Written By:
- Date published:
1:02 pm, October 18th, 2025 - 44 comments
Categories: labour, national, same old national, Unions, workers' rights -
Tags:
Jim Bolger has received fulsome accolades for a long life of public service.
He is a quintessential New Zealand figure. Deeply rooted in the provinces, likeable and pragmatic, sharp and prepared to put in hard yards to win a position, at first glance he was the epitome of the Right under Keynesianism, a pragmatic one New Zealander with a social conscience. Much of the commentary has focused on later years and his constructive approach to, for example, Treaty matters. Commentary has been warm and respectful.
One values high public service, even when undertaken from perspectives different from one’s own. In Jim Bolger’s case, I met him very briefly a couple of times and his avuncular qualities were to the fore. Others speak warmly of him. Yet the news of his death produced in me a far more complex response. The complexity lies in his 1990 government and its introduction of the Employment Contracts Act (ECA). One measure in a lifetime? Why would that interfere with the usual warm overview of a life of service?
Part of this response is personal. I came to New Zealand in 1988, at the end of a decade in which much of my research work with Phil O’Brien and Jacquie Roddick had been on Chile’s labour movement under Pinochet’s bloody junta. Extended fieldwork in Chile took me to some very dark places, which remain with me today.
A key focus of our research was the 1975 Plan Laboral, then the most developed application of Hayekian libertarian thought to the labour market. It excised collective organisation and rights from employment relations and substituted a binding individualism. It did so by a legal framework supported by terror. No words capture the bravery of workers who, in the face of this terror, kept alive the union message.
So, when in 1990, the National government sought to introduce a similar measure into New Zealand, it was shocking at three levels, One was the hatred of organised labour embodied in the measure. I choose hatred deliberately. Hayekian thought reserves its deepest loathing for the collective constraint of the individual imposed by unions. Another was the explicit and complete break with the employment relations model that had marked New Zealand’s Keynesian Accommodation. The third considered the recognised parallels with Chilean measures – less terror, but the same substance and intent. I understand Bill Birch was unhappy about comparisons made with Chile in commentaries I wrote at the time. He should have been deeply embarrassed.
Still, one might say, it’s one measure against a lifetime of achievement – where’s the balance? Unfortunately, it wasn’t simply one measure. It is the crucial measure in the break with the 1930s Keynesian framework. Collective bargaining and trade union organisation combine in the key weight for working people in the balance against Capital and its state. Their importance lies in power in production and the creation and distribution of wealth. Without that voice, presence and power, the Accommodation falls. Moreover, constraints on the unfettered power of Capital are fundamentally weakened. Jim Bolger championed the vital measure that wrecked the Accommodation, shifted the balance of power firmly to Capital, and promoted the love affair of NZ Capital with the ‘low road’.
And recuperating that balance once an ECA-type regime is in place seems impossible. Look at the last 35 years and the attempts under Labour-led governments to overturn the ECA. Margaret Wilson tried very hard, but her efforts created such counter-pressure that she moved from the Labour portfolio. We had to wait until Michael Wood to see another minister who fully understood that challenge. Even then, it was in a Labour tradition often seeing its links to organised labour as an anachronism, and a slightly embarrassing one at that. And we might remember the struggle that Helen Kelly waged to have the idea of Industry Standards Agreements (thereafter Fair Pay Agreements) taken seriously by Labour.
More than any other measure introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, the ECA did fundamental, ongoing and comprehensive damage to working people. It destroyed any notion of a revised accommodation between Capital and Labour. It is a key factor in New Zealand’s deteriorating economic performance (a suggestion for another day). It was a measure introduced by two archetypal NZ blokes – Jim and Bill – and the certainties of Ruth, who, together, failed this country. Let us acknowledge his life of service and, also, the critical and continuing damage done to New Zealand by Jim Bolger and his government.
Bang on!
It's time for a New Deal !
Alongside that, he oversaw the most extreme slashing of the welfare state and the introduction of systemic poverty into NZ. I'm sure he had admirable qualities, but for the many, many people harmed at the time, that's what he'll be remembered for.
Without in any way trying to diminish the immense and continuing harm done by Bolger, Birch, Richardson, Shipley and the rest of the Tory cabinet, with the Mother of All Budgets and the Employment Contracts Act, it's worth recalling also the surrender of the labor union movement, of which I was a part, before the battle had even begun.
Part of any fight-back to restore collective bargaining rights and universal social security for all kiwis would have to be the acknowledgement by those who were in leadership positions at the time (or their successors) who cautioned against action, that they got it wrong.
We can all make mistakes. We can reverse or over-come our errors if we admit them and work towards an ever-expanding unity of purpose between center-left political parties, trade unions, churches, social service organizations, and crucially Iwi. Going forward.
Aotearoa New Zealand has lost decades of progress and it may take take as long to restore us back up to the former trend line. But the longer the delay the longer the task.
why did they caution against action?
Many ideas about why at the time.
