If it was any other union I probably wouldn’t bother with this. The rest are so obviously class collaborationist and generally seem to follow the CTU’s line around productivity and skills-based economy. But the Unite Union (my union), for some reason, manages to shake off this reputation amongst radical circles despite it also being quite remarkably similar to every other contemporary workers union in New Zealand. This is the most recent and perhaps most disgusting case-in-point.
As was reported in a New Zealand Herald article on the 4th December 2006, Unite and Te Wananga o Aotearoa (free tertiary education provider) have come to an agreement which
…brings wananga tutors and union organisers into the heart of Queen St to teach literacy, computing and business skills to some of the country’s lowest-paid workers — cleaners, call centre workers, fast-food attendants and waiting staff.
That great bit of reporting by the NZ Herald leaves a lot to be desired.
Firstly, the Unite has agreed to recruit workers and its own members to a variety of Wananga courses. For every new student signed up, the Wananga gets an increase in its funding from the Government. Of course, these courses are free whether you are a member of Unite or not, but the benefit for Unite is that for every student they recruit for the Wananga they get a rather healthy commission, rumoured to be several hundred dollars. Compare this to the Union fees a full time minimum-wage Unite member would pay — just below $200 a year — and you can see the appeal.
As the NZ Herald article made clear, however, Unite is also being given a new building to house its offices, the old ASB Building which is now renamed Unite House.
The deal is clearly lucrative for both organisations: effectively the Wananga is commissioning Unite to gain access to workplaces to recruit students and gain increased funding, while Unite is gaining offices in a half-a-million-dollar building and getting paid rather well on top of this. It is unsurprising to learn, then, that Unite Secretary Matt McCarten is also the trade union representative on the board of Te Wananga o Aotearoa.
While the motivation for both organisations is clearly financial, Matt McCarten has publicly stated the reasoning behind the moves to be based around concern for workers. Workers are being paid poor wages not because the problem lies entirely with employers, he claims, but because workers are not skilled enough or confident enough to be worthy of decent pay. Thus, through cooperation with the Wananga, he is helping them towards better and brighter futures.
Not one to remain idle, however, Unite recently announced 45 short-term paid recruiting positions across New Zealand presumably charged with recruiting for both Unite and Te Wananga. The positions are quickly being dolled out to unscrupulous activists already known to Unite, and it seems most of the positions in Christchurch have already gone to members of the “pro-Mao Marxist-Leninist” group Workers Party.
Most of these details are still not public, and I doubt most of Unite members are aware of the potential cash-cows they are. McCarten’s productivist justifications aside, this deal is clearly financially motivated and in the interests of both the Unite bureaucracy and the Wananga leadership. But what about the workers’ interests?


29 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 19, 2007 at 7:36 pm
YudA
Hmmm, I’ll be interested to see how this pans out over the next wee while
January 19, 2007 at 7:39 pm
YudA
btw has this been reported anywhere else by you or others?
January 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm
anarchafairy
Not as far as I know. I’m a little bit scared to put it on Indy in case I’ve got any of it wrong. :-S
Apparently, quite a few people involved in Unite are quite uneasy about McCarten’s position, which I guess is quite healthy.
January 19, 2007 at 8:29 pm
John
Everything in your post is correct to my knowledge, those recruiting for unite get a healthy bonus for each person they recruit. I think this progression with unite was rather inevitable, people have had very serious worrys about matt for a long time.
Solidarity union sounds like it has some hope if joe carolyn and grant morgan dont fuck things up.
January 19, 2007 at 8:42 pm
anarchafairy
Hey John, what have you heard about these “healthy bonuses”? I heard from one person who had investigated getting one of the jobs that it was as much as $50 a person, and from someone else that it was just going to be a straight $12 an hour thing. The first sounds ridiculous.
January 19, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Darren
‘VolderMatt’ McCarten and ‘Iron’ Mike Treen – work with them, if necessary, but don’t trust them. Under their leadership Unite has become no different than any other trade union.
January 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Dave
Its not Matt or Mike personally that’s the problem here, but the whole damn bureaucracy that can only exist on the state’s teat.
Trotsky said that unions in the epoch of imperialism were part of the state machine. They operate within the bosses law to keep their funds flowing. Any union that has to rely on the state to survive will inevitably be corrupted. Unions should be run by the rank and file, with mandated delegates and strike committees. Any ‘officers’ should be employed for one year and return to the job so they don’t have time to create a bureaucracy.
