THE KINLEITH DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

Leaflet reprinted in Class Struggle 50 May-June 2003

On the 28^th of May 2003, it was announced in a joint press release by the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and Carter Holt Harvey that the 3–month long strike at Kinleith pulp and paper mill, was over.

The settlement that was eventually reached by both parties, resulted from a period that saw the exhausting of 4 mediators and threats of legal action by CHH against the EPMU and individual workers.

When EPMU National Secretary Andrew Little stated in the press release that the health and safety issues at the heart of the unions concerns had been clarified to the unions satisfaction and that ratification by workers spelled the return to work, the question on the lips of workers was, “How many concessions had been made by the union in regards to the conditions that existed in the previous collective agreement that expired 2 years earlier?”

In order to answer the question, it is necessary to consider the comment made by Kinleith Chief Executive and CHH “hatchet man” Brice Landman after the settlement when he said that Kinleith had the chance to move forward again on a “sustainable basis”. First of all, the sustainability that Landman is referring to is a function of the necessary labour required at minimum cost to maximize profits sufficient enough to head off the effects of trading in a depressed market. In other words – the control of labour. This is an argument well understood by union negotiators conditioned with an “economism” mindset. The problem for workers is that it lays the way open for compromises and concessions that always favour the bosses.

The two key areas that were won by the company and prime reasons for CHH’s move against the union where the all-up “salarisation” of pay structures and the final say in the promotion and appointments of senior staff. Calling them concessions would be an understatement.

The “red herring” of the company wanting production workers to replace the full time professional fire service amounted to CHH using an unrealistic proposition to apply leverage in a trade-off against the union so that eventually the

salary and promotion issues could be brought in. The cost of maintaining the Fire service amounts to less than the salary of CHH half owners International Paper CEO John Dillon’s US$8.96million, the result of a 62% pay rise last year even though IP lost a net sum of US$880 million.

Adding yet more “red herrings”, legal action against the EPMU and senior Kinleith delegate James “Whisky” Hastie, were instigated by CHH for supposed damages from earlier strikes. The attempt to extend the lawsuit against a further 6 workers was described as “tactical industrial strategy” by EPMU lawyer Dr Rodney Harrison. Whichever way one looks at the strategy used by CHH, it clearly had the effect of pressuring the union to accept the new conditions of employment.

A further example of tactical manipulation against the union was CHH’s refusal to settle the long drawn out negotiations over 2 years for a new collective agreement, because it wanted to exhaust all of the union’s resources to the point that workers would settle individually on the company’s terms. When laid-off maintenance workers were rehired by ABB Contractors, it was on an individual basis, though some remained members of the EPMU, a right protected under law.

Voices from the Rank and File

CHH’s serious lack of “Good Faith” reminiscent of the bad old days under the ECA seems to have done it no harm at all. Political non interference especially by local MP and Minister of Defense Mark Burton who was more sympathetic to the company; highlighted an expression by Bill (not his real name), one of the striking workers, when he said that the Labour Party was no longer a workers Party. It had caused him and others to question the role of the EPMU as an affiliate of the Labour Party. He went on to say that he could not understand why the dispute had dragged on for as long as it did and why some workers were saying that they could smell a rat, but could not put a finger on it.

Bob (not his real name) a veteran of 33 years at the mill, said none of the bosses who run Kinleith actually live in Tokoroa.

“Landman and the rest of them come from Taupo, Rotorua and Cambridge; they don’t belong to the local community or live in the immediate environs. It’s them and us as far as I’m concerned. Bugger the lot of them I say!”

Rex (again not his real name) one of the site delegates and almost 30 years at the mill had this to say.

“The level of support that we have been getting from locals, and workers from other unions and work sites has been great. A couple of tonnes of spuds were sent from some watersiders over in Tauranga who ended up dumping their company union for a proper one. We received plenty of food stuffs from all over to be distributed among all the affected workers and their families not to mention the wild pork and meat hunted locally by some of the boys when they’re not on protest camp duty. The really amazing thing though, has been the nearly $10,000 that we have been receiving from supporters each week during the strike. What you get to appreciate during a “blue” (strike/dispute) such as ours, is the amount of solidarity within the rank and file and its importance. No doubt being rural and isolated helps to amplify the effect of that support. But it shows that real strength for all workers can only come when we are all united. Some of the blokes who remember the bitter split after “91”when the bulk of Kinleith joined the “Engineers” (EPMU), some of us were a little embarrassed when a “Woodies” (NDU) delegation came over from Tasman Pulp and Paper to show solidarity with us. If the shoe was on the other foot, we would go and support them in similar circumstances.”

Joe (not his real name) now retired having spent most of his working life at the mill as a “Pulpy” and not an “Engineer”, reflects on the real characters of the union movement who were the towers of strength.

