new unionism>> Partnership for Quality

Democratising the workplace
by Peter Hall-Jones for www.newunionism.net March 2007

One of the undoubted union success stories of the last few years has been that of New Zealand's Public Services Association (PSA). Ten years ago it was referred to pejoratively as "the leaning tower of PSA". Now, following the implementation of an innovative organizing strategy centered around democratising the workplace, it is the largest and fastest growing union in the country. And there can be few unions whose members have developed a similar level of influence at workplace level.

The size of New Zealand's civil service was reduced by almost 50% during "the New Zealand experiment" of 1984-1999. Naturally union membership declined rapidly as a result. This continued, year after year, and I remember one union official seriously explaining to me that he was "trying to turn a rout into a retreat". Nationwide, union density decreased from about 44% to 17%. Trade union staff were depressed, angry and divided as to how to respond. Many unconsciously accepted their new place on the sidelines, and started to act like delinquent parents on a school sports day.

Background
Before that time New Zealand had been one of the few countries in the world where trade union membership was practically compulsory. In fact it has been argued that the whole movement was set up under government tutelage, following the "scientific colonisation" of the country in the 1800s. At a time of pressing economic problems at home, England was wanting to avoid expensive strife in yet another far-flung outpost. And so "The New Zealand Company" tried to handle the process with finesse: just the right mix of classes; land grabs as subtle as possible (to start with, at least); and as many missionaries as possible to soften the blows. Why not try to get a treaty signed by the indigenous Maori population, as opposed to the customary invasion? The aristocracy were the first to be sent out by the company, and "first five ships" is still used in the country as a synonym for blue blood. New Zealand thus became a bit of a social experiment. Women got the vote in 1893, before any other country. A year later the country elected the world's first female Mayor. And five years later it became the first country in the world to legislate for an 8 hour working day.

In 1894, in an effort to avoid industrial disruption, the government agreed to recognise unions on the condition that they be registered, which in turn bound them to arbitration before industrial action. Pay rates were determined nationally, and in 1936 employers became legally bound to ensure that their employees were unionised. This was experimental, indeed!

That said, union membership was always voluntary for public service workers. One can easily imagine that during these relatively benign years the PSA's work processes became heavily coated in bureaucratic rust. Regions and branches and even some of the union's full time paid officials (organisers) had the opportunity of becoming islands unto themselves.

This all changed very suddenly when a Labour government came to power in 1984, and went about implementing a neo-liberal agenda. It was a period of shock and disbelief. This was social experimentation of a very different kind! This was the age of Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher, not Emily Pankhurst and Joe Hill.

There followed year after year of painful upheaval and restructuring in public services. Many governmental organisations were privatised at scandalously low prices. Often the consultants who were behind the consultancy papers were the same figures who benefitted most. With the neo-liberal agenda driven (initially at least) by the social democrats, who was there to turn to for political support? It was an ideocracy; there was simply no room for meaningful negotiation. And it was also a closed system: if something failed, it was because the model had not been implemented rigorously enough. In fact this is still a line that some diehards in the country still use. No doubt they do so in Argentina as well.

As the redundancies continued (in wave after wave) many union members despaired and fell away from the movement. Others turned to the left in fury, splitting the Labour Party in two. The national union movement also split. It was increasingly evident that something BIG needed to happen in order to respond to this situation. Within the PSA and other unions key voices began to emerge, arguing that unions must prepare for a role far larger than anything they had ever considered before.

At times such as these there always seem to be a small group(s) and loose networks in the background bouncing around new ideas. Workplace reform. Economic democracy. Industrial partnership. This was the time of "transformational unionism" - the inspiring social partnership model which had been developed in South Africa. Writings by Charles Heckscher and "maverick" SEMCO boss Ricardo Semler started circulating. These, and papers from Ireland, and the UK TUC's "New Unionism" project, all seemed to fit together. What the neo-liberals were saying was that "choice" was what the public wanted. The gathering reply was that no, what people wanted was quality. Quality jobs, quality management, and quality services. What's more, the PSA started to argue, there was a causal relationship between the three.