But I remember the meetings where the, so called, leadership said, “wait until it is in then protest it”.
Too late, once the right to strike legally in support of other Unions, or general political action, was removed.
The rumours were they had been brought off??
No-one was "bought off". I was there, at the CTU Executive meeting when the ideas about general strikes etc were discussed. There were some Unions whose members were supporting immediate industrial action and some Unions whose membership was not. There was a lengthy debate about the best form of action to take and when it should happen.
Those of us who worked for or with Unions could see what the ramifications would be, but thanks to the usual propaganda outlets and the demonization of the Union movement in the Press, for many of the Unions the membership were just not in support of immediate action.
Union Secretaries etc made the decision based on the feedback they had from the people they represented. That was their job.
Indeed, no-one was bought off. There was an interplay between some powerful, long established union leaders, conditioned by the Awards System, others with a more militant bent, but neither side was fully aware of the implications of the ECA. At that time, apart from Chile, easily presented as an aberration, the full Hayekian labour relations model had not been implemented anywhere. I think many felt NZ in the 1980s and early 90s endured a series of aberrations, about to be set right in labour relations with a renewal of a reformed Awards model. The fundamental damage done took longer to be understood, perhaps only when Labour's difficulties in this area became apparent.
Equally, there were powerful business and intellectual forces aware of the model in general, and the Chilean experience in particular, and able to influence the Bolger government in its favour. One understands that there were differences in the Bolger team about the measure and its implementation, an issue still to be fully understood.
Also, the implementation of the ECA showed the impact that a small group of thinkers and politicians, with a clear perspective, access to power and the tides of history running with them, can have.
Once the legislation was passed to say you could only strike at the end of a collective contract many unions were cowed by the threat that would have to pay fines, etc for striking outside this. They were afraid of going broke.
They also jumped in bed with employers agreeing with them by then to have three year terms, reducing working conditions as a trade-off for pay increases, allowing the mass casualisation of the workforce – even after the employment court ruled that a job belonged to a person after 12 months and then trading off pay increases for one off lump sum payments which suited casual workers rather than permanent. They removed local field officers and branch meetings where union delegates could get together in the public service and in most private sector workplaces union delegates disappeared altogether.
Union leadership sucked and they were unable to even remotely consider things like one year terms so you could at least have the potential to strike at least once per year.
Many workers just saw them as another branch of management – in bed with them and allowing our conditions to be eroded.
I was a very young delegate at that time, as delegates we were put under severe pressure from the Union to accept a pay deal that reduced allowances and terms and also gave a pay cut to a handful of guys that had been with the council for 30 years plus for what was a minimal pay increase maybe 2% and then 1.5% percent the following year. Any mention of industrial action like work to rule was shut down really quickly. Basically we were bullied into taking it to the members and the behavior at the ratification meeting from our regional rep towards the older guys who were going to lose out was disgraceful.
Was a real opener and tbh I lost a lot of faith in the Union itself after that. Did another year as a rep as I did enjoy it but called it quits as a rep before the next pay round.
I remember the pressure from "leadership" at the top table to "wait and see", while the "floor" were almost unanimously demanding a general strike.
I still don't understand why.
It seemed obvious to me even at that young age, that "after" would be too late.
Absolute idiots, like the Cooks and Stewards holding up a ship for 90 days over “brown chips” didn’t help the Union cause, of course.
My recollection is there was a split between Private Sector Unions and Public Sector Unions in voting for a general strike. Public Sector unions were afraid of being shut down which I am not saying wasn't real. This debate went on for at least a decade in the CTU. Nevertheless, there were mass marches and protests up and down the country – on one of my first days on the job as a union organiser for the SWU. TBH I don't think a general strike would have changed anything. This was a government with powerful friends, intent on smashing us, as the current one is too. –
Reform to the industrial scene was overdue,so well done Jim Bolger.
Because the "race to the bottom" has been so good for New Zealand?
So you approve of wages dropping in real terms over the last 3 decades? At the same time as housing prices, in particular, rose. Because that was the actual effect of the changes It don’t reform anything. It wasn’t ‘reform’. It was simple destruction by people who were too thick to think of actual alternatives.
It just dumped all of the existing legislation without putting anything useful in its place.
Perhaps you could be less of a pustulating wanker drooling over the prospect of being a troll, and say what you think that the positive effect of the ECA is? Because I can’t see any.
The positives are self evident.
Please list said positives. Just in case we missed them.
So you don't know or incapable of understanding them if they exist. Sounds like you are a simple parrot. Not even a troll.
Clearly you are incapable of participating in a robust debate – which is what this site is for. See the policy.
Last chance before I ban you permanently. Say something that indicates that you are intelligent and capable of robust debate. Otherwise you are just wasting my bandwidth.
Being challenged is met with the threat of censorship?
Challenge? No. Refusing to supply any evidence of reason behind your statements. Yes.
Irresponsible, unchecked behaviour by left wing inspired Unions.
