Donald Trump is on a rampage against workers in the United States. According to the 2025 Global Rights Index, published by the International Trade Union Confederation, the world’s largest trade union federation, the new administration has “taken a wrecking ball to the collective labour rights of workers”. Trump has stripped protections and bargaining rights for tens of thousands of public sector workers and paralysed the National Labor Relations Board, which protects employees’ rights to organise and join unions. And he’s just getting started.
The US union movement is historically weak. Strike rates remain at decades-long lows. Union density has steadily declined from a peak of 35 percent in 1954, recording a new low in every decade since then. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, just 10 percent of all workers are now in unions. This obviously poses challenges for the workers’ movement, particularly for workers who want to organise against Trump’s reactionary agenda.
Red Flag’s Ryan Stanton spoke to Joe Burns—a labour lawyer, union activist and bargaining negotiator since the 1990s—about where the US union movement has gone wrong and what needs to change. Burns recently completed negotiations for 27,000 United Airlines employees and Association of Flight Attendants members. He has written three books on labour organising: <a href="https://www.igpub.com/strike-back/">Strike Back</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Reviving-Strike-Working-Transform-America/dp/1935439243">Reviving the Strike</a>, and <a href="https://shop.redflag.org.au/products/class-struggle-unionism">Class Struggle Unionism</a>.
--------------------
What is the state of the American labour movement in the era of Donald Trump?
It’s obviously a difficult period with Trump in office. He has unleashed attacks on immigrant workers and workers in the federal government. But the problem is much bigger than just Trump. The United States has seen a decline in the percentage of workers who belong to trade unions. Only six out of 100 private sector workers now belong to unions. While there are flashes of success here and there, the reality is that the labour movement has been stuck for decades.
This is in large part because we’ve abandoned the principles of class struggle unionism. We put a lot of money into organising, but we’ve been unable to convince workers to join our weak and ineffective unions. We were told that when Democrats like Biden got in and we had a new NLRB [National Labor Relations Board], things would be different. But the similarities between presidential administrations over the last few decades outweigh the differences. The decline in union membership has continued at an equal rate under both Republicans and Democrats. All the Democrats have done is change some rules around the margins. 
We’re not going to revive the labour movement this way. The union reform movement and the left within the labour movement are the weakest that I’ve seen in decades. Certain sectors of the economy and certain states are better organised, but I think the crisis is pretty much throughout the labour movement in the entire country. There are a lot of fuzzy ideas about teaching organising approaches, as if that’s our problem. 
We really need a complete revamp of approach. Labour’s decline is not fundamentally a product of one party or another—they are both capitalist parties. It reflects a deeper problem with the labour movement. What we really lack are the principles of class struggle unionism and how we fight both inside and outside of our unions to take on the capitalist class. And I think it starts with the left of the labour movement coming to grips with the crisis that we face and what it’s going to take to move forward. That’s the fundamental problem. 
My first two books focused on reviving the strike in both the public and private sectors. My most recent book, Class Struggle Unionism, focuses on the internal problems within the labour movement, including our inability to confront the shifting regimes of labour law, the legal restrictions on the right to strike, worker self-activity and so on. Although my knowledge of the Australian union movement is somewhat limited, I do try to follow things over there and it seems that both union movements face similar problems. 
How have the unions approached the Trump administration?
Well, obviously Trump is doing this sort of right-wing populism thing. He’s certainly won over a base with his tariffs and protectionism, which have an appeal to auto workers and steelworkers, who have been decimated by decades of neoliberal attacks and the elimination of protections for workers. Many liberal labour leaders are aghast that Sean Fain from the UAW [United Auto Workers] and others support the tariffs. However, we spent a lot of the 1990s fighting against the North American Free Trade Agreement and other free trade agreements that were geared towards allowing corporations to shift manufacturing jobs overseas without regard for workers. These agreements allow capitalists to exploit workers around the world, while eroding manufacturing unionism. 
So, it’s not surprising to me that some of these unions support tariffs. It’s economic nationalism, but it’s also rooted in material reality in which workers have faced job losses. They’ve felt the effects of an era of neoliberalism that was spearheaded in many ways by the Democratic establishment. However, the tariffs are not going to fix things. To the extent you support them and take a narrow, sectional point of view, you cut yourself off from your natural allies and move away from class struggle unionism. In the worst case, you end up like the Teamsters [one of the largest unions in the US], who have been cosying up to Trump. This is an abandonment of working-class principles. 
Has there been much opposition to the Trump administration from the union movement?
For the most part, the union leaders oppose Trump—at least rhetorically. To be fair, while the UAW came out with qualified support for Trump’s tariffs, they have fought him on other issues. Although we’ve seen some protests, there hasn’t yet been the same kind of opposition we saw during his first term. I think he came on so ferociously that it put people on the back foot. While the union movement is participating in smaller, localised protests, I wouldn’t say they are doing much to seriously oppose Trump. 
What is the relationship between the US union movement and the Democratic Party? 
The union movement allied itself with the Democratic Party through the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s. The unions deluded themselves into thinking they had an important role in business and government. They have the trappings of power, but not real power. Over the years, the labour movement has allowed itself to be incorporated into the Democrats and become increasingly dependent on the state for its existence. In doing so, we’ve accepted of a lot of restrictions on unions and the right to strike. 
However, despite what we are commonly told, the Democratic Party is no ally of the labour movement. We have to keep in mind that Trump is not the first president to attack migrants or attempt to gut the federal workforce. Democratic governors called out the National Guard in the 1980s to break the Hormel meatpackers’ strike in Minnesota, where I’m originally from. Democratic President Bill Clinton and his vice president, Al Gore, got rid of 400,000 federal worker jobs in the 1990s, probably more than they’ve cut so far with Elon Musk and DOGE. 
The problem isn’t just that the labour movement spends a tonne of money supporting Democrats, money that could go into organising. And the problem isn’t just that this offers a false path and defrays the real issues affecting workers. The real problem is that it reflects the entry of capitalist ideology into the labour movement. As Tony Mazzocchi, the leader of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, who tried to start a labour party in the 1990s, used to say: the bosses have two parties, it’s time for workers to have one. The Democrats are a wholly corporate-funded and controlled political party. It was the Democrats’ anti-working-class policies that provided the basis for Trump’s rise to power. 
In your book Class Struggle Unionism, you loosely define three approaches to modern trade unionism: business unionism, liberal unionism and class struggle unionism. What do you mean by these terms? 
For the first 100 or so years of trade unionism, the fundamental divide was between what I call business unionism and class struggle unionism. Business unionism tended to be a narrower trade unionism, often focused on representing a group of workers under a particular employer or industry. Business unionists didn’t see themselves as having a broader role in society, and certainly not a role of transforming the relationship between workers and employers. Their slogan can be famously summed up by the slogan, “A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work”. 
In contrast, we have a long, rich history of class struggle unionism, which takes a fundamentally different point of view. It recognises that the source of power and privilege in society is exploitation in the workplace. Whether you’re at Starbucks, Amazon or Ford, your labour creates value during your shift. You get paid a portion of that value in wages, and the rest flows upwards to a handful of people. That’s how we get billionaires in society; that’s the source of power and privilege. 
So, if you truly want to take on the billionaire class, you have to start in the workplace by challenging exploitation. When I talk about class struggle unionists in the United States, I think of the Industrial Workers of the World, or the Wobblies as they are better known, in the early 1900s. I think of the folks around the Communist Party in the Trade Union Unity League of the 1920s. I think of Farrell Dobbs and the Trotskyists who led the Teamsters rebellion of the 1930s. I think of the powerful, left-led international unions that came out of the 1930s, who were then decimated in the red scares of the late 1940s and early 1950s. 
In the 1970s, thousands of anti-war and student activists joined the new communist movement. Many of those people then joined the labour movement with a conscious viewpoint of class struggle unionism. They went into the labour movement to transform it and put it on a fighting class struggle basis. They saw the working class as critical to a broader transformation of society. A lot of those leftists who went into the labour movement in the 1970s engaged in a lot of good struggles. They were probably a bit ultra-left and spent too much time fighting each other, but I think a lot of good struggles came out of their efforts. 
However, in the 1980s, we faced a withering attack on trade unionism. We saw a wave of legal restrictions on the right to strike and on solidarity action, and the permanent replacement of striking workers. Great Britain, Australia and the United States shifted to restrain the sort of worker self-activity that had built a powerful labour movement, especially solidarity, cross-class and class-wide trade unionism. We were getting pummelled. This was one of the factors that led to the implosion of the socialist left in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the United States. A lot of these people drifted away into labour education, and some of them entered the mid-levels of the labour movement. This is when we saw the rise of the “third way” of labour liberalism in the 1980s. It was somewhat rooted in this grouping of people who were ideologically progressive or even socialist, but who began to turn away from class struggle unionism.
They hoped to straddle the two worlds of business unionism and class struggle unionism. They focused on things like the “corporate campaign” and the “organising approach”. A lot of this is rooted in the technical expertise of these sorts of mid-level staffers in the labour movement. Their politics flips from idea to idea. One minute we need social unionism, then we need broad community campaigns, then we need more trained organisers and so on. Unions have developed all sorts of alternatives to the strike, and they’ve begun to look more like NGOs than actual fighting organs of the class. In many ways, they have just walked away from the fundamental root of the crisis. 
A good example is the Service Employees International Union, which has led well-promoted campaigns to organise fast food workers. But this was all bullshit. They would lead “industrial action” that would have like 50 staffers and a handful of fired workers pretending that the workers were on strike. Some of the recent Amazon strikes were like that, too. There’s a real proliferation of these types of actions—what I call publicity strikes. Even groups such as Labor Notes talk less about the reform and how fucked up the labour movement is, and a lot more about the “secrets of the successful organisers” and “what are the techniques that organisers need?” 
Well, the problem isn’t the techniques. What we need is class struggle unionism. We need more fights with the bureaucracy that doesn’t want to engage in the sort of militant struggle that’s necessary to revive the labour movement. These bureaucrats don’t want to break with the Democratic Party or the state apparatus by violating injunctions and doing all the things that we would need to do to win and to attract workers to our movement.