“Quite simply they were the core of the Rank and File. They never occupied positions of official office, more a limitation of their lack of education, I reckon. But given the right political direction some of them could have become revolutionaries. I remember wanting to belt the crap out of union sell-out bureaucrat Ray Hamilton years ago and feeling the anger that was there and its still there. Characters like Hamilton are still with us today running unions like they were their personal little empires.”

Where to now?

When union-busting American forestry company International Paper bought into CHH more than a decade ago, it did so quite conscious of the fact that the ECA of the day provided the right environment for it to exploit the fast growing forests to supply the rapidly rising demand in Asia. Through its practice in the US and Mexico of forcing the closure of mills to counter unions and militant workers, it thought that applying the same methods in NZ would effect similar results if it thought that its interests were being threatened.

We have seen in the last 10 years the slashing of Kinleith’s work force from nearly 2000 down to 270, pulp and paper production at record levels - way in excess of 500,000 tonnes, the longer hours and accompanying stress for the workers. The rate of worker exploitation has increased 8 fold with the acquisition of machinery bought as part of a $900 million up-grade over the last 13 years. The profit returns on investment last year amounted to $137 million or less than 7% of the injected capital which was more reflective of the depressed international commodity prices at the time.

IP/ CHH finds itself in the undreamed of position (from a capitalist point of view) of existing at a time when the lone super-power in the world, the US, has the means to force economic conditions on workers (militarily if necessary), favourable to grossly exploitative Tran-National Corporations. The US conquest of Iraq is the best illustration of what can be expected where it is dictating the terms to bring its workers under its thumb.

ALL OUT TO STOP CARTER HOLT!

Carter Holt Harvey is now NZ’s No 2 company after the sale of Fletcher Energy, behind only Telecom. It is owned by International Paper one of the world’s biggest and most technologically advanced producers of pulp and paper. CHH has aggressively restructured its NZ operations over the last three years, cutting costs and streamlining operations. This has led to an improvement in its profits at the expense of jobs and working conditions. But it is now faced with a slowdown in the world economy and all time low prices for logs and a world slump in paper pulp prices. CHH has already shown itself willing to attack its workforce and now it has no option but to continue these attacks to stay competitive. Workers on guard!

Best practice or worst practice?

CHH was one of the first to take advantage of the ECA to defeat its powerful timber union after a 13-week strike in 1992. Most of those workers who remained at Kinleith joined the EPMU which has a philosophy of working in ‘partnership’ with employers. To stay competitive CH’s CEO Chris Liddell is a fan of new business methods based on ‘best practice’. The EPMU tries to keep pace with these best practices which in the last analysis mean increasing worker exploitation as workers deliver more ‘value for money’.

This means the company adopts the most advanced methods in production, transport and supply, speeding up production and cutting costs. This is the knowledge economy in your face. According to Liddell the most successful global companies have fewer and fewer workers. The top ten US companies are today five times as big but employ fewer workers. Best practice for profits is worst practice for work conditions and job security.

Take "flexibility". CHH has spent half a billion on new fibreboard plants in Australia and a veneer plant in Whangarei. But it closed down Mataura with 155 job losses and one shift at Kinleith with the loss 23 jobs. It upgraded its Kinleith plant during the day forcing the two remaining shifts to work nights from 4 pm and 12 pm.

After two accidents caused by fatigue, 60 workers occupied the plant and refused to work at night for 10 days before Christmas last year. When it had no work it closed the plant for a week. So "Flexibility" for CHH means workers losing their jobs and working under worse, dangerous conditions, or having week-long split shifts. This is preparation for the ultimate in ‘flexibility’ –the casualisation of work were the boss is free to dictate the terms and conditions of work.

CHH "picking winners"

Another principle favoured by CEO Liddell is "picking winners". CH has invested in eCargo a NZ company that matches the freight needs of companies with transport companies on an Internet site to drive down costs. CHH has invested in an Aussie E-commerce company called Cyberlynx which streamlines "supply chain operations’. In plain language this is an internet "just in time" delivery system reducing both delays and stockpiling of goods and services.

CHH recently introduced what it calls the i2b programme where it held a competition among workers for new ideas to make more money for the company. One winner was chosen because he was seen selling Xmas trees on the street. CHH management did hand out prizes to the 750 workers laid off for a compulsory weeks holiday on January 26 for doing much more creative things to pay their bills.

Most daring, CHH has spun off a Human Relations company called ‘Mariner7" to sell all its ideas on how to exploit workers more efficiently to other companies. One of these ideas is to create company unions to smash what remaining influence existing unions have in defending jobs and conditions. And where workers fight back it means using scab labour and company unions to enforce ‘best practice’ i.e. worst practice.

