into the bloodstream of the world financial system manage to restore its heartbeat, growth rates will fall and unemployment will rise. A whole generation of workers, who since 1991 have only known economic growth, will find out what it means to lose a job and not find another. Areas where unemployment rates are higher than the national average will be worse hit. And it won’t be just blue collar workers in traditional manufacturing, like the several hundreds at Ford Geelong. Victoria University in Melbourne’s West recently announced the biggest job cuts in Australian university history: 250 staff (19% of teaching and general staff). You can tell how serious the threat is by the speed with which the government dropped its May budget fight-inflation-first line and decided to inject $10.4 billion into economy via one-off payments to pensioners and parents. But how much we will spend and save out of the pre-Christmas handout is just a guess by Treasury: what if most people use their payments to reduce debt instead of blowing them in Harvey Norman and Bunnings? Then the economy will continue its nosedive into recession as consumption stagnates. What if – as seems probable – the capitalists become pessimistic and reduce their investments? Recession will come faster and be deeper. The stakes for our living standards are so serious that the unions simply can¹t afford to entrust everything to the Labor government and twiddle their thumbs on the sidelines, hoping that things don’t turn out as badly as everyone fears. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and treasurer Wayne Swan show no signs of wanting to tackle those responsible for the mess: the corporate (especially financial) elite. Rudd has unveiled a line of rhetoric against “extreme capitalism” and “excessive executive compensation”, but where is Labor’s action? After just a couple of grumbles from senior bankers about Rudd’s idea of linking senior finance sector salaries to the security level of their financial institutions, the PM backed off. This was after the Reserve Bank had already sent billions the way of the financial institutions and the government accepted the banks keeping 20% of the last interest rate cut. Some of Rudd’s emergency package is just plain counterproductive. Home buyers get a doubling or tripling of their grant, but building companies will no doubt use the extra rebate to temporarily keep up house prices that are already seriously inflated. The International Monetary Fund warned this year that Australia’s house prices are overvalued by at least 25%. University of Western Sydney associate professor of economics and finance, Steve Keen, says Labor’s move will suck new home buyers into borrowing $70,000 more than their homes will soon be worth! So what should the union movement be fighting for? A serious union policy against the crisis has four key points: 1. Give pensioners and the unemployed a living wage now, at the very least 35% of average weekly earnings. That’s the only way to ensure a sustained boost to consumption. 2. Speed up public spending on sorely needed infrastructure, particularly that which underpins the transition to environmental sustainability. Invest the Infrastructure Australia and Future Fund money, and the federal budget surplus, in rail, renewable energy, and decent public housing, health and education; 3. Nationalise the banks and run them in the community interest, beginning with the re-nationalisation of the Commonwealth Bank. This might seem an “extreme” policy to some, but let’s remember that the US and UK governments have already conducted crisis nationalisations and that the ALP has supported this policy in the past. 4. Really tear up Work Choices and all other anti-union laws. The coming recession will drive employers to sack workers and try to cut wages and conditions. Under the present industrial regime the union movement is fighting with one-and-a-half arms tied behind its back. If working people and their communities – the vast majority of the Australian population – are to defeat the dragon of recession, they will need their unions to be as strong and as organised as possible.