Ryan Stanton

Class struggle unionism in the USA: an interview with Joe Burns

Hundreds of teacher unionists rallied outside the Queensland parliament on 24 June to demand a decent pay rise from the state government. 
Teachers’ real wages have gone backwards by more than 6 percent in the last three years, but the government is offering an insulting 8 percent pay increase over the next three years, while annual inflation sits at 2.4 percent.
The teachers also want workloads to be reduced. High school teachers’ planning time has not increased since the 1970s, but there has been a dramatic increase in the required work—assessing, marking and writing new unit plans. All of this work is unpaid and unacknowledged by the government. 
“I don’t feel like there’s much time to get everything done”, Danielle, a secondary school teacher, told Red Flag at the rally. 
Mina, a primary public school teacher, said she thinks teachers deserve a 30 percent pay rise—the rate that rank-and-file network Queensland Teachers Fightback <a href="https://qldteachersfightback.org/our-wages-vs-inflation-vs-state-gov-wages-policy.html">is arguing for</a>. 
Mina told Red Flag that she supports taking strike action next term, “to get the point across that change is needed, a pay rise is needed, and we need to be acknowledged for the role we play in young kids’ lives”. Queensland public school teachers haven’t taken statewide industrial action in sixteen years. 
If teachers struck, they’d receive support. Construction workers from different job sites rallied alongside the teachers outside parliament. They agreed that teachers deserve the solidarity of other trade unions as they fight for their pay and conditions. 
One construction union member said attending the rally was important “to show the QTU [Queensland Teachers’ Union] is not alone. It’s a symbiotic relationship we have with all trade unions”. 
The QTU voted last year to support construction workers, whose union has been put into administration by the federal Labor government. Rank-and-file activists in both unions believe that, when one section of the workforce stands up to the bosses, they show all workers the power they have. 
Public sector workers are being left behind. Queensland teachers, nurses and firefighters are due to negotiate new contracts this year. But the Crisafulli state government has made it clear that, while there’s money for Olympic stadiums and cops, there’s little to nothing for the working class. 
Teachers will have to fight, and take industrial action, to win what they and their students deserve.