Actually, mostly inspired by price rises, and high interest rates, making wages worth less every month.
"Irresponsible unchecked behaviour" by NZ and overseas businesses.
The last strike I was in, was trying to prevent a well known asset stripper, how he got his wealth, from running off with our contributions to our company super scheme. A degree of legalised theft, which made the Cooks and Stewards look like amateurs.
That is simply pathetic , devoid of fact full of jealous Left Wing rhetoric
A comedian, eh?
Yes renowned for my sense of humour. Thank you for your acknowledgment.
[I’m parking you in Pre-Mod for Lprent to deal with when he’s got time.
IMO, you’re disrupting debate, distracting others, and wasting their time, i.e., you’re trolling.
You refuse to engage in mature conversations and only give terse replies that remind of the days of the 140-character limit on Twitter (NB that’s not a compliment).
When advised to read this site’s Policy and engage in robust debate, you scream ‘censorship’, which is so typical of RW trolls that suffer from too much libertarian angst that their mythical ‘free speech’ is being threatened.
If Lprent doesn’t see it through this time, it’ll be just a matter of time before you comment here again and run foul of good faith exchange and draw my attention – Incognito]
Mod note
Any different to the ones in Oz of the time.
How well has Oz done without an ECA?
More growth and higher wages?
No the first thing is to have leverage.
The most left wing union was run by Anderson and Douglas – but truck drivers did not have any. They knew this and employers found them manageable/professional.
You remind me of Mr Thumb, unaware that unions aren't something separate.
They are the embodiment of their members.
If you really believe that you are delusional.
Our comparative performance to other nations?
I don't find the positives of falling real wages and rising house prices to be at all self-evident. "Non-existent" seems more applicable.
WTF is the industrial scene?
Industrial scene is in common usage.
In your lackwit comic book world, perhaps.
it had been refrormed in 1987 John and those reforms were starting to shift the face to IR. The ECA did nothing to reform anything in a positive sense, it was a big step backward
People who don’t belong to a Union are higher paid than those that do. Fact .
Further divorced from reality by the minute. Eh?
Did you study arithmetic with Willis and Seymour?
Pay rates have followed the percentage in Unions, downwards, since the 80’s. Now lagging far behind Labour productivity compared with pre 1990.
https://ojs.wgtn.ac.nz/LEW/article/view/1714#:~:text=This%20paper%20investigates%20the%20empirical%20relationship%20between%20real,are%20also%20falling%20behind%20increases%20in%20labour%20productivity.
” This paper investigates the empirical relationship between real wages and labour productivity in New Zealand. It first looks at the labour share of income (GDP) and finds that the share has fallen in recent years indicating that real wages are also falling behind increases in labour productivity”
https://business.scoop.co.nz/2025/07/21/kmart-workers-secure-new-industry-leading-two-year-living-wage-deal/
Thank you for writing this Nigel. It was a bit hard keeping quiet listening to all the accolades while remembering the damage he, Ruth and Bill did, which we have never really recovered from. I saw an interview with Guyon Espiner where Jim justified the 1990s onslaught as an economic necessity and had some strange anecdote about bargaining with unions during the 1980's. I said in the 1980's (when as workers at Marsden Point) we would leave if he ever became Minister of Labour ; he did and we did. But came home to worse. The decent society was a fraud. Yes, later in life, he did good work on Te Tiriti and even chaired the Fair Pay agreement working party quite well I'm told. But in an all of the speeches in the House, Willie Jackson summed it up best saying "I told Jim, we hated you". Willie and Syd's Clerical Union went bust early on along with the Post Office Union, the Workers Union, the Labourers Union and untold others. My own union lost two thirds of its members almost overnight – talking about Aged Care Workers, tearooms and restaurant workers, Hotel workers for example. I won't go on. It was a traumatic time and let the record show that.
There was the ERA in 2000. Enough to cause a winter of discontent – heavily promoted by the NZ Herald.
The governments abandonment of pay equity should be used to mobilise support for the The Fair Pay Agreement (industry awards).
In the matter of the government deliberately keeping staffing in hospitals at 80% – is there a way to connect this to international agreements as to safe working conditions and medical care standards (ILO etc)?
One should note the connection between the ECA, immigration settings, Work and Income policy and MW minimalism. To reduce wage levels and harrass the unemployed.
Bolgers legacy is 2 huge planks in the agenda which has yielded a massive and growing wealth divide in NZ. Benefit cuts which impoverished those at the bottom and the ECA which stopped the division of the nations wealth between capital and labour. Douglas had already started that work with his trickle up policies and delusions of 'light at the end of the tunnel' type lies. Bolger cemented it in. You can easily trace the dots back to his time as PM
The other part to the equation was the removal of the estate tax in 1993.
We remain to this day the only nation in the OECD without a CGT or estate tax.
Ireland and UK have both, as well as gift duty and stamp duty.
hope after next election we have changed some of that