EPMU’s Work Rights Checklist

At the heart of working life are the rights and laws that set down the rules of what we can and cannot do at work, what the boss can and cannot do, and what our minimum entitlements are. So, who the lawmakers (the politicians) are and what they promise is very important. We need to be able to check what the various alternatives are against our own union standards, and if necessary use our collective power to improve the lives of working Kiwis and their families. We reckon this basic checklist sets out reasonable expectations for fair work rights and the basis for good business, good management and decent work. 1. Wages Policy It used to be that no self-respecting political party would go into an election without telling people how they were going to lift wages. Every political party must spell out a comprehensive Wages Policy and say how we are going to deal with the rapid increase in the cost of living today and how we are going to close the wage gap with Australia. We believe a fair wages system is about how we get to agree on and set wages, how we make sure wages don’t lose value and how we make sure wages increase as skills, experience and learning increase. We need to do this at the workplace level, at the industry level and maybe at the national level, too. We need to make sure workers have an effective voice on wages and that no worker is left behind. A good wages policy will include: • The right to organise as a union and to bargain collectively for decent pay and conditions, including at an industry level. • The right of workers to access relevant and accurate information about the business so that we are informed when we bargain. • Enforceable rules for bargaining which mean management can’t just refuse to negotiate or can’t bypass the union. • Annual and real increases in the minimum wage. • Recognition of the importance of workers having a voice in developing workplace productivity. • Minimum rates of overtime pay to recognise the effect of long hours on the lives of workers and their families. • The right of workers employed through labour hire agencies who work alongside workers under a collective agreement to be paid the same rates for the same work. • An active labour market policy with a goal of full employment. 2. A meaningful right to be in a union Belonging to a union is about wanting a more effective voice at work and on things that affect work, but the right to belong to a union is meaningless if there is no effective protection against discrimination and victimisation, and from employers who obstruct the union, deny delegates the time for training and the ability to do their work and who undermine the union through freeloader pass-ons. Meaningful policies to protect union rights include: • The right to choose to be in a union independent of the employer and not be discriminated against by management. • An obligation on the employer to recognise and respect union delegates, and allow them adequate time to train and to do their tasks as delegates around the workplace. • The right of union members to see their chosen representatives onsite. • An obligation on the employer to deal with the union on more than just collective bargaining. The union voice must be heard on all issues that directly affect union members and other workers. • An obligation on the employer not to undermine the union by being obstructive, by by-passing the union or passing-on union-negotiated benefits to non-union workers. 3. Right to be treated fairly and with dignity Whether we work full-time or part-time or even in several jobs at once, our job is our financial livelihood. Take away our job and you take away the means to feed ourselves and our family, and pay our bills. Of course, our job is more than just our financial security. We have mates at work and we socialise around it. We should never have our job taken from us without good cause and fair treatment. We should never be treated unfairly or without dignity, whether by the boss or by co-workers. Policies that uphold fair treatment and dignity at work include: • Protection against arbitrary and unfair dismissal and other unfair treatment. • Protection against discrimination and victimisation. • The right to union representation when we need it and without obstruction from the boss. • Respect from management and a culture of mutual respect throughout the workplace. • Effective legal processes, with rights of appeal, so our rights can be enforced without undue delay. 4. Right to a safe and healthy workplace There is no greater tragedy than having Mum or Dad or any other family member never return home from their work day or their shift because of a workplace accident caused by unsafe systems, machinery or practices. Decent health and safety rights include: • Strong health and safety laws setting high standards and providing real protection for workers. • Effective and well-resourced health and safety education and enforcement. • A right for workers to have a real say in health and safety at work, including elected health and safety delegates. • The right to refuse to do unsafe work without punishment or discrimination. • A fair and efficient system of accident compensation for injury at work regardless of who you work for. • Proper rehabilitation before return to work. 5. Decent minimum entitlements A lot of workers make the choice to stick together at work by joining the union so they have a more powerful voice when dealing with the employer. But there are a lot of workers who don’t get that chance and whose voice is not strong. There needs to be minimum standards for basic conditions so the less powerful at work aren’t taken advantage of. Policies covering minimum standards need to include: • Decent holidays, including at least four weeks annual leave. • Decent minimum rates of pay on holidays, including a minimum of time and a half on public holidays. • Minimum redundancy protections. • Maximum hours of work. • Decent sick, domestic and bereavement leave, including the right to Relevant Daily Pay. • Decent paid parental leave to give new parents and their babies a proper start. 6. Commitment to ongoing training and learning As technology changes rapidly our work and our jobs change. If we are serious about improving businesses, lifting living standards and paying better wages there needs to be a proper commitment to workplace learning. Workers need to have regular and on-going opportunities to learn new skills. Decent policies on learning and up-skilling include: • Larger employers committing to take on certain numbers of apprentices or trainees. • Government and employers investing in on-going learning around work. • Programmes that make access to learning easier, like learning reps.

Victory to the American writers' strike!

Writers Make History on the Picket Lines

Galvanized by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers' refusal to bargain fairly members of the Writers Guild of America, West and Writers Guild of America, East refused to go to work and staged the largest action in the Guild's 74-year history.

On Monday, November 5 at 12:01 a.m, more than 3,000 WGAW members walked picket lines throughout the day at 14 locations and demanded that the Companies bargain fairly with writers. By Tuesday, the number had swelled to 3,200.

“The level of support is fantastic not only within the Guild but with the general public,” said former Simpsons showrunner Mike Scully. “We've never had more leverage than we have right now.”