Isabella Foley

Queensland teachers fight back against insulting pay offer

“We are here today because we are fighting for what is right!”
Striking Grill’d workers and their supporters protested in front of the burger chain’s Rundle Street store in Adelaide on 28 June, handing out flyers explaining why they were taking action against the company. They argued to people who tried to enter the store that they should boycott Grill’d while workers struck. Would-be customers were cheered when they walked away from the restaurant’s entrance.
After a few hours of protesting, the picketers took to the streets of Adelaide. “Support Grill’d workers—don’t eat the burgers!” they chanted as they spread the word throughout the city. Many of the workers have never taken industrial action before, and were buoyed by the experience. “Look, it’s our street—Union Street”!, one quipped while marching back to the store. 
The founder and CEO of Grill’d, Simon Crowe, wants <a href="https://thewest.com.au/business/retail/grilld-chief-executive-simon-crowe-says-the-burger-group-can-more-than-double-its-size-in-the-next-five-years-c-13698323">to double the company’s size by 2029</a>. Crowe, with a reported net worth of more than <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/they-slowly-strangled-me-grill-d-store-owner-lost-shop-days-before-christmas-20191206-p53hir.html">$450 million</a>, has grown rich off the backs of his workers.
Meanwhile, Grill’d workers struggle to make ends meet. The current agreement increases wages by just 1 percent per year. Once inflation is factored in, staff have gone backwards at a rate of knots.
An analysis from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA, the union covering the workers) has found that those on the current enterprise agreement are up to <a href="https://grilldworkersunited.org/terminate2020">37 percent worse off than if they had been on the award wage</a> instead.
So, across South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, Grill’d workers were out for better pay and conditions. Some of their demands include wage increases that account for inflation, appropriate pay for staff with more responsibilities, and guaranteed hours for permanent contracts.
Many of the workers reported to Red Flag that they are overworked and understaffed, and often unable to call in sick or take breaks.
Outside the Rundle Steet Grill’d, a supporter remarked: “See how ridiculously priced [the] burgers are? Surely, they can spare a few extra dollars for the workers here ... We all deserve fair living wages, so why not?”
One young worker said she was earning $600 working 50 hours a week, having just turned 18. “I didn’t know any better. This was my first job, and I took it because I was desperate”, she said, adding that while working at Grill’d and studying at university, she collects bottles to help pay for groceries and does DoorDash on the side.
At a time when strike rates are at a historic low and wealth inequality is soaring, these workers are showing what needs to happen. As one said defiantly, “Our efforts today will help the higher-ups see we are not to be taken advantage of, and we deserve to have an agreement where we are actually better off!”

Jordan Armstrong

Grill’d workers turn heat on boss

Roughly two dozen construction union (CFMEU) members, crane operators and riggers, are on indefinite strike at the Port of Brisbane. They’ve been out for nearly a month now and don’t show any sign of giving in. One delegate told Red Flag that they are “committed to being here as long as we need”. Workers have set up a television, cooking equipment and decorations, as well as a couch—important comforts for a long fight. 
Their employer is Qube, Australia’s largest logistics company. Qube owns part of Patrick Corporation, an infamously anti-worker outfit. In 1998, in an attempt to cripple the Maritime Union of Australia, Patrick fired its entire wharfie workforce. This kicked off the famous <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/waterfront-war-shook-australia">war on the waterfront</a> dispute. 
True to form, the Brisbane strike kicked off after Qube sacked workers, including a union delegate, who took part in an initial two-day strike in early May. They were laid off using a dodgy “restructuring”: boss language for union busting. One of the workers quit in protest but is still down at the picket line each day: “These boys are in for a fight; I’ve got to stand alongside them”, he told Red Flag. 
Along with the right to strike, the workers are fighting for better pay and conditions. They say their enterprise bargaining agreement was “substandard” even when it was signed in 2019. Their wage currently sits $4 an hour below the industry standard, which they are fighting to meet. They’re also demanding proper redundancy pay, income protection and travel pay. The small amount of travel pay they are owed is often unpaid; one worker is still waiting on a claim he made a year ago. Another demand is for a meal allowance, which is standard in the industry but not paid here. 
Not everyone experiences this poor treatment at Qube. “They look after their corporate people very well”, said one of the workers. Qube’s managing director, Paul Digney, made $4.14 million in the 2023-24 financial year. Digney recently complained in an interview with the Australian that when his workers “don’t turn up for work, the economy stops”. Too right. According to the workers, their frustrated managers often drive past the picket, occasionally giving them the middle finger. Taking these arrogant fat cats down a peg won’t go in a log of claims, but it is a worthy reason to keep fighting. 
The CFMEU members aren’t up against only their own bosses, but also a <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/labor-set-to-impose-dictatorial-powers-over-construction-union">government-appointed administrator</a>. The administrator has <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/attack-on-democracy-in-the-act-cfmeu">sacked officials</a> and destroyed democracy in the union. In response to a High Court ruling that gave the go-ahead to this undemocratic disgrace, hundreds of CFMEU workers walked off the job last week. Queensland Socialists secretary and teacher unionist Bec Barrigos spoke at their rally, arguing for more strike action to take on the administration. She also pointed out the connection between the fights of workers in every industry. 
The workers at Qube are similarly keen to point out this connection. “If we just leave it and they get away with screwing us over, other workers will have to deal with it”, one of the delegates said. But “if we win here, it's a win for the next worker”. Touch one, touch all, as the old union saying goes. Another saying is well worn among these workers: “If you don’t fight, you lose”. Amid a generational cost-of-living crisis, attacks on unions, growing inequality and stagnant wages, theirs is a message worth remembering. 
Contribute to the Qube workers’ strike fund:
QUBE financial hardship fund
BSB: 064 000
ACC: 165 702 38