Mainland Stevedoring

Carter Holt Harvey saved its best move to contract an ‘independent’ union, Mainland Stevedoring, to load logs by using computers to pack more logs into the holds. This was a ‘best practice’ that directly challenged the WWU and threatened to casualise wharf labour practices even more than they already were. Even though this was a threat every bit as serious as in 1951, the WWU leadership has chosen to steer industrial action back into parliament. The best that the Labour-Alliance Government could offer was ‘mediation’, that old golden cow that the ‘class neutral’ state could try and negotiate a deal between CHH and WWU.

But that would have been a ‘bad practice’ for CHH since it would give in to union ‘monopoly’ and stand over tactics. The CTU President Ross Wilson chimed in saying that "we remain committed to the mediation process". He complained that peaceful pickets had been undermined by "police over-reaction and the use of confrontational tactics". Meanwhile while the CTU and the WWU appeal to the police, the government and the company to ‘be fair’, CHH gets its logs loaded on the cheap and workers lose their jobs.

CHH picking on losers?

So far CHH has been able to win what it wants by picking off sections of the workforce under separate union coverage. The occupation over night shift was a good move and succeeded in winning back a day shift. This should be the lesson – more industrial action at the point of production, to stop CHH where it hurts.

WWU has marshalled hundreds of supporters on their picket line, but no concerted union support has meant that cops and scabs got through every time. Worse, small groups and individuals were isolated and bashed by the cops. The defeat of these pickets was only because they were not mass pickets.

The MUA struggle in Australia in 1998 showed that mass pickets have the potential to win much wider support and prevent both police and scabs from access. Similarly, despite their limits, the Kinleith occupation and the WWU pickets have put pressure on the national CTU leadership to organise its own campaign against CHH to try to settle the disputes. We welcome this initiative but expect that left to the CTU leadership it will do no more than tie workers to the ERA legal framework of the so-called ‘partnership’ between labour and capital.

Mediation and ‘partnership’

The problem with mediation as practiced by the CTU and in particular the EPMU, is that it believes, like the Labour Government, that industrial disputes can be settled by good faith and compromise. But even the NZ Herald does not believe this. In an editorial on 27 January 2001 it said "…mediation is of little use, and may well be detrimental, when fundamental principles are in conflict."

Of course the NZ Herald thinks that the principle at stake here is the right of CH to employ whatever union they like. The Herald’s owner Tony O’Reilly, like CHH, won’t compromise this principle. This is why all the negotiations between the CTU, CHH and government have failed already.

The ERA does not allow workers to stop scabs working unless agreements are being negotiated. And this Labour-Alliance Government is not going to amend the ERA to ban scab unions. That would be regarded by the bosses like Stephen Tindall of the Warehouse as an open attack on their class. After the rough ride it got on taking office, Labour will do anything to avoid upsetting the bosses again.

This means that to defend the principle of union labour against scab labour, workers have to break the law just like the Kinleith occupation and WWU picketers have done over the last weeks. But the key is to do it as a mass of thousands of workers so that workers organised might can win and become the basis of their labour right.

A Winning Workers’ Campaign

A successful campaign needs to mobilise all CHH workers to stop production. Just as CHH has deliberately streamlined its business internationally to minimise disruptions in the supply, production and marketing of logs and pulp, CHH workers need to organise internationally to interrupt this process at the most vital points.

1. Stop work at the plants. Occupations are the best method since workers occupying the workplace makes it more difficult for bosses to run the plant. Kinleith workers have shown that they can take such action and win. On a larger scale which stops production completely, the boss has to make concessions. Workers in Australian and North American plants should be encouraged to take solidarity actions.
2. Stop the flow of raw materials and finished products. CHH has attempted to reduce this risk by using non-contracted casualised carriers. But the organised drivers under the NDU would be able to stop the flow of logs and paper pulp. French truckies have shown that they can blockade the nation’s transport system and force Government’s to make concessions. International bans by dockers in Korea and the US played a big part in the MUA struggle.
3. Mass pickets to prevent the use of scab labour. The WWU pickets have failed only because they were not supported by thousands of workers like the MUA pickets in Australia. It’s true that the MUA pickets were undermined by scab workers, but the mass pickets were not generalised because they were not under rank and file control. Any union policy that downplays pickets as publicity stunts designed to embarrass bosses or governments needs to be replaced by a policy of REAL, MASS, pickets.
4. International union bans on CHH products. Because CH is a multinational, and has diversified into e-commerce operations such as eCargo, Cyberlynx and Mariner7, an important part of international solidarity with striking CHH workers is a ban on all CHH products and services. As well as providing solidarity this would have an important educational benefit as these goods and services are used to speed up production in order to increase the exploitation of workers.

