Message from the National Secretary

February 29, 2008

As you may have seen in the media, I have confirmed this week my intention to re-nominate for the position of National Secretary of the EPMU. This followed a reconsideration of my decision last year not to nominate as a candidate for the Labour Party in this year’s election.

I make no secret of the fact that the decision was very difficult.

For one thing, I really enjoy the job as the national secretary of our union. This is a great union. I meet outstanding delegates and members; I work with some of the country’s leading organisers, research staff, educators, union lawyers, communications people and admin support staff; I meet good employers doing great things in their workplaces – and a fair few dogs! Over the last few years we’ve been through some extraordinary change in the union as we’ve sought to involve more of you in what we do and how we do it. The results are starting to speak for themselves. We’ve started to see membership of the EPMU grow month on month; the levels of wage settlements have started getting better and the union is financially sound. We play a leading role in the community of CTU unions. But there are still some challenges that lie ahead and the job I started has not been completed.
 
On the other hand I am personally drawn at some time to contribute to the wider labour movement and to contribute to the future shape of New Zealand and the interests of working people and their families. A place in Parliament appeals and I believe I have something to offer. After 8 years in this job it’s natural to look to do something else. And for the health and continuity of the union new people with a fresh view need to come into the union’s leadership from time to time. This was a year to consider the opportunity to move onto something different.

But one of the main issues in this year’s election will be – must be – incomes and how we lift them and how we stop the exodus of Kiwis relocating overseas for better wages. The National Party is starting to run a line that it is concerned about wages and wants to lift them by lifting productivity. But when John Key spoke to a business leader in Northland last year, he was part of this exchange about wages:

Carolyne Brooks-Quan: There's been a lot surrounding the exodus of people to Australia that are lured by higher wages. There's some calls here for employers to pay more. What's your take on that?

John Key: We would love to see wages drop. The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more. Not just inflationary reasons, otherwise it's a bit of a vicious circle as it comes back to you in higher interest rates. We really want to drive that out.

The National Party has no answers to the wages problem. They say they will cut taxes – they’re not alone there. But tax cuts won’t fix a gap of 30% in the value of wages between Australia and New Zealand. And even though they talk about lifting productivity they can’t say how. Worse, they say they want to make collective bargaining harder.

Well, one of the reasons wages have grown as rapidly as they have in the last few years is because we have stronger collective bargaining laws. And if productivity improves (as it must) and makes firms more profitable, how do we get our fair share if we go back to the days of having one arm tied behind our back? And if, as the National Party is promising, basic protections against unfair dismissal are watered down, how do we create the environment that makes us want to work smarter to help our employers?

This year, the union needs to be vocal and assertive about politicians’ promises to lift incomes. Already, National Party supporters are doing their best to stop us from speaking publicly about their policies. They don’t want to be challenged and they don’t want to be forced to argue their corner.

Our future – New Zealand’s future – will be built on all interests working together to create more value, and just as importantly, to share that greater wealth.  This is why it’s important for the law to talk about the imbalance of power in the employment relationship, the need for mutual trust and confidence and good faith. And to create the environment that allows constructive discussion and improving wages. Start taking these principles backwards, and there’s no chance of closing that incomes gap.

For these reasons I felt it better to offer to stick around to argue these issues from the union standpoint.