There was a natural alliance implied in this equation between providers and producers of public services. Both wanted quality. But there was also an area of shared interest with managers. They, too, wanted to improve the quality of services. There may well be huge differences in other areas, but wherever there were shared interests, surely joint discussion was desirable? The overwhelming majority of members and delegates welcomed the idea. In fact they had been seeking more influence at workplace level ever since it had become clear that the solutions of the last ten years did not match the problems (yet alone solve them). PSA staff, too, welcomed the new strategy (with some dissent?). And so a strategy known as "Partnership for Quality" became the driving approach of the union.

And driven it was. There was a single-mindedness in the application of this approach which made many nervous. There was a high turnover of staff as some found the direction too black and white; others had trouble breaking old habits (the boss is a baddy, we are the goodies, therefore our desires and views are justified, a priori). Others misconstrued the approach as "selling out", and so promptly set about trying to "sell out" for the best deal they could get. There was a painful learning curve. And for a while other unions, particularly those who had accepted their prescribed role on the sidelines, had a field day jeering.

But the transition was relatively short-lived. After a while the internal debate and the questioning became fairly open, thanks to dialogue with staff unions, interventions by organisational change consultants, and some nifty blue-sky thinking at management level. Soon the union moved into a new gear.

This was all happening at roughly the same time as the neo-liberal's methods were proving to be socially disastrous. Not only had they caused massive social damage, but they had proved themselved to be wasteful, inneffective, expensive, unproductive and, as more and more people came to see, just plain wrong-headed. That said, it had to be admitted that there had been improvements. The PSA had the integrity to stick to its word, and to acknowledge quality wherever it was found. But more than anything else, it started to look at building partnerships at workplace level. By this time a traditional conservative government had been elected, and given the openly hostile government of the day, this was the only place it was ever going to take root (perhaps the opposite of the Irish experience?). There was no corporatist or tripartite model on offer. From now on any "partnership for quality" development had to be done at the coalface.

When the conservative government was finally ousted in 1999, after a huge shift in the consciousness of middle New Zealand brought about in large part by unions and churches, the free market ideologues found they had lost what little credibility they had left. New solutions were needed. What comes post neo-liberalism??

The national union centre (NZCTU) had been preparing for this, and immediately tabled a well-developed and discussed proposal for new industrial legislation. The PSA was also there with it's constructive agenda, and this fitted in perfectly with what came next: new industrial laws centred around good faith and improving workplace relationships.

Nor only did the PSA's membership begin to increase, but it was seen by workers that the union was well-positioned to push their agenda for quality (jobs, management and services) at workplace level. It didn't take long for the results to start showing. And when they did the PSA decided to take things one step further. They asked employers to acknowledge the success of partnership in some kind of concrete form. Thus a fairly large number of workplace contracts started to include "partnership premiums": open recognition by the employer in one form or another (usually monetary) of the positive approach which workers' collective input was having on service quality. Non-members did not get these payments.

The howl which went up around this issue was unprecedented. The above cartoon is one of a number which appeared in daily papers around the country. It was also doubly hypocritical, given the open bribes which the conservatives had employed earlier to coerce members into leaving the union. Conservative politicians openly lied about the PSA making donations to the government, and the media declined to publish the union's replies. In the end the PSA had to bypass the mainstream media altogether. They contacted more than 80% of their members directly, by email, to explain the facts. This direct contact was so successful that it has continued on a monthly basis ever since.

The story continues, but both last year and the year before PSA membership growth exceeded 10%. In fact since the adoption of the workplace-centred partnership approach, union membership has grown by almost 50%. More recently there has been an increasing focus on organization, and further explorations of how this can inform the partnership approach at workplace level.

It is notoriously hard to measure union influence, but there would be few who could disagree that PSA members are now having an enormous impact on the direction of public services in the country. Various national agreements have been signed, and the government has set up a partnership institute to help rewire the country's industrial model. Many other unions are starting to develop new ideas about constructive engagement at workplace level, and the furious noise of booing from the side lines has largely died away. That nation may (and this is far from certain) finally be making solid progress towards the kind of social partnership model which has proven so successful over the long term (for both workers and employers) in Europe. Across the Tasman, Australia is headed in the opposite direction. It is attacking unions and introducing a US-style agenda which even George Bush would not have dared consider. It will be interesting to watch the economic and social indicators as these two countries head off down such utterly different paths.

At the time of writing PSA members are involved in a "Fresh Perspectives" project - a union plan for rethinking the whole meaning of government engagement with society. This is a story which is far from over.

Notes

For further information on the PSA's Partnership for Quality strategy, including links to national agreements etc, click here.