“We've had more support than I could have imagined,” added TV writer Jamie Rhonheimer. “Everybody is in this for the long haul.”

Joe Medeiros, head writer for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and a member since 1989, said he had never seen the membership as unified as it is now. For Medieros, the historic turnout spoke to the significance and urgency of these negotiations and the issue of New Media, in particular.

“I see the handwriting on the wall,” said Medieros about New Media. “That's the way television's going. That's how my kids watch stuff. They're downloading it, they're watching it on their computers, and the writers aren't being paid for that. If we don't do something now, we're gonna be out of business.”

Writers made it clear that this fight was not only for themselves but for those who will follow them. “I'm so terrified for the next generation of writers to come that their residuals will be diminished or taken away entirely once we make the move to computers,” said Desperate Housewives' Marc Cherry. “That's why this strike is so important. We're fighting for our fair share of the New Media business, and if we don't get it now, we may all be screwed in the future.”

“People who fought this fight before us have made sure that guys who only work half the time get enough residuals to live,” said Medieros. “That's why we're fighting this fight for the writers of the future. We can't leave them out in the cold when it comes to what's going to happen five, 10 years from now with the Internet.”

Writers are winning over the public

Study shows people side with scribes

By DAVE MCNARY

There's an image war raging during the WGA strike, and the writers seem to be winning.

Public sympathy sides with the scribes, as a study, released Wednesday, indicates.

And during the past few weeks, mainstream media outlets have devoted significant coverage to the strike in news stories and op-ed pieces. Slate's Jack Shafer noted Tuesday that such coverage has been generally sympathetic.

It certainly helps the writers that the companies with which they are at war have CEOs that have to talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they have to claim everything is financially rosy so shareholders are happy. That includes profit forecasts from downloads and other digital platforms. Problem is, when it comes to the strike, that's the very area which they claim isn't monetizable at all.

But while writers may be enjoying their public standing, IATSE topper Thomas Short is swiping away, claiming that a strike was always pre-set.

"It's time to put egos aside and recognize how crucial it is to get everyone back to work, before there is irreversible damage from which this industry can never recover," Short said in a letter to WGA West's Patric Verrone.

The WGA trumpeted a pair of surveys Wednesday showing plenty of public sympathy with backing of 69% in a Pepperdine poll and 63% in a SurveyUSA poll, while the companies received a only a smattering of support with 4% and 8%, respectively.

And the announcement came on the same day that WGA West prexy Patric Verrone and SAG topper Alan Rosenberg huddled with multiple elected officials in Washington, D.C., to explain the guilds' position.

"These polls prove that the public understands what's at stake here," Verrone said in a statement. "Our fight represents the fight for all American workers for a fair deal."

The news release also included a strong endorsement of the WGA's position by a labor economist at Pepperdine, which conducted the survey. "Public sentiment plus the economic disruption that the strike has caused can serve as powerful leverage and bodes well for writers in ongoing negotiations," said David Smith.

As for talks, no new ones are scheduled. In what could be a positive development, AMPTP chief Nick Counter has dropped the condition that the guild has to stop the strike for a few days for negotiations to resume.

In response to Short's letter, Verrone said: "Our fight should be your fight," and noted that "for every four cents writers receive in theaterical residuals, directors receive four cents, actors receive 12 cents and the members of your union receive 20 cents in contributions to their health fund."

The WGA's repeatedly referred to four cents as the usual residual writers receive per DVD sale. On the last day of contract talks, guild negotiators took the DVD proposal -- seeking to double that rate -- off the table but were infuriated by what they saw as a lack of movement by the companies and have hinted since then that it might be back on the table. The WGA had no comment Wednesday about the status of its DVD proposal.

Lack of progress in getting both sides back to the table, has led to the expectation that the Directors Guild of America will launch its negotiations soon — during what would be the typical window for DGA talks of at least six months before the June 30 expiration.

But the situation's so fluid that speculation's ruling the day, such as an "interim strike" scenario in which the WGA would go back to work at some point in the next few months -- and then go back on strike if talks don't lead to a favorable deal.

Short shots

Short noted in his letter to Verrone that more than 50 TV series have been shut down by the strike.

"More will come," he added. "Thousands are losing their jobs every day. The IATSE alone has over 50,000 members working in motion picture, television and broadcasting and tens of thousands more are losing jobs in related fields."

