Aged care workers on strike

By Bronwen Beechey (Tamaki Makaurau/Auckland).

The Equal Pay Act of 1972 established the principle that women workers in the private sector were entitled to the same rate as men doing the same job (public service employees had won equal pay in 1960). Forty-two years later, in October 2014, aged care worker and union member Christine Bartlett won another historic legal victory for equal pay when the Court of Appeal ruled against her employer, Terranova Homes and Care Ltd. Terranova had appealed against an Employment Court ruling that the wages paid by Terranova to its caregivers were lower than they would be if aged care was not work mainly done by women, and that such low pay breaches the Equal Pay Act.

The Appeals Court ruled that the law on equal pay was not limited to requiring equal pay for the same or similar work, and that it may be relevant to consider evidence of wages paid by other employers or in other sectors. Just before Christmas last year, the Supreme Court refused to hear another appeal by Terranova against the finding. Lawyers for the Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) are preparing to take the case back to the employment court later this year.

Bartlett, who is touring the country speaking to nursing home employees and at public meetings about the case, told the Southland Times on April 10 that “We [care workers] feel so deeply about our job but we can’t live on love and our employers disrespect our compassion.” She said that the low wages in the industry meant that “people are suffering; they can’t pay their bills or pay for buses to work. They come to work hungry and they can’t afford to go to the doctors.”

Shortly before Bartlett’s case won, the Statistics New Zealand’s income survey for the June quarter showed women on average earned $24.70 an hour, while men were earning $28.70.

The lobby group Pay and Employment Equity Coalition said the difference of $4 an hour was equal to about 14 percent of the average wage. Spokesperson Angela McLeod told Radio NZ: “What that means in percentage terms is that women are being paid 86 percent of what men earn, and so it’s gone up.

“If you were to look at it the other way, the gap has gone from 12.7 to 13.9 percent in a year.”

The continuing gap in pay between men and women is justified by employers as an unfortunate but logical outcome of the gender -segregated nature of the workforce, and the fact that more women than men work part-time or casual hours due to lack of affordable childcare. According to Employers and Manufacturer’s Association chief executive Kim Campbell, “The harsh reality is you have, probably a preponderance of women working in things like elderly care, health care and so on, maybe where the pay is relatively low, that’s what drives these numbers.”

The fact that the wages in these sectors is “relatively low” is no accident. Because caring for the young, the sick and the elderly has traditionally been regarded as “women’s work”, its importance is devalued and employers are able to pay lower wages. In fact, these roles should be seen as vitally important and be paid accordingly.

The establishment of the Equal Pay Act and other legislation supporting the rights of women came about through a long struggle. The National Council of Women (NCW) passed its first resolution supporting equal pay in 1896, the year it was set up. In 1957, the NCW joined with the Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs (BPW), Federation of University Women (FUW), Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) and the Public Service Association formed the Council for Equal Pay and Opportunity (CEPO) in 1957. CEPO’s aims were ‘to bring about as soon as possible the full implementation of the principles of equal pay for equal work (or the rate for the job) and equal opportunity’. Following the winning of equal pay for public service employees with the passing of the Government Service Equal Pay Act in 1960, they took up the fight for equal pay for private sector workers. They were joined by a number of unions, despite the lack of interest in equal pay shown by the Federation of Labour (the body representing private sector unions), and the new generation of feminists organising in the Women’s Liberation movement. Groups like the Wellington and Auckland Women’s Liberation Fronts, Women For Equality and the Women’s Movement for Freedom actively campaigned, handing out leaflets at factory gates showing the wage gap, demanding that unions pay their female employees equal wages, and holding protest vigils against delays in delivering equal pay.

Following the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1972, feminists campaigned for pay equity – equal pay for women doing work with similar levels of responsibility, skill, effort or difficulty as higher-paid, male-dominated jobs – as a means of overcoming the historic undervaluing of typically female work. There was also a push to open up traditionally male-dominated industries such as construction, engineering and meat processing to women workers and apprentices. The Coalition for Equal Value, Equal Pay was set up by women’s groups and unions in 1986. The Employment Equity Act was passed in 1990, but repealed within months after the National Party came to government.

