Aftermaths and Consequences of the 1951 Waterfront Dispute
Short term economic and political consequencesDefeat of Militant Union Actions and decline in the number of Union Membership
On July 11th, waterside workers votes to work and did so five days later. Immediately after the end of the industrial actions, the WWU has disintegrated into 26 local port unions, many established by the employers and some with as few as a dozen members. Likewise, the Wellington drivers' and freezing workers' unions had broken up to smaller union, and it wasn't until the 1960's when a national watersiders' union came into existence. In 1952, a year after the failed dispute, the Trade Union Congress fade from existence with its key leading figures persecuted from contemporary society. The defeat of the watersiders allowed the FoL to establish authority and control over the New Zealand union movement. F. P. Walsh led the FoL until his death in 1963. According to the graph labeled as Inequality and Union Membership 1921-2009, the union density was high in 1932, 1951 and also in 1975. On these years, there were major industrial actions in New Zealand, however, an immediate economic consequence of these industrial actions was a general decline in the membership of unions. The decline in militant unions in the dispute teCommunism, a large political influence on the Waterside Workers's Union, was largely marginalized after the dispute and the support for a communist cause declined. Amendment of Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act
A month after the dispute, the Government amended the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The major changes were:
|
Effects on Individuals
Union members who were involved in the 1951 Waterfront Dispute were prosecuted and were discriminate against by the society, and especially at the workplaces. Both key figures of the Waterside Workers' Union, Harold Barnes and Toby Hill, had been blacklisted and struggled to find jobs after the end of the dispute. After the dispute, Barnes was arrested and jailed for two months in the Mt. Eden Prison. Jock Barnes had remained belligerent and determined to continue the industrial actions through out the dispute. He refused to accept defeat and declared, "You will wait until hell freezes over before I order you back." (Coutts and Fitness, Protest in New Zealand) Barnes handed out loyalty cards to the union members who had "stood loyal right through," as one of his last duties for the union.(Coutts and Fitness, Protest in New Zealand)Toby Hill's family faced serious economic hardship when Toby Hills had been blacklisted and struggled to find a job after the dispute. In the years after the dispute, they were forced to sell their house, furniture and many of their belonging. During the dispute, waterside workers had attended meetings every morning hoping to see progress and regain their position in the waterfront. However, they were told to go home as no progress had been made and the resulting frustration affected the watersiders and their families negatively as marriages ended, families split, and "waterside suicides" led to a general feeling of hopelessness. Increased support for the National Party In 1 September 1951, the National Government called in for a snap elections and Holland won a resounding victory, with 54% of the vote and four more seats than in 1949. Snap election The National's slogan was "Who was going to run the country?", and snap elections had been called by the National as a response the Labour's challenge to Holland's hand heavy-handled tactics in the dispute. Holland, in contrast, was concerned about gaining support in an election the following year over the issue of rapidly rising inflation. The voters "replied" by giving the government 54% of the votes and 50 of the 80 seats; four more than in 1949.The votes continued to support the National Party which remained in government until 1957, when the Labour took over the government. Economic Effects By the time the dispute was called off, more than a million working days has been lost and the estimates of the cost to the country of the dispute range from 50million pounds to 150million pounds. According to a source, approximately 1,500,000 working days were lost during the 1951 Waterfront Dispute, in contrast, approximately 100,000 working days lost during the 1932 Depression Riot. Working days lost to the 1952 Waterfront Dispute was much greater than the 1932 Depression Riot, and this reflects the large participants of workers in the 1951 Dispute compared to the 1831 Depression Riot. Striking workers were out of job for a long period, although significantly less (less than 2%) were unemployed compared to the Depression era (approximately 9%) - refer to Graph 2. New Zealand's economy has reached back to its "heyday" as the wool sales increased during the Korean War, despite its export numbers were interrupted by the 1951 Waterfront Strike. Unemployment When the dispute ended, 2000 men in Auckland, and hundred more around the country, lost their jobs. Previous waterside leaders and workers who were involved in the dispute faced discrimination and blacklisiting for years, and were refused to return to the wharves. Some struggled to find jobs elsewhere, with companies erecting signs at their entrances stating "ex-wharfies need not apply." (Coutts and Fitness, Protest and New Zealand)This attitude was encouraged by the government for those returning to work, with employers screening all those who applied to work on the waterfront. However, by October 1951, many who had been in involved in the dispute did return - 43% of the total membership of the new individual unions came from the deregistered Watersiders' Union. Finaincial losses by the shipping companies were "evened out" by the increased freight rates. |