The IATSE topper noted that he took issue late last year with Verrone over the WGA's defense of its strategy in delaying contract talks with studios and nets until the summer.

"When I phoned you on Nov. 28, 2006, to ask you to reconsider the timing of negotiations, you refused," Short said. "It now seems that you were intending that there be a strike no matter what you were offered, or what conditions the industry faced when your contract expired at the end of October."

Short also took aim at recent comments by WGA West exec director David Young, in which the exec said he would not apologize for the strike's economic impact.

"This is hardly the point of view of a responsible labor leader, someone dedicated to the preservation of an industry that has supported the economies of several major cities for decades," he added.

SAG's Rosenberg said Wednesday he decided to join Verrone in Washington D.C., because the Screen Actors Guild will be facing the same issues next year. The SAG contract expires June 30.

"It's important to impress upon (Washington) that this isn't about wealthy actors or writers getting richer," Rosenberg added. "The average writer makes $60,000 a year, the average actor makes less. It's a question of keeping our heads above water with residual payments."

Verrone and Rosenberg met with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Reps. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). Dingell chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey is chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications. At the FCC, they met with commissioners Michael Copps, Jonathan Adelstein and Robert McDowell.

Rosenberg and Verrone characterized the guilds as being at a disadvantage in trying to negotiate with seven multi-national conglomerates — noting that they all are supposedly competitors but negotiate together. "They're picking off the unions one at a time," Verrone said.

The WGA and supporters have also stayed on point during the past four months on the key issue of new media, in which bigwigs finding themselves infected with the mixed messaging bug.

On one hand CEOs of major media congloms are selling Wall Streeters on the fact that their digital offerings are growing like gangbusters and driving the bottom line. On the other hand, those same execs are holding out their hands and saying, a viable business model just doesn't exist and profits just aren't rolling in yet to give striking scribes what they want.

The problem is the congloms are stuck in the precarious position of angering shareholders: tell them that your company isn't growing and the stock plummets. Let the strike continue for six months or more and you anger those same shareholders, because in reality, companies will be losing revenue, as a result.

WGA supporters have compiled effective videos combining bullish pro-digital statements by moguls with the assertion that writers aren't getting anything.

So it's no surprise that company toppers are standing in the shadows and declining to state their case to an increasingly angry mob of writers. They just don't know what to say yet -- unless it's positive.

During the recent rounds of earnings reports, News Corp's Rupert Murdoch touted Fox Interactive Media as a strong profit generator, earning nearly $200 million in the past quarter alone, an 80% increase over last year, thanks to MySpace, Photobucket and other online properties.

Across town, Bob Iger said parts of 160 million TV episodes have been viewed on ABC.com, while 33 million downloads of the alphabet web's shows have been purchased on Apple's iTunes store. He estimated that the Mouse House's digital revenue will be about $750 million this year.

And NBC's Jeff Zucker said that the peacock made just $15 million in a year selling video on iTunes.

Oddly, those same toppers aren't pushing forward negative numbers to hold the WGA at bay — such as Forrester Research's prediction that growth of the paid download market will drop to 100% versus 200% next year; or that the sale of movies online will drop by 56% in 2008, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

When negotiations collapsed on Nov. 4, the AMPTP had offered to start paying for streaming video with a promotional window and had agreed to give the WGA exclusive jurisdiction on made-for-the-Internet writing on derivative works.

Disney pickets

The WGA has continued to picket more than a dozen locations in Los Angeles and staged a protest outside the World of Disney store on Fifth Avenue in New York on Wednesday, drawing more than 400 supporters.

A large, inflatable, cigar-chomping pig stood at Fifth and 55th Street outside the World of Disney store. Barricades ran the length of the block between 55th and 56th when it became clear that the picketers would not be contained to the sidewalk.

"I've had a lot of pedestrians telling me, ‘Hey, good luck with this,'" said "Late Show With David Letterman" scribe Steve Young. "I don't know if the approval of tourists is going to bring Les Moonves to his knees, but it makes us feel good."

Meanwhile, breaking a lengthy studio silence, ABC Studios has become the first arm of any conglom to respond individually to allegations made during the strike that it contends are inaccurate.

A Writers Guild of America East leaflet passed out Wednesday in front of Manhattan's World of Disney store quoted Disney's Bob Iger, who has said that the conglom generates $1.5 billion in digital revenue annually. The scribes, the WGAE claimed, earn nothing from that.