In 2009, the current National government abolished the Pay and Employment Equity plan of Action and the Pay and Employment Equity Unit that had been set up in the Department of Labour in 2004. In response, the Pay Equity Challenge Coalition was set up by unions, women’s organisations, academic and community groups. The coalition has “challenged” the National government to state what its plans are for closing the gender pay gap, in light of its removal of the Pay and Employment Equity Unit. It is this inaction by the government that forced Kristine Bartlett and the unions to take the equal pay case to court, where the government intervened on behalf of the employers arguing against the right of women to equal pay.

The struggle for equal pay and pay equity for women continues. While Kristine Bartlett’s victory is a big step forward, the pressure needs to be kept up to ensure that her struggle on behalf of low-paid women workers is successful. As Bartlett said, “I took this case, with the support of my union, not just for myself but for the tens of thousands of caregivers who get paid close to the minimum wage for doing one of the most important jobs in our society.”

April 15th, 2015: Fast food workers in over 200 cities across the globe took action for better conditions.

Auckland, Aotearoa/New Zealand:

Wellington, Aotearoa/New Zealand:

Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand:

Tokyo, Japan:

Hong Kong:

Manila, Philippines:

Bangladesh:

New York, USA:

Pittsburgh, USA:

Wisconsin, USA:

Atlanta, USA:

Seattle, USA:

Durham, USA:

Lima, Peru:

Buenos Aires, Argentina:

Amsterdam, Netherlands:

London, England:

Dublin, Ireland:

Joe McClure (Fightback Whanganui-a-Tara/Wellington).

At noon on April 15th 2015, Aotearoa/NZ kicked off a global fast food day of action. Workers in more than 200 cities around the world are taking action against the working conditions of fast food workers. In Aotearoa/NZ, McDonalds and Wendy’s restaurants are still forcing zero hour contracts on workers; KFC and Burger King have already backed down.

Unite Union held rallies and strikes in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Members of various unions and the wider community joined in chants protesting the unfair contracts.

Zero hour contracts provide no guarantee of work on a weekly basis, and force workers to compete against each other for the hours available. Zero hours contracts are often inflicted on people who are already vulnerable, including women returning to the workforce after having children, immigrant workers, and young people taking a job while they study. The campaign against Zero Hour Contracts has gathered recent momentum with positive media coverage and strikes planned across the country.

The National government in New Zealand has implied that they may ban zero hour contracts, but Minister of Workplace Relations Michael Woodhouse has repeatedly declined to comment on the situation, and National Party leader John Key told media, “general flexibility in the workforce is also important, because there are some people who want to have that flexibility.”

Only community-driven action can guarantee secure hours and living wages.

Ian Anderson (Fightback Whanganui-a-Tara/Wellington) provides a broad overview of neoliberalism, a period of capitalism marked by insecurity and poverty wages.

Towards the end of Only Their Purpose is Mad, an account of the neoliberal offensive in Aotearoa/NZ, Bruce Jesson describes the effect on communities:

“[Some] freezing works existed for 70 or 80 years. Towns grew up around them, and with them a community and a way of life. Three generations of freezing-workers would do similar jobs, be active in the same union, play in the same rugby league or netball team, go to the same schools, drink in the same pubs and clubs and share the same memories. A community depends on continuity. Suddenly the sharemarket collapses, the company folds, the freezing-works closes and the town turns into a place of shiftless unemployed and go-getting contractors.”

In the last 30 years, communities have been shattered, social contracts broken, workers divided. For those of us under 30, unions are a novel (even unknown) concept, now covering around 10% of the private sector.

Some call this a ‘post-industrial’ period, yet industrial production has expanded globally; capitalists just have more ability to globally shop around for the fastest and cheapest deal. Some call it the decline of the nation state, yet repressive militarist measures keep expanding, finding new technological forms; in Bourdieu’s terms, the “left hand” of the state has retreated while the “right hand” of the state advanced.