January 19, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Scott
‘The rest are so obviously class collaborationist and generally seem to follow the CTU’s line around productivity and skills-based economy.’
How do you think this can be changed? By building separate workers’ organisations from scratch, presumably on an anarchist basis, or by working inside unions and moving them in the right direction? I am for the second course of action.
I believe that unions are the only mass organisations of the working class in New Zealand and I know from personal experience that many workers are joining them to get better pay and conditions now that the Employment Relations Act, weak piece of legislation that it is, has made it much easier. In a number of cases they are winning important victories in unions, and learning about collective action and solidarity as a result.
Even in some campaigns marred by the CTU policies you rightly criticise, like the EPMU’s 5% campaign and the SFWU’s Clean Start drive, there has been a real explosion in the consciousness of the participants, going well beyond what the heads of the CTU would have wanted.
To give you one example: the hundreds of cleaners that the SFWU has mobilised in Auckland as part of its campaign made the spontaneous decision to get involved in other industrial campaigns in the city, like the NDU action against Progressive foods. Many of the cleaners involved in the SFWU’s campaign have gone from being atomised individuals, fearful of the boss, to confident believers in collective action who identify as workers and solidarise with the struggles of other groups of workers. I saw a similar process a few years ago amongst workers at Auckland’s Sky City casino. You miss all of this stuff if you simply read press releases from union leaders and compare them to an abstract standard of revolutionary purity.
It’s true that, despite the positive developments since the end of the ’90s, we have no unions in New Zealand that have anything like a revolutionary outlook, but this does not necessarily mean that unions can never become ’schools of revolution’. In Venezuela and Bolivia, to name two examples, we have seen unions representing large groups of workers move towards extremely radical policy positions in recent years.
January 20, 2007 at 12:21 am
kakariki
At least you’re not in Australia ;o)
January 20, 2007 at 12:13 pm
anarchafairy
Dave,
Wow, I wouldn’t have thought I could agree so whole-heartedly with Trotsky, but on this account he was right: it’s not the case of bad managers of the left, but the existence of managers at all. Much like anarcho-syndicalism, workers organisations should be controlled by workers only, with power always remaining at the bottom, and recallable and mandated delegates used for decision-making. etc. etc.
January 20, 2007 at 12:28 pm
anarchafairy
Scott,
we have no unions in New Zealand that have anything like a revolutionary outlook, but this does not necessarily mean that unions can never become ’schools of revolution’.
Yes, absolutely agree. We have to realise that learning the skills of solidarity, collective action, direct action, etc., often occurs in spite of the union bureaucracy. The Progressive Workers who themselves chose to extend their own lockout/strike to support the Feltex workers is another good example.
How do you think this can be changed? By building separate workers’ organisations from scratch, presumably on an anarchist basis, or by working inside unions and moving them in the right direction?
Well I’m not sure, to be honest. Certainly within Unite, for example, it is really really hard to do much of anything. The last AGM here, for example, wasn’t widely publicised (I learnt about it afterwards), it’s hard to meet with other workers because all membership information is for union leaders eyes only, and there is so so so much power politics going on between different factions. On top of that, the union leadership have a sort of moral authority that can be really hard to argue against.
But the alternative hasn’t proven too successful either. The Autonomous Workers Union in Dunedin and the IWW before that haven’t met too much success, as far as I know. They seem to come off as a bit too radical, and lots of people I’ve talked to have talked about the need to remove any mention of revolutionary politics to gain members, and just retain the horizontal structure… which I guess is a possibility too.
January 20, 2007 at 12:55 pm
YudA
I also believe that both the Dunedin IWW and AWU hve suffered from personality clashes which haven’t helped their causes
January 20, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Span
I was involved when Matt and Mike were first setting up their Unite branch in Auckland. Unfortunately the commitment to democracy started weak and has continued in the same vein. The treatment of those who work for Unite in Auckland has not always been wonderful either (although personally I only observed this happening to others except for a few isolated incidents).
As for other unions, I share a lot of the frustrations about the focus on productivity. How much more do workers have to produce to get a fair share? It’s a ridiculous premise that denies that the current system is unfair.
