💾 Archived View for germination.systems › ~vidak › old-blog › sda-vs-raffwu.gemini captured on 2022-04-28 at 18:12:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
---
generator: pandoc
title: 'sda-vs-raffwu'
viewport: 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes'
---
+++ date = "2019-06-30T10:28:55Z" title = "SDA v RAFFWU" +++
A Battle At The Heart of the Australian Union Movement
------------------------------------------------------
By Alexander Vos
In 2016, The Retail and fast food workers union (RAFFWU) was founded, in
direct opposition to the existing Shop Distributive and Allied Employees
Association (SDA). While this split on the surface appears to be about
the SDA v RAFFWU it is indicative of boarder concerns in the Australian
union movement. On one side you have those who wish to take a
collaborationist and often careerist approach. Here, unions act as an
organ of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) providing employment usually
for ALP members over rank and file workers. In the SDA, union
bureaucracy takes political positions that do not upset the
business-friendly wing of the ALP or actively pursue business-friendly
policies. On the other side, you have those who are more militant in
their outlook. Here, unions act as a vehicle for class struggle and
raising class consciousness amongst the working class. In RAFFWU, rank
and file workers are in control of the political positions and the union
sides with the interest of workers. In this sense, SDA v RAFFWU can be
contextualised within this boarder conflict inside the Australian union
movement.
Critics of SDA's tactics and strategy (myself included) say it
represents the most extreme manifestation of this class collaborative
careerist approach. This is evidenced by the SDA paying commissions to
businesses like Australian supermarket giants Woolworths and Coles in
exchange for employers actively "encouraging" workers to join the SDA
and payroll deductions for dues. However, the SDA defends this close
relationship with employers arguing that it's self-described "moderate"
and "responsible" approach has delivered substantial gains for its
members. While it is true that Australia does have one of the highest
minimum wages in the world. It is also true that SDA enterprise
bargaining agreements have locked in below award pay rates and stripped
workers of basic rights guaranteed in the Australia award system. Even
before the Fair Work Commission's 2017 ruling on the reduction of
penalty rates, SDA enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) had reduced
or outright stripped workers in businesses like KFC, McDonald's,
Woolworths, Coles of there penalty rates. And while penalty rates are
some of the most high-profile rights lost it is just the tip of the
iceberg. With many workers across the retail and fast food industry
seeing reductions in junior pay rates, casual loading, and even break
entitlements. More recently this year we have seen the SDA potentially
facilitate the restructure of Woolworths, the restructure could result
in the closure of numerous stores resulting in massive job losses. All
the while the SDA uses its members' dues to bankroll its influence
inside the ALP pursuing socially conservative and business-friendly
policies against its own members' wishes.
The SDA's action compromises the entire trade union movements ability to
advocate for low wage workers. its mere presence in the Australian
Council of trade unions (ACTU) means that their campaigns become
disingenuous and hypocritical. How for instance can the ACTU campaigns
like "change the rules" be taken seriously when for retail and fast food
workers the rules need to be changed due to the actions of an ACTU
affiliate?
This discontent in the SDA rank and file is why RAFFWU was born and how
it is gaining momentum. While RAFFWU is still small it has been
effective in mounting legal challenges that have seen the termination of
SDA EBAs at Baker's Delight and IGA supermarkets resulting in better pay
and conditions for workers there. However, despite these gain and
earlier successes against fast-food giant Dominos and in particular
against Coles, where the Fair Work Commission's found that Coles-SDA EBA
failed the BOOT (better off overall test). RAFFWU is still yet to engage
in direct industrial action. This is due to RAFFWU having a membership
that is largely spread out. When you combine this with the SDA teaming
up with employers like Woolworths to actively block RAFFWU from entering
stores, it means that gaining density in individual stores needed to
directly challenge the SDA via industrial action has been an uphill
battle. As such RAFFWU industrial approach has been confined mostly to
legal challenges in the FWC mentioned earlier. This sadly falls short of
the more militant action members wish to see. However, it is important
to note that as density has risen, we have seen RAFFWU engage in their
own pickets and support strike actions. Like the chemist warehouse
dispute with the National Union of Workers (NUW) and the on-going Manly
Fast Ferry dispute with the famously militant Maritime Union of
Australia (MUA). RAFFWU is becoming more daring in its approach and this
needs to be fostered if the SDA and all it represents it to be
challenged and defeated.
RAFFWU supporting the MUA during a strike action at circular quay. And
for those organisations like "Solidarity" who wish to invoke Lenin's
criticism of those establishing rival unions from "Left-Wing Communism:
An Infantile Disorder", I ask you: consider that the SDA over its 100+
years of existence has created a hierarchy that it is completely
anti-democratic by design, to explicitly stop workers from gaining
influence out a deep-rooted fear of communism. Its own organising
strategy means the SDA acts as an apparatus of the business sector
funnelling members' dues back to employers and spreading pro-business
anti-worker policies through the labour movement neutering militant
worker actions and handing the unions over to liberal ALP. These actions
render any designation of the SDA as a union so ridiculous it borders on
absurd. The SDA in no sense of the word can be described as a union
without distorting the definition of what a union is to such an extent
the word becomes a deformed mockery of its intended meaning. As such the
consequences of any self-proclaimed "leftists" choosing not to support
RAFFWU results in tacit support for a non-union employer organisation
over a genuine workers union. We only need to look at the Unite Union in
New Zealand and its successes in organising retail workers. We can see
how it has successfully challenged the existing collaborationist union
there to understand that with persistence and good political leadership
RAFFWU will build into something truly militant.
For RAFFWU, developing this militancy that workers desperately need will
help to obtain better conditions in low-paying industries. The boarder
union movements need to cement unions as a vehicle for anti-capitalist
struggle, communists need to actively support and steer the union
actively. It's is our duty as those committed to class struggle to help
RAFFWU grow so that we may erode the control reformist collaborative
unions and the ALP have in the Australian union movement. This is
particularly important when you consider that retail and fast food
unions are often where young people first contact with the labour
movement. RAFFWU needs to be developed along the right line so it will
help to invigorate and radicalise young people, to create a working
class that is conscious of its struggle and is active within it.
If RAFFWU is successful in toppling the SDA it will damage the
reactionary elements inside the union movement immensely. It will send
shockwaves across the union movement and cement militancy as the norm
creating far-reaching structural and cultural change in the unions. This
is why the success of RAFFWU is imperative and why we must support it.
its success is directly tied to a shift away from collaboration and
towards militancy and agitation. Every inch gained by RAFFWU over the
SDA is a win for those who wish to see union power back in the hands of
the workers and out of the hands of self-serving bureaucrats.