Trotter is quite the spotter: not a single mention of Unions in Future of Work speech

WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE of the fact that Grant Robertson’s speech to Labour’s second “Future of Work” conference contains no reference to trade unions? Or that, in the entire 3,431-word text of the speech the word “union” appears only once? In a list of the groups involved in the “Commission External Reference Group” of Robertson’s Future of Work project. In addition to business people, academics and community representatives, Robertson admits to “union leaders” also being consulted.

That admission raises some pretty thorny problems of its own. If “union leaders” have indeed been involved in this flagship Labour Party exercise, then what do they make of Robertson’s very clear implication that their organisations, Labour’s founding fathers, will have no role to play in the future of work in New Zealand?

Robertson subtitled his speech “Building Wealth from the Ground Up”. Any common sense reading of that title would predict a fulsome measure of worker participation in the exercise, which, to be effective, would have to involve the organisations dedicated to defining and articulating workers’ interests – the trade unions.

But, if that is what Robertson and the union leaders advising him intend, then the absence of the slightest reference to organised labour helping to build New Zealand’s future wealth becomes even more puzzling. Either, New Zealand’s leading unionists all anticipate being made redundant in the near future; or, they do indeed see themselves playing a leading economic role, but have agreed, along with the party, to say nothing about it until Labour’s safely re-elected.

There is another answer.  Robertson simply isn’t a union darling.  The very reason he’s the twice if not thrice loser of a tilt at the party leadership is due to is lack of union support.

And perhaps, Robertson can see why:  unions are on the way out and have no constructive place in a Future of Work. 

Another pointer towards why Robertson kept the trade unions out of his speech was his reference to Jeremy Corbyn. In spite of the fact that Corbyn now stands at the heart of an intense political struggle to determine the future of the British Labour Party, and hence the future of work in the United Kingdom, Robertson mentioned his name only in relation to what was happening 18 months ago: “Jeremy Corbyn, UK Labour backbencher was preparing to defy his party whip for the 489th time”.

The remark is vintage Robertson. In dismissing Corbyn as a disloyal back-bench pest, the MP for Wellington Central reveals how little he thinks of the British Labour leader’s left-wing ideas, and how much he values strictly-enforced political discipline. One can only speculate as to what all those “union leaders” allegedly involved in Robertson’s “Future of Work” project made of the remark.

After all, Corbyn recently announced his determination to re-arm the British Labour Movement by repealing the multitude of anti-union laws which, between them, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair either added to, or kept on, the UK statute books. With less than 10 percent of New Zealand’s private sector workforce involved in a trade union, our own “union leaders” must be hoping for something similar should Andrew Little win the 2017 election.

That’s unlikely. Especially when Robertson’s speech describes only one personal encounter with a living, breathing worker:

“At a public meeting in Albany earlier in the year after my presentation a man who had sat attentively at the front came forward and asked, with tears in his eyes, if I could do anything to help him get a job.”

Not Rufus Paynter again.  Can that guy ever catch a break?


– Chris Trotter, Bowalley Road

  • shykiwibloke

    There is one other option – this is the future of WORK we are talking about – unions only know how to take and spend – once the work is done.

  • JC

    Tell me I’m wrong here..

    At the beginning everyone worked and traded excess to survive and sort of prosper.. much later the system got incredibly complex with political and financial systems and unions etc.

    Now we see a move out of these structured and complex systems back to individuals working and trading again with the complexity of systems and unions etc confined (or facilitated if you like) to a desktop, laptop computer or Smartphone.

    The future of work then might be that an injustice in the system is picked up by a computer program, adjudicated by another program and rectification or punishment dealt out by another programme and enforced by either a cop or a robot.

    The work fights of the future then will be in the hands of the programmers whose jobs will increasingly depend on the survival of their trading bloc… not much scope for union delegates in this Brave New World.