January 20, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Scott
As a Unite member I agree completely with complaints about the lack of democracy in the organisation. Related problems, in Auckland at least, include grossly unprincipled behaviour toward other unions – for instance, the poaching of sites – the marginalising of members who are beneficiaries, and failure to properly service members signed up in over-ambitious recruitment drives. All of these things have given Unite a very bad name in Auckland, though things may be somewhat different in other parts of the country, where Matt McCarten is less dominant. Let’s remember that Matt is the bloke who purged the New Labour Party of its left wing and then introduced a law banning Marxists from joining. This leopard hasn’t changed his spots.
On the reformist vs revolutionary unions things: I think that if we support the ’self-activity of workers’, then we have to acknowledge that this activity will often involve things that are a long way from revolutionary action. Yesterday I went to a meeting of some workers who are trying to start a union branch from scratch. None of them is an anarchist or a Marxist, none of them believes in smashing the state or taking over from the boss. If an election were held tomorrow I strongly suspect they’d vote for Labour, like 92% of the Auckland members of the union they’re joining did in 2005, or for the Greens. They don’t want to smash capitalism – they just want to get rid of the shitty way shift work is organised on their site, get better lighting, and maybe even get a pay rise one day. Pretty modest stuff, but this sort of thing is what the self-organisation of workers is mostly about in 2007. I think the challenge for the far left is to try to find ways of engaging with this reality without abandoning its wider vision of a world without capitalism. Tricky stuff.
January 24, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Toby
The AWU wasn’t hampered by personality clashes Yuda. That is way simplistic. It was more like someone in the AWU was controlling things like a little Hitler, among other things, including differences over strategy. Anarchafairy, your comments on the AWU are misinformed. The AWU has been moderately successful in a small provincial city with next to no union presence. It has organised scores of cafe workers and fast food workers, and relative to a large city like Auckland its membership would be over 1000 relatviely speaking. the AWU is not a radical union, it was formed by some people in the IWW and others who felt that workers were put off by radical politics and radical sloganeering so formed a watered down semi-syndicalist union that never used such radical phrases but attempted to avoid the bureaucracy of a union like Unite. You say “They seem to come off as a bit too radical” — wrong. The opposite is the case. Read the constitution. No mention of class or class struggle or revolution or a war between employers and workers or the abolition of the wage system like the IWW. “and lots of people I’ve talked to have talked about the need to remove any mention of revolutionary politics to gain members” — that was precisely the intention of the AWU. “and just retain the horizontal structure” again precisely the case with the AWU, its like a syndicalist union without the syndicalist rhetoric.
January 24, 2007 at 7:27 pm
yuda
I was being polite.
January 25, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Toby
Yeah Yuda you woz being polite, but I think you also trivialised the differences within the AWU — making it sound like it was a simple personality clash, which therefore implies all the blame ought to be placed on individuals for not getting along rather than more substantial issues. For a start, we got on fine in the AWU, but we had clashes over how the AWU was run, and over tactics and strategy. The big issue for me within the AWU was whether we should use all legal channels available to gain stuff for workers, or place less emphasis on legal channels and more on grassroots organising and perhaps, when possible, direct action. I personally felt the AWU got too bogged down in the legal process, in individual grievances and by being threatened to be sued by Burger King for thousands of dollars. This of course is a time honoured strategy of bosses to keep you tangled in the legal system which doesn’t offer much benefit to workers anyway.
January 25, 2007 at 9:19 pm
yuda
I’d be interested in sitting down at some stage with you and discussing this further Toby
January 26, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Toby
yeah Yuda that would be good. It’s funny but sad that only about two people outside of Dunedin have actually sat down and had a decent chat about the AWU with me. I guess people up north don’t think Dunedin is of much importance so they tend to ignore the deep south
I read all these ignorant comments about the AWU and i realise that people up north just don’t know what the AWU has got up to, and the problems and successes we had. For example, on the good side, in one AWU workplace we actually had a situation where the a majority of workers were keen on running their business as a co-operative in response to mass redundancy. But the workers co-op fell thru, but it was an interesting experience. I doubt if Unite or any other union around today can claim to have been in that situation. Part of the problem is that the AWU never took off in other centres (if it started say in Wgtn no doubt there would be heaps written about it and it would be considered much better than Unite rather than an irrelevant Dunedin thing
) and that the AWU is not good at putting publicity out. Only one newsletter has come out as far as i know, and the AWU website was empty.
