Why Unions Don’t Need the Labor Party to Win for Workers
The Australian Labor Party was born out of the union movement during the turbulent industrial disputes of the late 19th century. The 1890s witnessed massive strikes, including the Maritime Strike and the Shearers' Strikes, which were violently suppressed by employers and the state. These strikes demonstrated the growing power of organised labour but also exposed the limits of industrial action in the face of systemic repression from powerful employers. Union leaders and reformists sought a political solution, leading to the formation of the ALP in 1891.
While the ALP’s creation was a strategic move to advance workers’ rights through legislation, it was also a compromise. The party offered a way to redirect militant union activity into the political sphere, ensuring that industrial action would not destabilise the economic system. The ALP’s early leadership positioned the party as a voice for moderation, advocating reforms that balanced worker demands with the need to maintain economic stability. From its inception, the ALP served not as a radical alternative to the system but as a mechanism to manage economic affairs for powerful corporations more efficiently by defusing militant labour struggles.
One of the clearest examples of the ALP’s alignment with wealthy interests is the Prices and Incomes Accord introduced by Bob Hawke in 1983. At a time when those at the top faced a crisis of stagflation and economic stagnation, the ALP stepped in to implement policies that the Coalition could not enforce. The Accord, framed as a cooperative agreement between the government, unions, and employers, sought to “stabilise” the economy by imposing wage restraint on workers while promising social reforms like Medicare and superannuation.Of course this actually just gave an enormous amount of power to employers.
Hawke described the Accord as "the cornerstone of the foundations we have laid," emphasising its role in creating "a more cooperative and productive economic environment." However, beneath this rhetoric lay a stark reality: the Accord was designed to enforce the wage cuts necessary for neoliberal economic reforms, policies that the Liberals, with their open hostility to unions, would have struggled to implement. By tying unions to the government’s agenda, the Accord pacified industrial action by constricting when unions could take industrial action and imposing harsher penalities on unions when they take what is now called Unprotected Industrial Action,This made unions complicit in policies that eroded their own power.
While the Accord delivered some social benefits, such as expanded healthcare and retirement savings, it came at a steep cost. Real wages stagnated, union density began to decline, and industrial action was heavily curtailed. The ALP effectively positioned itself as the elite’s instrument for neoliberal reform, managing capitalism by suppressing labour unrest and ensuring economic stability.
The ALP’s historical role as a manager of capitalism becomes even clearer when examining the broader context of its time in power. Labor governments are rarely elected during periods of stability or prosperity. Instead, they come to power when a significant section of those at the top are dissatisfied with Coalition policies or when they have no viable solutions. For example, in the early 1980s, the ALP was tasked with implementing neoliberal reforms that required wage cuts and economic restructuring. These were policies that the Liberal Party, with its combative stance toward unions, could not enforce without risking widespread industrial unrest.
Similarly, the last Labor government, under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, came to power during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Faced with a collapsing global economy, the bosses and elite turned to the ALP to manage the crisis, stabilise the system, and prevent social upheaval. While the ALP implemented stimulus measures to shore up the economy, it also ensured that the burden of recovery fell on workers rather than corporations.
The idea that the Labor Party is a left-wing alternative to Australian capitalism is a sad joke. Time and again, the ALP has demonstrated that its primary function is to stabilise capitalism, not to challenge it. Whether through the Accord, its response to the GFC, or its support for anti-union legislation, the ALP has consistently prioritised the interests of the wealthy and powerful over those of workers.
The ALP’s willingness to turn against unions when politically expedient is a recurring theme in its history. Two pivotal exaples stand out: the 1949 Coal Miners’ Strike and the 1989 Pilots’ Dispute.
In 1949, the Chifley Labor government responded to a coal miners’ strike demanding better wages and conditions by deploying the military to break the strike. Chifley justified this action by stating, “The government has a responsibility to ensure that essential services are maintained, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to fulfil that responsibility.” This marked a significant betrayal of the union movement, as the ALP sided with employers and used state power to suppress workers.
Similarly, during the 1989 Pilots’ Dispute, the Hawke government again used the military.This time the Royal Australian Air Force, to break a strike by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP). Hawke framed the strike as economically irresponsible, prioritising powerful corporations/airlines and governance over workers’ demands. He stated, “The government cannot and will not allow a small group to hold the nation to ransom.” These betrayals underscore the ALP’s role as a manager of capitalism, willing to suppress unions to preserve Economic inequality.
These historical examples demonstrate why unions cannot rely on the ALP or any political party, to advance their agenda. The ALP’s history of compromise and betrayal underscores the importance of union independence. When unions subordinate themselves to party politics, they risk losing their ability to act decisively on behalf of their members.
Independent unions are accountable only to their members, not to political leaders or external donors. This allows them to prioritise industrial action, grassroots organising, and direct advocacy. By focusing on their members’ needs rather than party platforms, unions can build stronger, more democratic organisations.
Unions have achieved their greatest victories through direct action, not political affiliation. The eight-hour workday, collective bargaining rights, and workplace safety laws were won through strikes, protests, and grassroots campaigns. These victories demonstrate the power of union militancy and solidarity.
To build a stronger future, unions must return to these roots. By embracing industrial action and member-driven organising, unions can rebuild their power and independence. They must also hold all political parties accountable, refusing to compromise their principles for the sake of party loyalty.
The Australian Labor Party was born out of the union movement, but its history is one of compromise and betrayal. From its inception as a tool to curb union militancy to its role in enforcing neoliberal reforms and suppressing industrial action, the ALP has consistently prioritised the interests of the wealthy elite over those of workers. Labor governments have historically stepped in when the elite are out of ideas, acting as a stabilising force to manage crises and implement policies that suppress worker power.
To truly serve workers, unions must operate independently, free from the constraints of party politics. By focusing on direct action and member-driven organising, unions can reclaim their power and continue to win for workers, without waiting for politicians to lead the way. The Labor Party is not a left-wing alternative to capitalism; it is its safety valve. The real power lies in the hands of workers themselves, united in solidarity and determined to fight for a better future.