Connor Knight

Queensland CFMEU members fight back

The public mental health system in Victoria is a disaster. Mental health workers across the state are demanding that the state government fix it. In the past week, allied health and nurse members of the Health and Community Services Union (HACSU) struck and rallied outside state parliament during a statewide day of action, to insist that the ALP address the sector’s underfunding.
Successive ALP governments have created a severely understaffed, degrading and dangerous mental health system. Low wages, disgusting conditions and burnout are the daily reality for workers. People seeking care and treatment confront an exhausting and too often traumatic battle to receive grossly inadequate support that is overly medicalised and demeaning. The 2019 Royal Commission into Mental Health in Victoria confirmed as much and recommended broad reforms.
In response, the ALP in 2022 promised an additional 800 full-time positions in the public mental health sector. In reality, at least 2,000 additional workers are needed. The government has since backflipped. 
The latest offer proposes cuts to pay for allied health workers and no increase to overall staffing. It is attempting to divide the workforce by giving a long-overdue pay rise to mental health nurses, while cutting paid entitlements and offering a pathetic pay rise of 3 percent to long underpaid, overwhelmingly women workers. The offer proposes to cut a yearly retention payment and slash some penalty rates, which, taken together, would result in an overall pay cut for allied health workers.
General nurses in Victoria won a 28.4 percent pay rise last year, after union members rejected a government offer of a 3 percent annual pay rise. When mental health nurses, who have the same qualifications and training as general nurses, but are employed under different enterprise agreements, demanded the pay rise awarded to general nurses, the ALP initially suggested it would not extend pay parity. It has since backed down and agreed. The catch is that allied health workers are being thrown under the bus.
Either nurses or allied health workers can staff many roles in the public mental health system. The offer from the ALP would result in nurses, in some instances, being paid $40,000 more than allied health workers for doing exactly the same job. In a recent poll conducted by HACSU, 97 percent of respondents said they would leave the public mental health sector if the government did not pay them more, and fairly. 
There is enormous and cumulative anger and disillusionment among mental health workers across Victoria. Decades ago, workers, including senior clinicians, regularly talked about “a crisis in mental health”. The ALP has been in government for more than a decade and turned the crisis into a full-blown disaster. The Allan government would have us believe there is no money and that hospitals have to cut budgets.
The lie that Australian governments have no money to provide high-quality public health services is becoming an increasingly enraging and hollow cliché. Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. 
Healthcare workers are getting angrier and more determined to take on the Labor government’s destruction of our public services. The more it refuses to fix them, the harder we should fight. 
HACSU members want genuine pay increases for allied health members, pay parity with nursing colleagues and no cuts to current entitlements. The enterprise bargaining campaign continues and should accept no less. The ALP, meanwhile, should deliver much more.

Simone McDonnell

Mental health workers versus Victorian Labor

Public school staff in the Victorian branch of the Australian Education Union (AEU) have been gathering at regional log of claims meetings across the state to discuss the changes we want to see in the Victorian Government Schools Agreement (VGSA), which determines our pay and conditions over the next few years.
We desperately need a better VGSA. Our last agreement, which was <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/big-no-vote-step-forward-school-staff">narrowly voted up</a> despite considerable pushback from members, has left us worse off. Our real wages <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_O83eLz-imC8uYDBNB_hzvXyK9Z4BB2kRMV3bBE8GQ0/edit?usp=drivesdk">have fallen by 11 percent</a>, which means graduate teachers are paid $8,489 less per year ($162 per week) than if our pay had kept up with inflation. Starting teacher salaries in Victoria are now the lowest in Australia, and almost $10,000 behind those in New South Wales.
Our current agreement’s modest reduction in face-to-face teaching hours has failed to put a serious dent in our unmanageable workloads. According to a Monash University report, staff are still working a staggering 12.5 unpaid hours each week on average. 
Union members are sick and tired of our profession being undervalued. That’s why, in log of claims meetings, we’re voting for ambitious claims that put forward a positive vision for what our jobs and our schools could be. 
A top priority for members is a big pay rise to win back the value we’ve lost under the current agreement, and then future pay rises that bring our wages into line with similar professions. Some regions are pushing for an immediate 30 percent boost followed by 5 percent every six months, for a total of around 60 percent over the life of the agreement. We also want retention payments that help keep our most experienced teachers in the job. 
Many of the other claims are about addressing our crushing workloads. These include requiring at least one education support (ES) staff in every classroom, additional staff to assist with teachers’ administrative tasks, a limit on meetings to one hour per week, a hard limit on class sizes at 18 students, a reduction in face-to-face teaching hours to 17 in the first year and 16 in the second, and nine professional practice days each year (two for report writing, two at the start of the year for set-up, four for whole school professional learning and one to complete compulsory online units).
For ES staff, there is the claim (left out of the last agreement) for paid lunch breaks, one hour of self-directed preparation time each day for classroom support ES and four professional practice days each year. There are also claims to clarify the different ES roles and to make progression more streamlined, as it is for teachers. 
These claims, if won, would completely transform our jobs and our schools. Staff would get the support and time we need to do our jobs and meet the complex needs of our students. We’d be paid at a rate that means we are better able to cope with the rising cost of living. And this would help ensure vacancies are filled, particularly in working-class, outer-suburban schools, which currently struggle to attract staff. 
Claims approved by regional union meetings now go to the union’s state conference in early August for discussion and approval, ahead of the expiry of the current agreement at the end of this year. We know from experience that these changes will not come easily. Our last log of claims in 2021 included a series of <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/victorian-school-staff-need-fight-workloads-and-wages">commendable claims</a>, but there was no strike action to pressure the government into accepting them. The result was an agreement that has left us significantly worse off on pay and did very little on workload, and which because of this has failed to solve the crisis of teacher retention. 
We can expect the Victorian government to resist our demands again. Recent revelations in the Age show that the government is <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/teachers-on-collision-course-with-state-government-over-school-funding-20250512-p5lyhn.html">withholding almost $3 billion</a> in funding that it previously promised our schools. It will likely use supposed budgetary constraints to claim that “the money isn’t there” for our demands.
But the money is there. Around $1.6 billion of it is going to “back in Victoria’s new bail laws” with new and expanded prisons, presumably to deal with those falling through the cracks in our decaying education system. The new $1.19 billion prison in Lara, the Western Correctional Facility, will <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-13/prison-victoria-state-budget-bail-reform/105284224">offer sign-on bonuses of $8,000</a> to draw in new staff. 
The money is there, but what’s in poor supply is the political will to use it to fund schools. That means union members need to take matters into our own hands. We need meetings at all our schools to establish our minimum expectations or “red lines”, and if those claims are not included in any proposed offer, we will vote “no” and fight for something better. 
Victorian nurses received their 28.4 percent pay rise only by voting “no” to an initial offer of 12 percent. Though their industrial campaign was brief, the fact that nurses had already shut down hospital beds and surgeries, coupled with their high-profile rejection of the proposed settlement, created a plausible threat of a major, politically damaging industrial dispute for the state government. This was enough to eventually win an improved offer. Teachers in New South Wales went on a series of strikes in 2021-22, eventually winning an immediate pay rise of almost $10,000. 
Where workers have refused to be pressured into accepting sub-par offers and have struck for something better, they have been successful. To win anything close to our ambitious demands, it’s highly likely we will need to do the same. 
The AEU has called a protest outside Victorian Education Minister Ben Carroll’s electorate office in Keilor at 4:15pm on Thursday 19 June. Join us in demanding the state government keep their promise to fund our schools.