January 26, 2007 at 12:36 pm
yuda
Perhaps we organise a bit of a discuaaion evening on syndacalism/grass roots unionism eh? I would be interested in your opinion on what AWU did right and what it didn’t do so well at. Also the organisational structure
January 26, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Mr G
yuda and others, yep good idea to have some sort of discussion among all the anarchos and radicals that have gone thru Unite/AWU/etc in last few years and have been spat out the other end all grumpy. it would be a good basis for the next national gathering of anarchists, although including non-anarchist-lefties-who-are-too-radical-for-unite would be good too.
January 31, 2007 at 8:46 am
Span
Unite has also spat out quite a few people who have ended up working for other unions now.
February 7, 2007 at 9:46 am
Unite Update « anarchafairy
[...] I was pulled aside by two organisers to have “a talk” about my comments about the Unite and Wananga deal which, as far as I was concerned, merely amounted to a restating of our positions. One tried to [...]
March 1, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Kev
Well interesting i must say I am a union organiser trying to organise from the ground up and to dis empower the oligarhcy.I worked as a union organiser for several years in Aussie and know in NZ and you guys are so right unions should be run by the working class. At the moment i am developing a new way of organising unfortunitly inside a academic union and getting some real traction with the workers but struggling with the oligarhcy
March 2, 2007 at 12:55 am
Simon
Hmm. I don’t work for Unite anymore. I suppose I was spat out. Yes, I had a bad experience. I’ve gotten past that. The workers at that particular site have long forgotten it. Sure, I’ve got issues with stuff it’s doing. I’ve got lots of issues with how lots of stuff is being done. But the real issue, apart from always criticising stuff (which often deserves it) where are people trying to make these alternatives? If you ignore the unions completely then what’s your strategy. And I mean a strategy that actually involved everyday people. It’s good to be critical. I’m all for that. But I’m not all for years of it with nothing as an alternative. Often when you try and give something ago, you come aross hurdles and you have to find ways of dealing with it. Those decisions are difficult. It’s not simply a matter of unions getting in the way. Getting in the way of what? They’re not simply like a valve stopping radicalism from flowing through. Apathy is real. It’s a social force. It’s a produce of our society. Take away the unions and the apathy is still there. If you’ve got an alternative that can batter down apathy through empowerment then that’s a solution! But you can’t batter down apathy in the general populace if it doesn’t involve them. Union’s are a strategy. On the workplace people share a common concern that they can deal with collectively if they have the skills, knowledge, confidence, support. It won’t just happen by itself if unions aren’t there. We’ve got to learn to be able to deal with the product of apathy and the causes in real world situations. It’s through struggle that we’ll learn the ways of dealing with that. THOUGH STRUGGLE. And that ain’t just struggling to think of a critism or theory, it’s about getting involved in a dirty non-perfect situation and applying that. That is a part of what Unites doing, wether it’s they are doing it the best way or not. Unite is it’s members as well as it’s people pushing it. They might not be as active. They might potentially be activists. What’s the solution? What if they are’t interested in democracy at the mo? Does that make them authoritarian?
March 2, 2007 at 12:58 am
Simon
is there such a thing as impulsivity through blogging. SLEEP goddamit! sleep! (procrastinate god damn it, procrastinate!)
March 2, 2007 at 9:04 am
Kev
It was suppose to read fortunitly not un fortunitly in my comment the new way off organising is to engage the workforce at a social level and when workers have the social investment in one another it becomes very easy for workers to act collectivly this is proving to work well but understand this that the unions of today are really just barging agents and the bigger they become the harder it is for them to service so there is real resistance for growth unless we can empower workers to become activly involved which is what i am doing.there is plenty of apathy in NZ and i blame partly the unions as they have always serviced the membership and done this very well i might add and for this the membership has become dis conected dis empowered.
March 4, 2007 at 11:20 am
Simon
I definetly agree that union’s have failed to involve people. There is no doubt about that. And they still fail to. I still beleive that for most people they don’t feel an active part in anything, except during industrial action. Industrial action is when people see a point to meetings (not always, but definetly see it more) and see a reason to get involved. Union’s should be organised around industrial action, rather than seeing it as something to do when negotiations break down.
Simon
April 5, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Span
I guess what I resent is the implication that if you aren’t working for Unite you are somehow not interested in, or trying to do, real organising work (as opposed to servicing). There are many union activists who are members or staff in more conservative unions and have been fighting the good fight for years and years (long before Matt McCarten came to Unite in fact). It takes time to make change in these kinds of institutions. We do our best.