In one of those paradoxes of politics, a government that has delivered in spades to the union movement finds itself in a bare-knuckle fight with the country’s most militant industrial organisation.
As government-imposed protections for gig workers and employees’ “right to disconnect” took effect from Monday, thousands of CFMEU members gathered at noisy rallies in the capital cities the following day, with placards and speakers denouncing Labor and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
The CFMEU is raging about being routed by a government that had no option – after turning a blind eye for too long to known and suspected malfeasance – but to act strongly when the behaviour was documented in vivid and shocking detail in the media.
Initially, then-workplace relations minister Tony Burke sought to put the government at some distance from the operation by having the Fair Work Commission’s general manager (who is the regulator) seek court approval to put an administrator into the CFMEU’s construction division.
Burke backed this up with the threat of federal legislation if the CFMEU didn’t cooperate. The union resisted and the government, with Murray Watt now the minister, had to make good its threat.
By early last week, the legislation was through parliament; by week’s end an administrator was in place and nearly 300 union officials were out of their positions.
Three CFMEU appointees are also off the board of the $92 billion superannuation fund Cbus. Former Labor senator Doug Cameron tweeted in support of one of them, Dave Noonan, “Guilt by association and knee jerk retribution is unacceptable!”
One man left standing was CFMEU national secretary Zach Smith, who had unsuccessfully tried to have the matter dealt with internally. Smith told Tuesday’s rally in Canberra: “Administration will come and go, politicians will come and go, but this union will stand long after they’re gone”. Smith seems in a near-impossible position.
Meanwhile, the notorious John Setka, the CFMEU’s former Victorian secretary who had resigned when he knew what was about to come in Nine’s publications, appeared on Seven last Sunday claiming – wait for it – victim status.
Setka said he’d offered to quit in an attempt to head off intervention. In his version, after a discussion involving Burke, the CFMEU and the ACTU, word had come back that there was a “deal”. Unsurprisingly, the government denies this.
Whatever the nature of that alleged conversation, once Nine’s revelations appeared, the battlelines were drawn. The question now is, where ultimately will the cost-benefit ledger sit for the Albanese government?
As one Labor man put it, were Tuesday’s demonstrations a last hurrah from the CFMEU, or the beginning of trench warfare?
One obvious cost to Labor is a substantial monetary one. The CFMEU gave $1 million to the ALP’s last federal campaign. The party has now banned taking its money: given the proximity of the federal election, this will be a pinch.
Also, the Electrical Trades Union has announced it will withhold a $1 million donation to Labor because, it says, the CFMEU was not accorded “due process”. It flagged the money could be available for a legal challenge to the legislation.
Even more important for Labor is whether its action against the union will cost the party votes. Will some support leach to the Greens? Clearly the minor party thinks there are pickings here. Controversially, its high-profile housing spokesman Max Chandler-Mather was a prominent speaker at the Brisbane rally.
The Greens are positioning to capitalise on discontent with the Albanese government on the left, and among younger voters. They may well do so – we have previously seen “Greens creep”, to the point where the party has four members in the House of Representatives. But it is probably unlikely that whatever extra votes it might win will be much about the CFMEU issue.
Kos Samaras, from the RedBridge political consultancy, says the Greens’ progressive voters are “least likely to be supportive of unions”. The union brand is most popular with the working class constituency, especially the female union brand, he says.
That raises a relevant gender issue.
In recent decades, union membership has shrunk dramatically (to around 12.5% of the workforce in 2022), and become more feminised (11.4% for men and 13.6% for women). Both the ACTU president and its secretary are women – Michele O'Neil and Sally McManus.
The ACTU leadership has taken a strong stand against the CFMEU. Earlier contretemps involved Setka’s actions towards women – his disparaging of domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty and his barrage of harassing texts sent to his wife.
The CFMEU may be winning support from the likes of the ETU, but it remains on the outer with the core of the union movement and union members generally. For many women unionists in particular, its face will look ugly.
Of course, being unpopular isn’t the same as being impotent. The union’s members are key to crucial infrastructure projects. Tuesday’s rallies took workers briefly away from their jobs. It’s possible the union could find ways to be more seriously industrially disruptive, although with officials sacked, to say nothing of the law, that could be difficult.
The CFMEU, which is in its present situation because some members have flouted the law, is now threatening to resort to the legal system, by challenging the government’s action in the High Court. A loss would be a disaster for the government, but it says it is confident it’s on strong legal grounds.
This is far from the first ALP government to confront a union. The Gillard government called out the Health Services Union; the Hawke government deregistered the BLF and brought in the RAAF as part of its assault on the pilots federation during the Ansett dispute of 1989. Prime Minister Ben Chifley sent in troops against the miners.
If all goes well for the government, its fight with the CFMEU could be a positive in the public’s mind (to the extent people think about it at all). It can argue it has done a huge amount in responding to the unions’ agenda, including facilitating multi-employer bargaining and advocating (and in some areas financing) pay rises for low income workers, while taking strong measures against rogue behaviour. Indeed it can paint the latter as its commitment to “law and order”, in the industrial world.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