AEU members

Victorian teachers demand dignity, but won’t get it without a fight

Thousands of local government workers in Melbourne have signed on to bargain collectively, across 10 councils, for better pay and conditions. This is an early test of recent changes to the Fair Work Act by the federal government that should enable unions to more easily bargain—and take legally protected industrial action—across multiple employers. 
According to Tash Wark, secretary of the Australian Services Union (ASU), “this is the largest worker-initiated multi-employer agreement proposed in Australia”. The ASU intends to use an industrial and political campaign across multiple councils to put pressure on the state Labor government to modify or scrap the neoliberal “rate capping” policy that limits council budgets. 
In response, local government employers have <a href="https://www.asuvictas.com.au/VICTAS/News/ASU_multi-employer_bargaining_update.aspx#:~:text=This%20has%20the%20practical%20effect,by%20the%20Fair%20Work%20Commission.">gone on the offensive</a>. From Brimbank to Darebin to Yarra to Port Phillip, employers are launching sham (non-union) single enterprise “negotiations”. These are designed to pave the way for non-union ballots to keep bargaining at a council level, thus avoiding multi-employer bargaining. Employers are also mounting legal challenges against the ASU, despite similar challenges <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader%2Fballarat%2Ffederal-court-rejects-central-goldfields-shires-appeal-of-multicouncil-bargaining-with-ararat%2Fnews-story%2F66f6c2c1b3797b2c670c6ffa3cf6fdb7?amp&amp;nk=95c7c698a7cc5f92b3b45e378f1ce6d3-1749453407">losing at the Federal Court</a> earlier this year.
Local government workers provide a wide range of essential services that keep our communities running. From removing waste, cleaning streets and beaches, maintaining parks and roads, to running libraries, immunising and educating children, and providing in-home care for elderly and disabled community members. 
But over the past few years, these essential workers have been falling behind—their wages consistently failing to keep up with inflation. Since 2021, council workers across Melbourne have lost anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of the real value of their wages. The vast majority of us are now hundreds of dollars a fortnight (thousands of dollars a year) worse off than we were in 2020.
There’s one exception to this: senior council executives. Council CEOs across Melbourne <a href="https://www.councilwatch.com.au/general-5">typically earn more than $400,000 a year</a>. That’s on par with federal government ministers ($403,000) and the Prime Minister of the UK (£172,153 or $360,335). Last year, it was revealed that Alison Leighton, CEO of the City of Melbourne, pockets a whopping $534,000 annually—almost as much as the prime minister. These are the same people crying poor and threatening job cuts in response to workers’ demanding a liveable wage.
In the face of real wage declines, increasing numbers of local government workers have been <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader%2Fnorth%2Fdarebin-council-workers-begin-strike-taking-protest-to-the-streets%2Fnews-story%2F3c6d0399f41489f72f46ce32377890e5?amp&amp;nk=95c7c698a7cc5f92b3b45e378f1ce6d3-1749443789">going on strike</a>. Despite heroic efforts from workers, <a href="https://brunswickvoice.com.au/council-industrial-dispute-ends-as-staff-vote-yes-to-pay-offer/">gains have been minimal</a>. This is partly because a few hundred workers in a single local government area have limited industrial power. The Victorian government’s rate cap also provides an excuse for management to cry poor. And previous bargaining strategies of the ASU have failed to challenge these limitations. 
Multi-employer bargaining represents, at least potentially, a means to change all that. There’s certainly sentiment for a fight. At a packed meeting of council workers from across Melbourne recently, one worker put it this way: “We are the ones who run this city. If we stop work, the city stops: bins overflow, services disappear, streets and beaches get trashed, parks and sporting fields become overgrown. Imagine what we could achieve if council revenue begins to dry up, if small businesses start to suffer, and if state infrastructure projects grind to a halt.” 
Council workers are coming together to <a href="https://www.asuvictas.com.au/VICTAS/News/MEB_update_Have_your_say_on_our_draft_Log_of_Claims.aspx">demand</a> a 22 percent pay rise over four years—consisting of a 10 percent “recovery payment” in the first year and 4 percent in the following years. This will go some way to redressing the decade-long decline in council workers’ real wages. Most of us haven’t seen a pay rise of more than 2 or 3 percent for 10 years—since the re-introduction of rate caps in 2016. That’s why, as part of this round of bargaining, we’re gearing up to rally against the Victorian state government’s neo-liberal rate capping policy.
The rate cap dates back to the Kennett government of the 1990s. Liberal premier Jeff Kennett directly copied this neoliberal measure from former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who used it to coerce local councils into implementing local austerity, regardless of the wishes of the people who elected them. Compulsory competitive tendering of all council services, with councils legally obliged to accept the lowest bid, was used by both Thatcher in the UK and Kennett in Victoria as a way of cutting workers’ wages and essential services to the bone. 
Though rate capping was abolished when Kennett was thrown out of office in 1999, it was reintroduced by Daniel Andrews’ Labor government in 2016. The current system limits councils’ ability to raise revenue, including through measures such as charging higher rates for major corporations and property developers that are making millions in our communities.
The consequences? As the <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Putting-a-Cap-on-Community-WEB.pdf">Australia Institute reported</a>, less than half of Victorian local government workers now have permanent, full-time jobs, as councils respond to the cap by outsourcing and casualising work. For too long, the rate cap has functioned as a wage cap for local council workers—and it’s about time it was seriously challenged. 
Multi-enterprise bargaining is the means workers are hoping to use to mount this challenge. Australia’s top CEOs are <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/top-ceos-lash-multi-employer-bargaining-20221218-p5c79c">hostile</a> to it for a reason. If paired with a militant union strategy, they know multi-enterprise bargaining has the potential to put money and power back into the hands of ordinary workers. They say they’re worried about <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/70s-werent-bad">“a return to the 1970s”</a>—a time when wages in Australia consistently outpaced inflation and workers enjoyed a much higher share of national income.
No wonder council employers are <a href="https://www.asuvictas.com.au/VICTAS/News/Fair_Work_update_Metropolitan_Melbourne_multiemployer_bargaining.aspx">doing everything in their power to divide us</a>. They know multi-employer bargaining could help shift the goal posts by giving workers in our sector greater industrial power. Last Friday, Brimbank council won a fierce campaign to get a non-union single enterprise “agreement” voted up before their employees’ multi-enterprise bargaining application could be authorised by the Fair Work Commission. 
Workers at Brimbank reported intimidation and standover tactics from management, with managers going as far as <a href="https://www.asuvictas.com.au/VICTAS/News/Brimbank_literally_called_the_cops_to_prevent_you_hearing_about_your_rights.aspx">calling the police</a> on union officials, censoring communications, and <a href="https://www.theservicesunion.com.au/VICTAS/News/Brimbank_Aquatic_Centre_employee_targeted_for_speaking_up_about_No_Vote.aspx">sacking employees</a> for communicating with their co-workers about management’s offer. Thanks to Brimbank council’s <a href="https://www.asuvictas.com.au/VICTAS/News/Vote_No_to_Brimbanks_single_EA_Fight_for_a_better_deal_through_MEB.aspx">dirty tactics</a>, 1400 workers there are likely to fall further behind the cost of living and their colleagues in local government for years to come. 
While it’s a disappointing outcome, Brimbank workers never would have received a 4 percent pay rise this year (their highest in 13 years!) if it weren’t for the threat of large-scale industrial action via multi-enterprise bargaining. “I have no doubt in my mind,” said a Brimbank worker, “that once a multi-employer agreement gets up in local government, everyone will want in. We know that taking large-scale industrial action is the only way for us to claw back wages. We just need an opportunity to demonstrate that we can win. It’s up to workers in the nine other councils now to lead the way.” 
Like Brimbank, employers at City of Darebin, Yarra, and Port Phillip are currently preparing to put non-union single enterprise offers out to vote in the coming weeks and lock their employees out of multi-enterprise bargaining. Workers at all of these councils need to mobilise members and non-members to vote no to any employer ballot aimed at dividing council workers.
In good news, at Maribyrnong council, a non-binding ballot organised by the employer saw a thumping majority of workers vote for multi-enterprise bargaining, rejecting the employer’s attempt to split the workforce away. And just a week later, on 12 June, news came in that 74 percent of eligible City of Melbourne employees had voted in a non-binding ballot organised by the employer. Management was hoping for a rejection of multi-employer bargaining. Instead, an amazing 80 percent of those who voted wanted to stick with the union campaign. This puts the lie to the managers’ claims that workers are being “tricked” into supporting multi-enterprise bargaining. A majority of workers at Maribyrnong and Melbourne have now voted for it twice!
If Brimbank teaches us anything, it’s that our side needs to be better organised. We need to mobilise our members, we need to be more proactive in countering management’s bribes, scare tactics and misinformation, and we need to patiently explain to our co-workers what’s at stake. 
This is not just about cutting better deals in our individual work areas for the next three years. Knocking back employer efforts to keep us divided in our individual councils is an act of solidarity. It’s saying that we’re prepared to use our industrial power to win a solid pay rise for childcare and day care workers, for clerical staff and librarians, for parking officers and garbos all over Melbourne. 
Over the coming weeks, the employers will aim to wear us down and convince us that what they’ve got to offer is the best we can hope for. But we know better. Ten thousand local government workers, acting together, have significant industrial and political power. 
A multi-enterprise bargaining campaign, paired with an industrial strategy that uses mass action to pressure the state government to loosen its hold on council purse strings, could potentially win a very different outcome. This will not be an easy fight. But we owe it to ourselves, our colleagues and our communities to pursue this course. 
After all, if we don’t fight, we lose.