To mount such a campaign, the rank and file members of the unions involved in dispute with CHH, including EPMU, NDU and WWU, must call an ‘all up’ meeting of the combined unions to plan a campaign and to elect delegates to a strike committee to organise and lead that campaign.

The issue of ‘breaking the law’

Picketers ‘breaking the law’ has been the constant refrain from the radical right like ACT. But from a workers’ perspective any law that is used to limit their freedom to organise to defend their basic rights and conditions has to be broken. The bosses rely upon workers observing the law to get what they want. They use labour law to impose ‘mediation’ only when they know that this is on their terms. When it’s not they do not hesitate to break the law! There is only one law and that is the bosses’ law.

Strike action to be effective is illegal under the ERA. But rather than isolating and exposing a few militants to the force of the law, mass action has the potential to build workers’ power in the workplace and challenge the law. For example the MUA pickets in 1998 were technically illegal, but because they were massive, workers forced the company and the Government onto the defensive.

The SWO call for a union ban on CHH products is tactically wrong. It is a tactic that should only be used to ban the handling of products already subject to strike action. By itself it interrupts the circulation of goods but it does not stop the production process. If a union ban is called in isolation of CHH workers taking strike action, at best it would be ineffective, but at worst it would isolate unions indirectly linked to the dispute and not backed up by mass strike action, exposing them to the forces of the state.

Rebuild the Unions!

We are opposed to moves by the CTU to limit the development of industrial action to the rule of law represented by the ERA. We are opposed to promoting illusions that present the interests of workers and employers as ‘harmonious’, or in ‘partnership’. This is a partnership where one partner is getting screwed, that is the workers who create the wealth including the boss’s profits.

We are for the rebuilding of the union movement from its present low ebb where less than 20% of workers are members and even fewer are covered by collective agreements. We are for workers reclaiming the right to strike by taking action independent of the state. The right to strike is the might to strike and it can only be won by strong, organised unions.

1. Build Fighting, Democratic unions based on the rank and file membership.
2. For the election of delegates by the rank and file, who are accountable to the rank and file and subject to immediate recall if they vote or act contrary to their mandate.
3. For all-up meetings of the rank and file to decide strategy and tactics.
4. For strike committees elected by the rank and file.
5. For international solidarity among unions, and the election of international strike committees in disputes against multinational companies.

For an immediate all-up meeting of members of CHH unions to plan a campaign against CHH and to elect a strike committee of the combined unions to lead the campaign

CTU meeting to plan campaign against CHH

A combined meeting of the CTU and the unions associated with CHH was held in at Ngongotaha on 14 March. The unions represented included the Waterfront Workers, Engineers, NDU and Seafarers. The purpose of the meeting was to strategise a union approach to CHH moves against unions. Also present were some of the CHH site delegates from around the B.O.P/ Waikato region.

Because this correspondent was not a direct participant in the meeting and delegates were sworn to secrecy, the outcome of the meeting has yet to be verified. The promise of a short statement from the meeting did not eventuate.

Outside the conference venue was what could be loosely described as a united front action consisting mainly of SWO members and supporters. Also present were 3 members of the CWG. Both groups acting independently distributed leaflets and literature on the issue of CHH and the unions.

Of interest was the response of those participating in the meeting towards the leaflets. Because the tactics being advocated by the SWO called for union bans on CHH products, this was not taken favourably by the CHH workers who were present. They believed that bans would affect their jobs and livelihoods. It would have been better for the CHH workers themselves to decide on a course of action rather than have one imposed from the outside. "Bunch of students" was one of the comments passed on by one of the delegates during the lunch break, the only time when any indication of the mood of the meeting was made.

Also mentioned was the cool atmosphere between the NDU wood sector delegates and the engineers. Their cooperation was made possible only because both unions now came under the umbrella of the CTU for the common purpose of dealing with CHH.

As we predicted in our leaflet, a hint was let drop of a tripartite meeting to be held between the Government, CTU and CHH. CHH was not pleased with the CTU getting involved, but seems to have agreed that a meeting with Government was better than the spectre of militant union action.

On a positive note, the CWG leaflet "All Out to Stop Carter Holt" was welcomed. It reflected a rank and file perspective putting the initiative on the CHH workers themselves with a bit of prodding from a certain left-wing quarter. Arising out of this leaflet a CWG member was nominated for national vice president of the NDU wood sector by B.O.P/Waikato rank-and-file delegates at Kawerau on 25 March.

This at least gives recognition to the realistic program being promoted by the CWG although it is early days yet. The complete understanding of this program by the wood sector workers and others can only help to strengthen the level of consciousness among workers to take on the likes of CHH.

From Class Struggles No 38 April-May 2001