An ABC Studios spokesperson, who said she was tired of reading "distortion of information" by writers in newspaper articles and blog posts without any response from the producers, drafted this statement:

"The WGA leadership is deliberately distorting the facts. As the WGA knows full well, more than half of Disney's digital revenues are from sales of travel packages and the vast majority of the rest is from online advertising on sites like Disney.com and ESPN.com and through online merchandise sales. The WGA also knows its members have been paid residuals on entertainment content downloaded via iTunes. Deliberately misleading the public is not the best way to resolve this issue and get Hollywood back to work."

In response, the WGAE didn't disagree with Disney's account of where the $1.5 billion comes from, but did point out that the congloms have so far not been willing to open the books and prove how much money has been generated specifically from TV/film downloads and streaming:

"We would better know the nature of Disney's and ABC's revenues from digital if they would more fully and transparently reveal them to us. For example, their statement does not mention that much of the online advertising on their websites accompanies streaming video of our members' work in television and film for which they receive absolutely nothing. All we're asking for is a fair, respectful, small share."

Separately, a group of assistants is organizing a picket to support the WGA. Slated to take place Monday from 12-2 p.m. in front of the main gate of the Fox lot, organizers said the event is for below-the-line employees, "especially those who've lost their job due to the strike" to "show the media conglomerates that they need to take responsibility for their own decisions and not blame the writers for their layoffs."

Freedom to Strike Bulletin #1, 24 April 2007

(Click on image for larger version)

Freedom to Strike Bulletin #1 - April 2007

We need more rights to strike, says union leader
by Grant Brookes

“We need the right to take strike action over outsourcing.”

That’s the view of Jill Ovens, the Service & Food Workers Union (SFWU) leader (left) who’s heading a campaign to stop pay cuts at Air NZ. The national airline announced plans last October plans to slash 1,600 airport jobs and contract out baggage handling and check-in operations to a multinational corporation. Then they told the ground staff they had to accept cuts in pay and conditions in order to keep the jobs “in-house”.

Sadly, the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), which represents some of the workers, made a deal which accepts the cuts. “This was completely unacceptable to our members,” says Jill. SFWU members were facing an average pay drop of $7,000 each. “The company was holding a gun to our head at a time when we couldn’t legally strike.” Despite recommending the cuts package, EPMU Industry Organiser for Aviation Strachan Crang agrees. “Because Air NZ made this announcement during the term of the collective agreement, there’s been no real way for members to fight back”, he says. “They can’t take legal industrial action.”

Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act (ERA), it’s illegal to strike during the term of a collective employment agreement. It’s also illegal to strike if your boss ignores what’s written in the employment agreement they signed. It’s illegal to strike over unfair dismissals, plant closures, against government policies that hurt ordinary people, against wars or environmental destruction, or in support of other workers under attack.

In fact it’s illegal to strike about anything other than your own pay and conditions – even then, only after 40 days into negotiations. But employers like Air NZ are allowed to lay off workers, contract out or pressure governments at any time. Is that fair? It wasn’t always this way. Up until 1987, no strikes were illegal under our industrial laws. Work stoppages over lay-offs, unfair treatment or political issues like nuclear ship visits were normal. National’s Employment Contracts Act (ECA) in 1991 banned all these actions. Labour repealed the ECA nine years later. But they copied all but one of National’s antistrike laws into their ERA.

Jill says that Air NZ have learned that the way to cut pay and conditions in the middle of the term is to threaten to contract out. It’s a lesson that other employers will learn, too. “Employers will use these tactics”, says Jill, “and then employment agreements are unenforceable”. While EPMU members have lost out, SFWU members have held onto their pay and conditions for now. But no worker should be threatened and bullied like the people at Air NZ have been. The company could only try it because they knew it was against the law for the ground staff to fight back with industrial action. This has got to change. It’s time to reclaim our freedom to strike!