ASU member

Council workers battle to bargain together

The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme between Australia and nine participating Pacific island nations is supposedly mutually beneficial. Australian industry fills labour gaps by bringing in Pacific islanders on temporary working visas. Struggling Pacific economies get a boost from the money workers send home. The only catch is that tens of thousands of temporary visa workers are denied basic labour rights, and that it is Australian bosses who are reaping all the benefits. 
The more than 30,000 PALM workers currently in Australia are assigned to specific employers, primarily in rural and regional areas. Seventy percent work in the meat industry. Taufa, a PALM participant in an abattoir freezer room, described his working life to <a href="https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/bhright/exploitation-of-palm-scheme-workers-in-aus-meat-industry">researchers</a>
from RMIT: “Each day is a race against time to meet our quotas ... if the order says packing/palletising for 500, we need to complete that 500 by day’s end. It’s a tough job ... we lift entire boxes onto pallets, sometimes stacking the equivalent of three or four cows on a single pallet. Despite the cold, you end up feeling the heat, sweating through the workload”. 
Few would undertake this sort of work if they had other options. The PALM scheme trades on poverty to find people who have no choice but to endure it. PALM workers who arrive in Australia and find that they hate the work, or the employer isn’t paying the expected wages, are not allowed to quit. Instead, they need permission from their boss or the government department that oversees the scheme to find another job. 
Bosses also often control where PALM workers live, especially in remote areas. Rent can be deducted from workers’ wages for often substandard and overcrowded accommodation provided by employers, with paternalistic rules banning alcohol and drugs. 
A May <a href="https://devpolicy.org/publications/reports/kanan-reproductive-justice-palm-scheme.pdf">report</a>
from the Development Policy Centre exposed that women workers in the PALM scheme are required to undergo pregnancy tests before departing their home country and have resorted to covert abortions while working in Australia. They fear deportation for getting pregnant. In Wagga Wagga, a women’s health clinic estimates that a quarter of women seeking abortions are migrant workers, many on the PALM scheme. Trudi Beck, who runs the clinic, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-02/migrant-workers-face-pregnancy-discrimination-barriers-abortion/105337020">told the ABC</a> on 2 June, “While I support a woman’s right to choose, I have a moral issue with visa structures that mean a woman has to choose between a pregnancy and supporting her family at home”.
The extreme control bosses hold over PALM workers has drawn rightful comparisons to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/palm-visa-scheme-exploitation-modern-slavery/104382194">slavery</a>. No wonder more than 7,000 PALM workers have <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/palm-scheme-workers-at-risk-of-exploitation/61ytu2mt0">run away from the job</a> over the last five years, ending up “undocumented” and even more vulnerable. 
These conditions are no secret. The PALM scheme has had numerous iterations stretching back to 2008, and each one has been criticised for enabling rampant exploitation. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-04/supermarkets-food-outlets-exploit-black-market-migrant-workers/6441496">Farms</a>
and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/foreign-workers-exploited-at-baiada-plant-investigation-reveals/6554570">abattoirs</a>
have repeatedly been the subject of exposés revealing abhorrent working conditions for mostly migrant workers. 
As the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union pointed out in their February submission to the NSW inquiry into modern slavery, “The attraction to employers of a system of temporary visas for unskilled or semi-skilled foreign workers is precisely because such schemes produce the opportunity to exploit workers and circumvent labour standards”. 
Australian bosses make money from underpaying migrant workers and skimping on entitlements citizens would expect. RMIT researchers found that PALM workers comprise almost a quarter of Australia’s meat industry, which had a turnover in the 2021-2022 financial year of $75.4 billion. 
The Australia Institute estimated in 2024 that PALM workers spend close to $1 billion per year on living expenses and taxes, compared to sending home only around $468 million. <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/palm-visas-superannuation-and-tax/">As the report says</a>, “In other words, Australia benefits twice as much from the scheme as the Pacific countries providing it with cheap labour”. 
Successive Australian governments have had a particular interest in temporary worker schemes targeting the Pacific islands. These economic arrangements are part of Australia leveraging influence in what it sees as its backyard. The Pacific islands rely on foreign aid more than any other region on earth, and Australia is its largest donor. Pacific island governments, then, sometimes willingly, sometimes begrudgingly, acquiesce to Australian demands.
Under Albanese, the PALM scheme has been expanded into aged care and child care, sectors populated by notoriously abusive employers. Instead of heeding recommendations of the <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/deaths-and-profits-pile-aged-care">Royal Commission into Aged Care</a> to improve working conditions and end privatisation, Labor has chosen to add slave labour to the noxious mix.
In 2024, Albanese mandated that PALM workers must be paid at least 30 hours per week and has piloted allowing 200 workers to bring family to Australia and access Medicare. But PALM workers remain bonded to a particular employer and are denied full access to government entitlements. Bosses will continue to exploit this vulnerability. 
Even less useful has been Labor’s 2024 appointment of the country's first ever anti-slavery commissioner, a political response to media revelations and outrage regarding migrant working conditions. The commissioner’s <a href="https://redflag.org.au/article/deaths-and-profits-pile-aged-care">website</a>
explains that “The Commissioner cannot investigate, or resolve, complaints concerning instances or suspected instances of modern slavery”. The commissioner can, however, “make observations regarding systemic issues based on his engagement with victims and survivors and the broader community”. The anti-slavery commissioner’s office has not issued a single press statement about the PALM scheme, despite complaints about the scheme being an important catalyst for the NSW modern slavery inquiry. 
Labor is helping bosses treat Pacific workers like slaves.

