By
Crosbie Walsh
Many
years ago theologians debated how many angels could stand on the head
of a pin. A similar but far less theoretical argument now arises in
Fiji: can anyone stand on the line that separates pro- and
anti-Government positions, when a line, by definition, has no width?
Or, in relation to the topic of this article, can anyone clearly
separate what is a legitimate trade union political activity and what
is just straight politics?
I
raise this question because we have recently seen claims that the new
constitution prohibits the right to strike; because of Felix
Anthony's recent threats to take the Sugar and General Workers out on
strike (and earlier threats that could have affected the tourist industry); because of
Attar Singh's long-standing opposition to the Bainimarama government
and his Fiji Islands Council of Trade Unions (FICTU) joining the United
Front for a Democratic Fiji (UFDF), a combination of the old
political parties, plus the FICTU; and because of the threatened
strike action by the Confederation of Public Sector Unions (the PSA,
Fiji Teachers Union and Fiji Teachers Association) prompted by the recent massive increases in permanent secretary salaries.
First,
the right to strike.
Section
20 (2) of the Constitution reads: "Every worker has the right to form and join a trade
union, and participate in its activities and programmes,and to
strike."
But the constitution also includes what some have
called "claw back clauses," or limitations imposed on
rights. Thus, section 20 (5) reads:"A
law may limit, or may authorise the limitation of, the rights
mentioned in this section—
(a)
in the interests of national
security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health
or the orderly
conduct of elections;(b)
for the purposes of protecting
the rights and freedoms of others;(c)
for the purposes of imposing
restrictions on the holders of public offices;(d)
for the purposes of regulating
trade unions, or any federation, congress, council or affiliation of
tradeunions,
or any federation, congress, council or affiliation of employers;(e)
for the purposes of regulating
collective bargaining processes, providing mechanisms for the
resolutionof
employment disputes and grievances, and regulating strikes and
lockouts; or(f)
for the purposes of regulating
essential services and industries, in the overall interests of the
Fijian economy
and the citizens of Fiji."
Two
questions arise about section 20 (5): Is it reasonable? Can it be
abused? I think it reasonable. No right can be unconditional. But
it could be abused if a government set out to do do. Not necessarily
this government; any government in the future. There is, however, an
important check on governments.
Section
44 (2) permits people and institutions that consider their rights
unjustly infringed can take their case to the High Court. Some
opponents have questioned the impartiality of the High Court which is
appointed by the President or the recommendation of the Constitutional Offices Commission,
and the same people have questioned the impartiality of the COC. In
the period leading up to the 2014 election this is a legitimate
objection because the present Prime Minister has excessive power but
after the elections power is more evenly distributed between the
Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
In
sum, there are problems for trade unions arising out of existing
decrees and the constitution before the 2014 elections, but the
decrees applying to trade unions can be repealed or changed by the
incoming Parliament. After the elections, I think an elected
Parliament and the Constitution sufficiently robust to protect trade
union rights, and the host of other human rights protected in the
2013 Constitution.
Felix
Anthony
In
earlier postings I have covered the efforts of Felix
Anthony to recruit support from Australian and NZ unions, how this
was said to threaten the tourism industry, and how this all this tied in
to the
Essential Industries Decree.
I do not approve of the Decree. I thought, and
still think, it excessive and unnecessary, but it is hard to dismiss
Government's preference for direct management-worker bargaining than
the more confrontational approach of the unions. Fiji has enough
economic problems without adding industrial unrest to the list. In a related article I suggested that I did not think the unions were
being "targeted" by Government. I wrote:
"I
don't think it is the Workers' Party, the trade union movement or
FLP per
se that
are being targeted, although the Bainimarama government is
far more right wing than left. Rather it is the people who lead
them that Government seeks to marginalise. From what has been
said many times, I can't see Government making any accommodation with
the likes of Felix Anthony, Daniel Urai, Attar Singh and Mahendra
Chaudhry.
"Fiji
is a small society and an important consequence of "smallness"
is that personal relationships are that much more important in the
political arena than in bigger societies. What may have started
as differences in opinion or policy so often end up as a conflict of
personalities.
"Bainimarama
sees these trade unionists and Chaudhry as putting their
self-interests ahead of the nation, and their efforts to win support
from the international trade union movement as acts of betrayal
tantamount to treason. Government claims unionists were
responsible for pushing Air Pacific close to the edge of bankruptcy.
I think this unlikely but it matters not whether these claims are
fair and accurate. It is what they believe."
ABC's
Pacific Beat reports that Anthony has now called off the threatened
strike by his Sugar and General Workers' Union, saying his members
have been intimidated, threatened with losing their jobs, and being
"taken up to the military camp to be dealt with." I am in no
position to say whether this is true or false.