The basis of stability has shifted. In the ‘Social Democratic’ heyday from the 1950s to the 1970s, capitalism in the imperialist core was stabilised through a corporatist deal between labour, capital, and the state. Since the neoliberal assault on organised labour, living standards have come to depend on credit; the housing market, credit cards, growing private debt.

For David Harvey, neoliberalism is a system of renewed “accumulation by dispossession,” through the expansion of financial markets. In Aotearoa/NZ the National Party’s supposedly ‘mixed’ policies, including the further privatisation of power companies, sale of state housing, and undermining of workplace rights fit this pattern.

UNITE General Secretary Mike Treen recently asserted that the current National government is “not a radical neoliberal government.” I would suggest the neoliberal offensive (or attack) of the ’80s and ’90s largely won, and we are in a period of entrenchment. Many of the more brutal attacks of the offensive period – mass redundancies, destruction of unions, slashing of benefits – are no longer necessary. None of the flagship policies of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia have been substantially reversed.

Market intervention to save the finance sector is nothing new, and has occurred where necessary throughout the neoliberal period (the ultra-right dream of stateless capitalism never existed). Yet the 2008 financial crisis rocked the confidence of the international ruling class.

Czech philosopher and socialist Michael Hauser (‘Europe in a labyrinth and the power of ideas’, OpenDemocracy) notes the gap between the rhetoric and reality of class rule in Europe, with neoliberalism collapsing in words but not in practice. A 2008 official document, on recovery in Europe, implied a move to the left:

‘The current economic crisis gives another opportunity to show that Europe serves its citizens best when it makes concrete action the touchstone. Europe can make the difference. In difficult times, the temptation is to feel powerless. But Europe is not powerless. The levers of government, the instruments of the European Union, the influence of intelligent coordination add up to a potent force to arrest the trend towards a deeper recession. A Europe ready to take swift, bold, ambitious and well-targeted action will be a Europe able to put the brakes on the downturn and begin to turn the tide. We sink or swim together. (…) The fundamental principle of this Plan is solidarity and social justice. In times of hardship, our action must be geared to help those most in need. To work to protect jobs through action on social charges.

Yet Europe would soon embark on a violent ‘austerity’ project that reduced government spending without addressing the root of the crisis. In the US, the story has become a cliché; Barack Obama, elected on a platform of “Hope” and “Change” in 2008, failed to deliver much in a first term with a Democratic majority.

Aotearoa/NZ was not shocked by the global economic crisis, in the same way as the US and Europe. We haven’t seen the extremes of austerity faced by Greece, facing 25% unemployment. However the long-term trends (declining real wages, retreating social services, declining home ownership and state housing) remain stready. A property bubble continues to grow, which both Forbes and local bankers predict will have to burst. National may make the occasional minor compromise, but of course they show no interest in reversing these trends.

Measures like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) seek to further entrench this regime internationally. Because of this institutional entrenchment, we need a political andindustrial movement, a national and international movement more than ever.

Some argue that Aotearoa/NZ is facing neo-colonisation. It might be more accurate to say that Aotearoa continues to be colonised by New Zealand, the European nation-state that bloodily imposed capitalism and now asks that the most oppressed simply forget history.

Left nationalist Bruce Jesson contended that New Zealand is a ‘Third World nation,’ due to “our massive overseas debt, our high degree of foreign ownership and our dependence on primary exports.” However, according to measures of political allegiance and living standards, which are roughly correlated, New Zealand appears near the top of the global pyramid:

• New Zealand consistently ranks with the top 10 countries in the UN Human Development Index, which consists largely of European countries or colonised ‘neo-Europes’ like the United States and Australia.

• New Zealand is a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Formed in 1961 to promote “democracy and the market economy,” the OECD is essentially a Cold War bulwark.

• Of OECD countries, NZ’s standard of living is about average.