Solidarity that won 2006 supermarket lockout

When the warehouse workers from Countdown, Foodtown and Woolworths defied a monthlong lockout last September, it was a major boost to the whole union movement. 600 distribution workers showed that union power can stand up to a huge multinational corporation like supermarket owner Progressive Enterprises. They won because of an outpouring of support from ordinary New Zealanders. Thousands took their shopping elsewhere for the duration and $250,000 was donated to the National Distribution Union’s lockout fund. But key to the victory was “guerilla” solidarity action by other workers – and threats of more from union leaders. This could’ve been judged illegal. Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act, any reduction in normal work by a group of employees counts as a “strike”, and solidarity strikes are against the law. So the refusal by one group of workers to dispatch sugar for the first two weeks of the lockout could have been an illegal strike. So could the actions of waterfront workers who “lost” a dozen containers bound for the supermarkets. When Council of Trade Unions president Ross Wilson called on unionists not to handle goods in place of the locked out workers, he could possibly have landed up in court. Standing together to stop workers being bullied by a rich and powerful corporation should not be a crime. The law against solidarity strikes needs to be repealed.

JAILED FOR STRIKING IN 2007?
Did you know...?

* There’s a $40,000 fine for “illegal” strikes? And that’s “per offence” (eg, each time you say “no” when told to go back to work). The maximum fine has been increased from $10,000 in National’s hated Employment Contracts Act. s You could lose you house, or go to jail? If you don’t pay the fine for striking, the courts can seize all your assets. You can also be jailed for up to three months.

* Your union could be bankrupted for supporting strikes? Their assets can be seized, too.

* No-one’s ever been prosecuted. Workers only strike when they’re strongly convinced about the justice of their action – especially if it’s over something outside their collective agreement. If they’re convinced, the the public can probably be convinced, too. Bosses and governments have been too nervous to prosecute dozens of “illegal” strikes for fear of inflaming the situation. s The Party that passed these laws is called ‘worker-friendly’? It’s an outrage that laws from out of the Dark Ages like these were passed by the Labour Party.

Fishy smell

When the National Party expresses support for Labour’s industrial relations law, you know something’s fishy.

The party still threatens to chip away at the few rights we have. “But the days of the Employment Contracts Act are past”, says their IR spokesperson, Kate Wilkinson. “National does not intend to repeal the current Employment Relations Act”. Party leader John Key explains why. “The Employment Relations Act is 85 percent a rewrite of the Employment Contracts Act anyway”, he says. Workers deserve better from Labour than repackaged National policies.

Right to strike ‘no. 1 battle cry’
by Graeme Young, National Distribution Union organiser (abridged)

The lockout of Progressive workers last year raised a number of important issues. Money contributions, attendance at picket lines and moving resolutions on the job – including the boycott of stores – were all positive outcomes. But the one issue that ultimately prolonged the lockout was the repressive law stopping strike action in support of the locked out workers.

The current law says that ANY action outside normal duties is considered strike action. That meant that other workers caught up in the dispute were being forced to do the work locked out workers would have done. The union movement in New Zealand needs the right to strike to be its number one battle cry. The only time it is legal under the Employment Relations Act to take any sort of action is just before and following the expiry of the collective agreement. This effectively restricts the ability of workers to improve conditions on the job outside of negotiations.

Bosses are only too well aware of this and seek to maximise this restriction by negotiating 3 and 2 year agreements. My belief is that the union movement has no choice if it is to grow. It must embrace a struggle culture. At the top of its demands needs to be the right to strike at any time. To progress that demand will require more so-called “illegal” action. This is how unions have defeated bad laws in the past, and this is how unions will become more relevant to workers in the future. These are my own views and not necessarily those of the NDU.

You said it!

“Restricting the right to strike is an attack on a fundamental human right – the right of people to defend or improve their working conditions.” - Call-centre worker, Auckland

“If you’re not free to withdraw your labour, then you’re a slave.” - Bus driver, Wellington

“Without the right to strike, a worker facing the boss is stepping into the ring with both hands tied behind their back. The bosses are free to get together and work as a team – why don’t we have the same right?” - Office worker, Auckland

We got a national collective and good pay rise in 2005, thanks to support from other unions. We should be able to return the favour and take action to support people – like hospital cleaners – who now want the same.” Nurse, Wellington

What do you think? Email freedomtostrike@paradise.net.nz All responses treated anonymously.

This bulletin is issued by Socialist Worker. We want the anti-strike laws in Labour’s Employment Relations Act repealed. We’re campaigning for the Council of Trade Unions to call a national conference, open to all unionists, to launch a repeal campaign. Interested? Email freedomtostrike@paradise.et.nz or call/txt 021-053 2973.

SUBSCRIBE
to Workers Charter paper
Post $30 for monthly, 16-page, full-colour, tabloid paper to The Editor, PO Box 56-506, Auckland.