But it it is at least
equally plausible that he had insufficient worker support. He has
been the union leader since time immemorial and it's difficult to see what
he's actually achieved for his members.
Attar
Singh
The
"personality factor" also applies to Attar Singh who has
constantly needled the Bainimarama government since 2006. Government
sees him —and by extension, his Fiji Council of Trade Unions—as
anti-Government, whatever it does. Further, Singh, more than other unionists, has stepped over the
union-political divide by joining the UFDF, an otherwise purely
political grouping. And in so doing he has guaranteed he will not be
listened to.
I
think it highly likely that this sort of involvement resulted in the
Constitutional clause that unionists and other officials must step
down from office if they intend to contest the 2014 Elections.
The
Confederation of Public Sector Unions
The
CPSU comprises the PSA, the Fiji Teachers Union and the Fiji Teachers
Association, collectively with about 15,000 members, by far the
largest union grouping in Fiji. Their recent response to news that
permanent secretaries and other senior government people were to
receive salary increases ranging from 45 to to 193% was to write to
the Attorney-General and ask for a 110% increase for all their
members. If granted, this would have bankrupted Fiji. They have now
toned down this demand and FTU GenSec Agni Deo says they'll be
asking their members "what they think will be a fair increase."
This
is a much more responsible demand but even then if overlooks the fact
that the increased salaries for permanent secretaries were
recommended by a firm of independent accountants on the basis of
comparisons with the private sector, with the intention of making
these top jobs more attractive to the best possible applicants. This is unabashed neo-liberalism in action. It
also fails to recognize that Government, in accepting the proposed
increases, removed all their previously enjoyed non-salary benefits
such as free or subsidised housing, free transport and entertainment
allowances.
More
importantly, the action saw the unions adopting their usual stance of
looking upwards with envy at those paid more, and not downwards to
those paid much less or not at all.
It
is Government, and not the unions, that has moved towards a minimum
wage and assistance for those at and below the poverty line.
"Workers of the World Unite!" is not a call made by the relatively well paid unionised workers in Fiji, at least not when it concerns less paid workers.
The
inequality gap
The
last half century has seen neo-liberalism erode and largely replace the welfare-ism that marked the post-World War II years. This philosophy
calls on government to withdraw from "interfering" with the
economy. It sees "growth" as the best way to increase
living standards, and the unimpeded "laws of supply and demand
" as the best way to achieve growth.
The result has been an
increase of inequality within and between countries. Opinions are
divided on its benefits. Some say it promotes investment and
efficiency; others say it adversely affects health, living standards and social
cohesion. The increase in permanent secretary salaries indicates the Fiji Government is persuaded by the former view.
The
most recent data from OECD countries show the top 10% of the
population earn nine times more than the bottom 10%. In Israel,
Turkey and the USA it is 14 times, and in some Latin American
countries 27 times. World-wide, one percent of individuals own 40%
of global assets, and the richest three people have assets greater
than the combined assets of the world's 48 poorest countries. I do not
have the figures for Fiji but I suspect the income and inequality gap is increasing. It goes without saying that the wealthy in these countries are
far more able to influence government policies than the poor.
The
important point is that the Fiji Government, in going along with the
permanent secretary
salary
increases, is probably doing nothing different from what the Qarase
government would have done in similar circumstances. Both
Governments are centre-right in political terms.
There are signs,
however, that the Bainimarama government is less neo-liberal in some
respects than its predecessor. It will not threaten the rich and
very rich, but it is trying to ease the lot of the poor. This is
seen in its not infrequent "interference" in the economy:
in improved education opportunities, assistance with health care and
housing, support for micro enterprises, the minimum wage, and price controls.
The
dilemma for organized labour is that it is unlikely to be listened
to under their present leadership, and there seems little chance
present union leaders will be replaced any time soon. There is also
no way of knowing whether unionists will be economically better off under
this or that government after the 2014 Elections.
Their
best course of action would therefore seem to be to rethink their role in a neo-liberal and politically limited Fiji, and in particular, to :
- Chip
away at neo-liberalism by targeted policies on wages and working
conditions
- Speak out in favour of improvements for the very poor
- Always
make reasonable requests (the 110% request was not one of them)
- Seek
constitutional clarity on the "claw back " clauses
- Avoid
head-on clashes with the Bainimarama government, and
- Be
very aware of the political consequences of their action
Ultimately,
like the rest of Fiji, they have to decide between accepting the
politics of the past as practised and expressed by the UFDF, or
helping to shape the unknown politics of the future.
The issues at stake
are far bigger than wages and salaries.