• New Zealand collaborates with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), another Cold War bulwark.

For some left critics, New Zealand’s collaboration with US imperialism is unequal, exploitative. This ignores New Zealand’s relatively high standard of living and cultural affinity with other mainly white, English-speaking countries. The fact that a country with high rates of child poverty sits near the top of the global pyramid paints a grim picture of international capitalism. It also shows the importance of international solidarity.

Seeking a way out of this rut, we may learn from international examples. Greece’s Syriza was recently elected on an anti-austerity platform, and is currently contending with militantly austere eurozone ‘partners.’ Stathis Kouvelakis, a leading member of Syriza’s Left Platform, contended in a recent Jacobin article that even basic reforms are a challenge for neoliberalism:

“[Neoliberalism] poses an old dilemma in new terms, namely the division between reformists and revolutionaries. Well, reformism requires believing that some progressive reforms are possible — pro-labor reforms, the promotion of welfare, etc. — within the terms of the system.

But in neoliberal capitalism that’s not possible anymore. So even to get relatively modest reforms which at other times would have been perfectly compatible with the system’s functioning, we need to have major confrontations and conflicts on a large scale. And we’ve seen as much in Latin America: the countries like Bolivia or Venezuela or Ecuador that have left governments are not socialist, but even this partial break with neoliberalism required lethal struggles: blood was spilt for it to be possible for Evo Morales to be elected.”

This fight for basic reforms does not mean socialists should all fall in behind the Labour Party (Syriza emerged as an alternative to the old ‘centre-left’ party). In a sense, there are no reformist parties left in parliament – although the Greens and Labour certainly have reformist members and supporters. Whereas the early Labour Parties sought a reformist path to socialism, the Fourth Labour Government initiated neoliberal attack in Aotearoa/NZ, and the Fifth Labour Government maintained the bulk of these attacks. Even former Green Party co-leader Russell Norman infamously described himself as ‘more pro-market’ than the Nats. It’s no surprise that voter turnout has reached record-low levels (especially among marginalised groups), and it would be dishonest to fall in behind the Labour Party. Socialists may seek newrepresentation in parliament, but this can be perverted or defeated without a strong anti-capitalist movement in the community.

Although neoliberalism shut down old frontiers of struggle, like any oppressive system it also opens up new frontiers. Today the majority of union members are women, and the frontlines of union organisation are in casualised and low wage sectors. Campaigns for a Living Wage and against Zero Hour Contracts are gathering public momentum.

Recent years have seen a defensive struggle against casualisation in established union sectors like meatworks and the public sector, and an offensive struggle against casualisation in formerly unorganised sectors like service and hospitality (Socialist Perspectives for Aotearoa/ New Zealand, CWI Aotearoa/NZ). Members of Fightback and other socialist groups have played a major role in UNITE’s fight for job security.

The neoliberal regime polarises hours of work, with many underemployed (working less than 20 hours) and many overemployed (working more than 50). Conflicting and competing schedules do not lend themselves to collective organisation; in fact that is the aim of a competitive labour market. In light of this instability, socialists assert rights to stability and control. This means a universal basic income, jobs for all who are ready to work, with dignified work and guaranteed hours (say 20 hours a week across sectors).

Slogans calling for ‘stability’ may seem conservative to some. Here I agree with Ben Watson, a former member of the British SWP, in a reflection on the relationship between mental health and socialism

If real socialism is campaigning for crèches and demanding rights for mental health users and pushing for bicycle lanes and supporting a local strike, isn’t it a little dull and shabby and boring? Well, no, because the delight is how UTTERLY HORRIFYING our demands for simple human things is in the eyes of those whose careers depend on realising profits for capital.

The second Auckland Left Forum looks at the issue of the housing crisis in NZ. Speakers from Fightback, Auckland Action Against Poverty and others to be confirmed.

Wednesday, April 22nd, 6:30pm
Grey Lynn Community Centre (510 Richmond Rd, Grey Lynn, Auckland)
[Facebook event]