Long term economic consequence
General Decline in industrial disputes
Immediately after the 1951 Waterfront Dispute, the unionists repelled the idea of demanding claims through direct industrial action until the 1960's when there was a shortage of labour, as the workers bargained power with the employers. However, in the 1960's and 1970's, workers experienced the effects of high inflation and economic boom created after the Second World War, as the prices were rising faster than the workers' wages. In July 1968, the workers appealed the Arbitration Court for a general wage for all workers, however the Arbitration Court rejected the pay claims and decided to keep wages at same level. The industrial disputes rose by 70% the following year as the workers and the public lost faith and trust in the Arbitration system. However, by 1960's and 1970's, traditionally strong unions, such as those of the seaman, watersiders and miners have become less important. This was the result of the development of new technology that changed their role and weakened the bonds that had previously existed between workers.
Immediately after the 1951 Waterfront Dispute, the unionists repelled the idea of demanding claims through direct industrial action until the 1960's when there was a shortage of labour, as the workers bargained power with the employers. However, in the 1960's and 1970's, workers experienced the effects of high inflation and economic boom created after the Second World War, as the prices were rising faster than the workers' wages. In July 1968, the workers appealed the Arbitration Court for a general wage for all workers, however the Arbitration Court rejected the pay claims and decided to keep wages at same level. The industrial disputes rose by 70% the following year as the workers and the public lost faith and trust in the Arbitration system. However, by 1960's and 1970's, traditionally strong unions, such as those of the seaman, watersiders and miners have become less important. This was the result of the development of new technology that changed their role and weakened the bonds that had previously existed between workers.
Key Historical Idea
- The 1951 Waterfront Dispute was the largest and the longest industrial actions in the wharves and it was the closest that New Zealand had come to a nationwide general strike. The 1951 Waterfront represented a clash and a power struggle between the state, the employers and waterside workers. The total number of workers involved in the 1951 Waterfront Dispute (total of 22,000, 8% of union members) exceeded the number of workers involved in 1890 (8000 workers, 12.7% of union workers) and 1913 (16,000 workers, 16.4% of union members) waterfront strikes. The 1951 Waterfront Dispute lasted for 21 days, compared to 1893 waterfront strike which lasted for 10 weeks and 1913 waterfront strike that lasted for 8 workers. The militant workers were determined to achieve the goal in bringing changes in the Arbitration system and confronting the Government. Despite the dispute was militant Waterside Workers' Union's defeat, the dispute reflected that it was a culmination of dissatisfaction of waterside workers at the declining working conditions which the waterside workers wished to solve through the industrial actions.
- Despite the negative impacts of the 1951 Waterfront Dispute on New Zealand economy, it quickly recovered from economic boom and the increasing wool sales in post-wartime years, and maintained positive economic growth until the late 1960's. The 1951 Waterfront Dispute have had insignificant effect on New Zealand's growing economy.
- Militant unionism was dealt a crushing blow during 1951. Communism, a large political influence on the militant unions, became largely marginalized and were no longer being supported. The National's carefully chosen tactics of use of scab unions and heavy handed tactics was responsible for sudden decline in support for the militant unionism. Militant union workers were prosecuted after the industrial actions.
- The result of the strike was beneficial for the National government, as the New Zealand society continued to support the National's actions against the militant unionists and also in their anti-communism policy. They would stay in office until 1957.
- Government-backed arbitration system grew less important as employers and employees negotiated directly and the workers turned away from direct actions. There were few industrial dispute after the early 1960's and 1970's, and the strength of once-powerful seaman's and waterfront worker's union continued to decline.