Priya De

Labor’s PALM scheme is modern slavery

Victorian public sector workers are taking on the useless union leadership in elections to be held next month. The state branch of the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has repeatedly failed to stand up for its members. The challengers’ election team, called A Voice for Members, wants to rebuild a fighting, member-led union. 
This is the first time in more than 30 years that all executive positions (secretary, assistant secretary, president and two vice-presidents) will be contested. The current state secretary, Karen Batt, was first elected in 1993, when Jeff Kennett was premier. 
Last year, CPSU leaders excluded members from any meaningful involvement in enterprise bargaining negotiations. They eventually pushed through an agreement that includes a real wage cut. <a href="https://avfm.au/cpsu-rank-and-file-news/edition-7-wages-cap/">By the time the deal expires in 2028, real wages are expected to have returned to 2018 levels</a>. 
The union leaders insisted that there was no point in trying to push the government on its “wages cap”, as it would not budge from its three percent per year offer. But they were proven completely wrong when the paramedics’ union and the nurses’ and midwives’ union won pay increases of 17 and 28 percent, respectively, over four years. Firefighters are also pushing for a 25 percent pay increase.
The CPSU leaders have long hampered members’ ability to organise: they do not hold members’ or delegates’ meetings, and members frequently report difficulty finding other members, or even their workplace delegates. During last year’s negotiations, for example, most members did not even see, let alone vote on, the union’s proposed list of demands. 
The seed for the rank-and-file electoral challenge was planted during CPSU for Palestine meetings, which provided a rare space for members to get together and organise, given the union’s lack of democratic structures. 
At first, A Voice for Members was established as a progressive caucus inside the union, recognising that a union’s power comes from its members, not its paid officials. Consistent with this goal, the group will continue fighting for a democratic, member-led union, regardless of the election result. 
When Treasurer Jaclyn Symes in February announced <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-20/vic-govt-public-sector-job-cuts-spending-review-budget/104958948">Labor’s plan to slash 3,000 public sector jobs</a>, A Voice for Members immediately called a rally opposing the cuts. Longtime union members are hard-pressed to recall the last time the CPSU made such a call. But, four days later, undoubtedly feeling threatened by the campaign, union leaders called a separate rally, scheduling it for the day before the rank-and-file rally.
Under Batt, the CPSU’s membership has languished at around <a href="https://avfm.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AVFM-policy-platform.pdf">15,000 for decades</a>. This is understandable: why would anyone be motivated to join a union that doesn’t stand up for its members? 
But A Voice for Members is taking action to rebuild a union that’s worth joining, that’s ready to take industrial action to defend living standards, that thinks it’s union business to take a stand against genocide, and that opposes laws restricting workers’ ability to organise and take collective action. We are holding regular organising meetings, public events, and rallies, and conducting daily workplace leafleting to recruit more workers and mobilise existing members. 
To learn more about AVFM, the candidates, and to join the fight, visit <a href="https://avfm.au/">the website</a>. You can also <a href="https://chuffed.org/project/a-voice-for-members-cpsu">donate to the campaign</a>.

