A-Infos (en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: The Employment Relations Amendment Bill - A Class War on Workers in Aotearoa (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill currently before Parliament 
represents one of the most aggressive and naked assaults on 
working-class power in Aotearoa in a generation. While it has been 
framed by government ministers and business lobbyists as a necessary 
"modernisation" of employment law, its real function is far more 
transparent. This is not about flexibility, efficiency, or productivity. 
It is about reasserting employer domination over labour at a time when 
capital feels threatened by rising costs, worker resistance, and the 
slow unravelling of the neoliberal settlement that has underpinned New 
Zealand capitalism since the 1980s. As the Council of Trade Unions has 
correctly identified, this Bill rivals, and in some respects surpasses, 
the Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s in its hostility to organised 
labour. That alone should set alarm bells ringing for anyone with even a 
passing interest in working-class survival.

At its core, the Bill seeks to rewrite the basic terms on which workers 
and employers relate to one another, not by correcting an imbalance of 
power, but by deepening it. The mythology of employment law under 
capitalism has always rested on the idea of a "fair bargain" between two 
equal parties. In reality, the employment relationship has never been 
equal. One side owns capital, controls access to wages, and can absorb 
risk; the other sells their labour because the alternative is poverty. 
The Employment Relations Act, for all its limitations, at least 
acknowledged this structural inequality and attempted to moderate it 
through collective bargaining rights, good faith obligations, and 
mechanisms for challenging unjust treatment. The Amendment Bill strips 
away even these modest concessions, exposing the raw class logic beneath 
the law.

One of the most dangerous elements of the Bill is its deliberate erosion 
of the distinction between employee and contractor. By introducing a new 
category of "specified contractor" and weakening the long-established 
"real nature" test, the legislation opens the door to widespread 
misclassification. This is not accidental. It is a direct response to 
workers who have successfully challenged their bogus contractor status, 
most notably gig economy workers such as Uber drivers. Rather than 
accept court decisions affirming that these workers are employees 
entitled to basic protections, the state has chosen to intervene on 
behalf of capital, rewriting the law to ensure future claims fail before 
they begin. This is class power operating exactly as designed. When 
workers win through the courts, the rules are changed to prevent it 
happening again.

The implications of this shift are enormous. Once workers are pushed 
into contractor status, they lose access to minimum wage protections, 
paid leave, sick leave, personal grievance rights, and collective 
bargaining. They are atomised, isolated, and forced to negotiate 
individually with companies that hold all the cards. This is 
particularly devastating for migrant workers, Maori workers, women, and 
young people, who are already overrepresented in insecure and low-paid 
work. The Bill does not simply allow exploitation - it actively 
facilitates it, embedding precarity as a legal norm rather than an 
aberration.

Equally destructive is the weakening of the personal grievance system. 
The right to challenge unjust dismissal has long been one of the few 
protections workers possess against arbitrary employer power. Under the 
Amendment Bill, that right is significantly curtailed, especially for 
higher-income workers, who may be excluded entirely unless their 
employer agrees otherwise. This so-called "mutual agreement" is a farce. 
In a labour market defined by power imbalance, the employer's consent is 
not a neutral condition but an assertion of authority. The message is 
clear, if you earn above a certain threshold, your job security exists 
only at your boss's discretion. Speak up, organise, resist, and you can 
be removed without meaningful recourse.

The removal of the 30-day rule further exposes the Bill's anti-union 
intent. That rule ensured new workers were automatically covered by 
collective agreements during their first month of employment, giving 
them immediate access to union-negotiated conditions and a breathing 
space in which to decide whether to join. Its abolition is a calculated 
strike at union density. By forcing new hires onto individual contracts 
from day one, employers gain the upper hand before workers have time to 
understand their rights or build collective confidence. This is 
union-busting by legislative stealth, achieved not through overt 
repression but through procedural manipulation.

Taken together, these changes amount to a systematic dismantling of 
collective labour power. They weaken unions, fragment the workforce, and 
normalise insecure employment relationships that favour capital 
accumulation at the expense of human need. This is not an accidental 
outcome of poorly drafted legislation. It is the intended result of a 
political project that treats labour as a cost to be minimised rather 
than as human beings whose lives depend on stable and dignified work.

The broader political context makes this trajectory even clearer. The 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill does not exist in isolation but 
forms part of a wider rollback of worker protections. Pay equity 
mechanisms have been gutted under urgency, undermining decades of 
feminist struggle for wage justice. Fair Pay Agreements have been 
repealed before they could take root, denying entire sectors the chance 
to lift conditions collectively. Sick leave entitlements and strike 
protections have been repeatedly targeted, all in the name of "economic 
growth" that somehow never translates into better lives for those who 
actually produce society's wealth. Each reform follows the same pattern 
of take from workers, give to employers, and dress the outcome up as 
common sense.

From an anarcho-communist perspective, none of this is surprising. The 
state is not a neutral arbiter between competing interests but an 
instrument shaped by and for the ruling class. When capital feels 
confident, it tolerates limited concessions to labour. When it feels 
threatened, it reasserts control. The current wave of employment 
"reforms" reflects a capitalist system under strain, facing declining 
productivity, global instability, and growing discontent. Rather than 
addressing these crises structurally, the state has chosen the easiest 
path - intensifying exploitation.

Trade unions have rightly condemned the Bill as a historic attack, but 
condemnation alone is not enough. Parliamentary opposition, submissions 
to select committees, and appeals to fairness will not stop a government 
committed to disciplining labour. The history of working-class gains in 
Aotearoa and elsewhere teaches a clear lesson: rights are not granted 
from above; they are forced from below. The eight-hour day, the weekend, 
minimum wages, health and safety protections - all were won through 
struggle, not persuasion. They were secured by workers organising, 
striking, and refusing to accept the terms imposed upon them.

This moment demands a revival of that tradition. Rank-and-file 
organising, militant unionism, and solidarity across sectors are not 
optional extras but necessities. Where the law is used to weaken 
workers, direct action becomes not only legitimate but essential. 
Strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns, and collective refusal remain the 
most effective tools available to the working class. They disrupt the 
flow of profit and remind capital that without labour, nothing moves.

At the same time, resistance must extend beyond the workplace. Mutual 
aid networks, strike funds, and community support structures can help 
mitigate the risks workers face when they challenge employer power. 
Political education is equally crucial. Workers must understand that 
what is happening is not the result of bad leadership or poor policy 
choices, but the predictable outcome of a system built on exploitation. 
Without that clarity, resistance risks being defused into nostalgia for 
a kinder capitalism that never truly existed.

Ultimately, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not just about 
employment law. It is about who holds power in society and whose 
interests the state exists to serve. By stripping away collective 
protections and normalising insecurity, the Bill seeks to discipline 
labour into submission, ensuring that workers remain fragmented, 
fearful, and compliant. The response cannot be limited to defending the 
remnants of a compromised system. It must point beyond it, toward a 
society in which work is organised for human need rather than profit, 
and where the power to decide how we live and labour rests with workers 
themselves.

The stakes are high. If this Bill passes unchallenged, it will embolden 
further attacks on workers' rights and deepen the erosion of collective 
power. But resistance is not futile. History shows that even the most 
entrenched systems can be shaken when workers act together. The question 
is not whether the law is unjust, that is already clear, but whether the 
working class is prepared to organise, resist, and fight back.

https://awsm.nz/the-employment-relations-amendment-bill-a-class-war-on-workers-in-aotearoa/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en