Debate on the Australian United Workers Union Election & Industrial Strategy

Debate on Australian United Workers Union Election & Industrial Strategy

The United Workers Union leadership election (and why it didn't really
matter)

11/9/26 Back in June, the United Workers Union (UWU) wrapped up a
hotly contested election for its National Convention. The UWU is one of
the biggest unions in the country, with 150,000 members in dozens of
industries, including warehousing, hospitality, aged care, and early
childhood education.

Two tickets pitched themselves to members. 'United for You', led by
union president Jo Schofield, ended up winning with a slim majority. But
they faced a serious challenge from a group calling itself 'Members First'.

Members First had a slick campaign and some of what they had to say
sounded pretty good: Less focus on the Labor Party, no back room deals
without delegates present, and more money for strike funds and organisers.

But despite its name, and what some on the Left claimed during the
campaign, Members First was no rank-and-file movement. The ticket was
the project of UWU's national secretary, Tim Kennedy, and was run with
very little member involvement.

The election, then, was a factional battle between sections of the
officialdom, and the parts of the Labor Party they align themselves with.

Two sides, same coin
The UWU was founded as a merger between the National Union of Workers
(NUW) and United Voice (UV) in 2019. The forces behind the two election
tickets can be traced back to the separate unions.

United for You represented the UV wing. The ticket's campaign carried on
their faction's tradition of prioritising political lobbying over
industrial organising. Under their model, unionism is a kind of
'service' that members sign up for: legal advice and other perks are
provided by the staff of the union in exchange for dues.

The NUW, on the other hand, placed more emphasis on traditional
industrial organising, in industries like warehousing, logistics and
food manufacturing. The leadership of the Members First campaign came
from the NUW faction, and their election promises - more organisers,
support for delegates, the occasional serious strike - reflect their own
priorities.

The NUW approach, and the promises of Members First, might look pretty
good at first glance. But the two strategies aren't as far apart as they
seem.

The empowerment of members promised by Members First was incredibly
limited, and largely focussed on 'transparency'. Even the promised
strike funds were a fraction of the union's actual resources. Members
weren't engaged in democratic structures as part of the campaign, and
very few attended election events.

Members First wasn't an example of organisation from below-it was an
advertising campaign, controlled from above.

Power to the rank-and-file?
Despite the hundreds of thousands spent on campaigning by both sides,
only 31% of members actually voted. Neither ticket mobilised members in
a genuinely democratic or militant way, because, ultimately, both want
to maintain the power of the officials and their links with the Labor Party.

Throwing money at an election isn't how you build the confidence,
militancy, or participation of members. On paper, Members First may have
been a marginally more militant ticket. But had they somehow managed to
win, they would still be in the exact same position as their United For
You opponents.

Without a real, well-organised rank-and-file movement, with power based
in workplaces, the officials are left balancing between members, the
bosses, and their mates in the ALP. With all the power on the bosses
side, and pressure from the government to keep members in line, they
have every reason to settle for bad deals.

The only people that can really put members first are the members
themselves. To win democratic control over our union, we have to get
organised at the level of the rank-and-file.

No saviours from above

The UWU election was a fight for control of the National Convention, a
body of 500 which then elects the day-to-day managers of the union.
Rather than elect Convention delegates by industry or workplace, members
are grouped together by the electorate they live in.

This system was designed to entrench the power of the Executive and
prevent an alternative base of power forming among specific groups of
workers on the shop floor.

Still, there are industry specific structures for parts of UWU's
coverage (farms, early childhood education, logistics etc.) Delegates
and other members should use these to make connections with each other
and facilitate democratic decision making. These structures can be used
to pull the leadership in behind members' actual demands, or push beyond
the leadership entirely.

Connections between workers elected from the shop floor would be the
basis for genuine member control. Where these structures don't function
democratically, or in industries like hospitality, where they don't
exist, we have to build them: shop by shop, street by street, suburb by
suburb.

Only a real rank-and-file movement, based on democratic rank-and-file
groups, can make a clean break from the Labor Party and embrace militant
industrial action. This would have been true even if Members First had won.

No faction fight is going to bring the change we need, because saviours
never come from above. We, the members, are the union. And it's our job
to make it a fighting one.

Comment: The article fails to grasp the nature of corporate unionism which the UWU is a leading example. In particular, its integration into the Corporate set up/ALP Octopus tentacles/Corporate media/Deep State. Through UWU officials' contacts with the ALP Godfathers/Deep State/ASIO and associated networks in the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) the officials would be able to rig any election in their collegiate electoral system. As part of this scam deep state infiltrators or those who made a deal with the ALP Godfathers would be “allowed” to be elected. As a result of the officials' Deep State/CIA training/Corporate connections, etc, they would have the capacity to engage in sophisticated manipulation in the case of a crisis. If pressured to take seeming militant action and achieving victories, they would give it a demoralising swing for workers and take advantage of it for their bureaucratic/ALP machinations.(1)

The UWU officials would have long experience like the officials of other corporate unions in co-opting/corrupting union reps making them part of their machines. If this doesn't work in certain cases, the union officials would conspire with managements to get the union rep sacked or attend their union meetings to disrupt them. In the case of the RTBU(Rail Tram & Bus Union) in the late 1990's at Central Station in Sydney, the RTBU sub branch meetings where militants had influence and held the Secretary position, these meetings were constantly attacked/disrupted by groups of union officials. In the case of Leichhardt bus depot in Sydney some years back, a militant was elected as union rep and immediately led a wild cat strike involving 70 or so drivers in a mass sickie over speed up issues. Subsequently, he was quietened down by the officials, going along with them and the bosses. At Port Botany bus depot in Sydney some years back prior to privatisation, a militant was assisted by the ASN to be elected as union rep. He was a trainee so the union officials and the bosses conspired to frame him up for the sack and replace him with one of their stooges.

The article is basically grasping at straws regarding “democratising” the UWU. A more realistic strategy would be a focus on transport industries so as to launch a strike/direct action wave movement across industry. In this context of raised morale of workers in industries covered by the UWU, syndicalist education and networking of militants in which Rebel Worker distribution would play a useful role and the industrial solidarity of a breakaway syndicalist transport union, major syndicalist breakaway unions in various sectors of the UWU would be possible. Leading to the establishment of a new syndicalist union confederation based on direct action, ultra democratic processes and opposition to all political parties.
M.
Notes
(1) See “RTBU Elections 2018: Were They Rigged?” In RW Dec.2018 – Jan. 2019 Vol.36 No.3 (223) on www.rebelworker.org & “From Corporate Bureaucratic Unionism to Grass Roots Controlled Direct Action Unionism: Perspectives for Strategy & Activity in Australia, Today” in RW No.41 No.3 (235) Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024 on Libcom.org and www.rebelworker.org & “Spotlight on Rorts in the Union Office” in RW Vol.36 No.2(231) Aug.-Sept. 2018 on www.rebelworker.org