CPSU member

Rank and file group set up in Victorian public sector union

The following is is an edited and abridged extract from <a href="https://shop.redflag.org.au/collections/trade-union-organising/products/striking-ore-the-rise-and-fall-of-union-power-in-the-pilbara">Striking Ore: The Rise and Fall of Union Power in the Pilbara</a>, a new book by Red Flag contributor Alexis Vassiley published by Monash University Publishing. 
--------------------
When Harry Hoskin came to the Pilbara in 1968, the mine superintendent made him a “powder monkey”. His job was to blast the ore body with explosives. But he had no experience: “I can’t even spell gelignite let alone [know] what it’s about”. His boss insisted, so he got on with it. Fortunately, he wasn’t injured—others weren’t so lucky. It was like the “Wild West”, Hoskin recalls. Safety was terrible.
But business was booming for the iron ore companies. When the iron ore export ban was relaxed in 1960, there was a development bonanza in the Pilbara. Demand for iron ore was relentless. Tonnage of iron ore increased from 6.8 million tonnes in 1967 to 50.5 million tonnes in 1972.
Conditions in the late 1960s and early 1970s for miners were tough. Production worker Randall Grant remembers the “soaked and soggy” salad sandwiches at Dampier in 1968, stating, “The guys were really pissed off with that. They wanted a hot meal”. Grant later became an Australian Workers’ Union shop steward (union representative who continues to do their usual work for the company, now usually called a “union delegate”). 
Lance Elliott, a staff member at Mount Newman, describes conditions at that time as “unairconditioned, dusty, unsafe to say the least”.
In the 1960s, before workers exercised their collective muscle, the companies used their responsibility for food, housing and amenities in the “company towns” to their advantage. Towns were run by the companies rather than by a local government. 
So, for example, the Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU) reported that in June 1968, a Hamersley Iron boilermaker had his accommodation, and therefore job, withdrawn after making “sharp criticisms” of the food to the messing officer from Poon’s.
The same month, a worker’s complaint about food resulted in his alleged assault by a manager. Three workers were framed and remanded in custody for eight days by a justice of the peace who worked for the company; the three were then sacked. Power rested squarely with management in these early days.
Workers took action even while the mines were being built. On Christmas Day 1965, the construction crew on a Hamersley Iron mine rioted over the food.
It was in the late 1960s, however, that both workers’ struggle and union organising really took off. The two things went hand in hand. 
AWU organiser Gil Barr relates that Mount Newman was unionised in this period by using the sacking of three workers as an organising opportunity. After previously getting only ten to fifteen workers from a 400-strong workforce to a union meeting, he “fronted the company” and got the workers reinstated. “From then on, we started to get membership as the guys could see the benefit of it”.
Randall Grant was present at the first AWU meeting at King Bay in 1968. Workers with union traditions from the eastern states—who later became shop stewards—got Grant to the meeting: “They were saying this wouldn’t happen at Port Kembla [an industrial hub eight kilometres south of Wollongong, NSW] and places like that”. Grant himself didn’t come from a union background, but he became a shop steward too: “as soon as you got onsite and saw what was going on it’s like ... hang on, things have got to be improved here”.
AWU officials addressed around 40 workers in the single men’s quarters, signing them up to the union. Yet the Pilbara’s remoteness posed a significant challenge. Unions needed to devote significant resources to the task. They required sacrifices from organisers, some of whom camped in tents with their family while on organising drives. 
The formula for union organisers was as follows: go up north for a few weeks, talk to workers about their grievances, sign them up to the union and establish a union branch or sub-branch.
So, for example, Jack Marks of the AEU, Frank Bastow of the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society and J. Quinn of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners went on a “North-West Organising Trip” of several weeks in July 1967.
Marks reported back to his union that they “set up new shop stewards wherever we found a group of workers, and when this group consists of more than one union representative, shop committees were formed”.
In 1968, workers at Goldsworthy’s port on Finucane Island tried unsuccessfully for weeks on end to convince management to let them eat at the mess (canteen) rather than consume the “power packs” in the smoko room. The entire workforce of 80 then struck for four days to force the issue and were sacked. The company re-employed them days later when a ship needed loading.
Union militancy increased in 1969. 
On 22 May 1969, workers at Tom Price, Mount Newman and Goldsworthy stopped work for a day as part of a statewide strike in support of jailed Victorian Tramways Union secretary Clarrie O’Shea.
In October 1969, there were strikes lasting seventeen days and involving all unionists at two Hamersley Iron sites. Starting with one union at one site, the dispute quickly spread to other unions and a second company site. The grievances included dust, refrigeration, food and heat money (an allowance for working in the hot weather). The strike “was controlled/administered by newly established combined union committees at each of the two sites. Compulsory conferences held between union officials and the company in the Industrial Commission failed to resolve the strike. Further, union officials were given hostile treatment by mass meetings of the workers”.
In late 1970, workers broke through and made significant gains in their wages and conditions. Workers at Hamersley Iron won an over-award payment in May. The deal was a substantial increase, worth around $1,000 for lower-bracket workers and $550 for those in a higher bracket.
Mount Newman workers were in dispute with the company for about four months, ending in a stunning victory. The workers obtained “more money for a 40-hour week than they were offered for a 60- hour week”.
There was a tug-of-war between the company and its workers during these on-again, off-again strikes over many months. Mount Newman tested the workers’ strength, determination and organisation and tried to avoid meeting the unionists’ demands. As Lance Elliott remembers, “All of a sudden there were union meetings, there were union delegates talking with the management and it all came to a severe head ... and the whole place went out on strike”. The atmosphere was “acrimonious”. 
Staff (managers and white-collar workers) crossed union picket lines to do workers’ work. Key to the victory was the industrial pressure put on the company in the context of high demand for iron ore. Idle iron ore carriers were visible from the site of union-management negotiations.
Power relations were changing. The mining companies didn’t grant any concessions willingly—improved pay and conditions were hard fought. Engaged in a show of strength with the unionists, companies reneged on agreements if they thought they could get away with it. Gains won at one company did not automatically flow through to another mining company. 
Accounts of the Pilbara iron ore industry can make the gains in wages and conditions, and union organisational success, seem almost inevitable.
A tight labour market and clauses in industrial awards for “union preference”—where workers need to be members of the union to work in the industry—certainly wouldn’t have harmed the unionists’ cause. But on their own, these are not enough. 
100 percent union membership had to be won, enforced and even re-won from the ground up—including by withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, labour. Once established, this became a weapon in the union movement’s arsenal.
The 1969 Iron Ore Industry Award gave limited recognition to shop stewards for the first time. These rights, however, were heavily circumscribed. Concerned that their negotiating role not be usurped, some union officials opposed even this limited clause.
Committees consisting of shop stewards representing each of the different unions on a site were first established in 1967. Similar structures were set up at various companies and worksites in the next few years, undercutting management’s ability to play unions off against one another and engendering solidarity between the different unions. 
These grassroots bodies would later organise strikes in the region involving all or many of the unions, lasting weeks and costing the mining companies millions of dollars in lost production.

Class struggle unionism in the USA: an interview with Joe Burns

Queensland teachers fight back against insulting pay offer

Grill’d workers turn heat on boss

Queensland CFMEU members fight back

Mental health workers versus Victorian Labor

Victorian teachers demand dignity, but won’t get it without a fight

Council workers battle to bargain together

Labor’s PALM scheme is modern slavery

Rank and file group set up in Victorian public sector union

The rise of union power in the Pilbara mines

Other Media

Shop

Manage Your Subscription

Contact Us