Author: admin

February 15, 1951 was the beginning of the waterfront lockout, followed by solidarity strikes in the rail, coal, drivers and hydro industries. Its effects are still with us.
The lockout was initiated by the New Zealand government and British ship owners to smash a militant working class willing to taking action for improved wages and conditions. However, the bureaucratic
Federation of Labour would not take the side of the locked out workers, and the watersiders’ union became increasingly isolated.
In April when the anti-worker legislation comes into effect the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) will hold the last of its rallies in response. This will take place under the ‘Fairness at Work’ slogan. Not only does the slogan sound conservative, the political problem with the slogan is that fairness in the workplace requires radical social change. Falling short of being able to achieve radical social change, appropriate working class slogans must be based on concrete claims that can advance the class struggle, such as freedom of association and action at work, specific wage formulations, and daring new mass demands. The use of soft phrases like ‘fairness’ can serve to limit workers’ expectations. Furthermore, ‘fairness’ is not measurable, meaning there is no political accountability for those who promote the use of the slogan.
Like the previous Fairness at Work marches, this April March will naturally be a bureaucratic affair because the working class has been disempowered by previous defeats, including the defeat in 1951. The
‘partnership and productivity’ approach to unionism, which the CTU has actively constructed and engaged in, has helped to further erode working class agency.
Another part of the problem is that at the top of the union movement, the central strategy has become the re-election of the Labour Party rather than the rebuilding of fighting unionism. But where was the
Labour Party for 151 days in 1951?–“Neither for nor against.”
Watch this award-winning documentary ‘1951’ and see how history repeats itself.
Also check out the March and April issues of The Spark which will carry a first-time published major two-part feature on the 1951 struggle.

Reprinted from Not Afraid of Ruins blog.
The new Auckland Supercouncil has voted to support a submission in favour of the Regulation of Prostitution in Specific Places Bill. This law would let Supercouncil pass bylaws banning street workers in specific areas.
Arguments in favour of criminalizing street workers are usually about protecting families, and moral values, and community standards, and ‘won’t somebody think of the children?’
But sometimes these arguments are also about ‘won’t somebody think of the hookers?’ because, according to Sandra Coney, ‘she supported the bill because prostitution was harmful to women and led to violence and murder’.
Let me break this down for you:
Yes, being a street worker probably isn’t an ideal employment situation for most workers. It’s possible that some street workers work on the street because they truly prefer it. But I suspect most sex workers who work on the street are doing it because they don’t have other options, like working at a brothel, or for an escort agency, or hiring a flat to work from. Maybe brothels and agencies won’t hire them because of a drug dependency or maybe because they’re transgendered or maybe they just managed to piss off all the bosses and maybe they can’t afford to put an ad up on nzgirls.com and hire a flat or a hotel room.
The point is that those sex workers who work on the street are usually the ones who are most marginalized, most disadvantaged, most discriminated against and most vulnerable to exploitation. Sandra Coney is right to worry about their safety. But she is living in an alternate universe if she thinks giving the police more power over street workers is going to protect them. Actually, all that’ll happen is that the police will have even more power to exploit and oppress street workers. This law will allow police to arrest anyone they think might be a sex worker. Who do you think police think might be a sex worker?[1] This law isn’t going to prevent sex workers from working on the street. Because it doesn’t actually address any of the reasons some sex workers end up working on the street. All this law will do is make street workers’ lives more difficult and more dangerous.
Continue reading “If you're dissing the hookers you ain't fighting the power”