Mateship and Moneymaking

Book excerpt: Mateship and Money Making – Summary of Book A ferocious ‘war’ erupted in remote outback Australia in 1983. Shearers were on strike. ‘Scab’ shearers had to be protected against invading mobs of unionists. In scattered and isolated woolsheds sheds the question was: should sheep-shearers be allowed to use ‘wide combs’? Australian merinos had always been shorn with ‘narrow combs’. Until a recent ruling industrial award expressly forbad wide combs. Initiated by the graziers (way back in 1926) the rule had become shearers’ folklore. Wide combs were not just wrong – but positively evil. This was the 1980s, but the roots of the problem went back to the 1890s. Shearers got paid per hundred sheep, not by the hour or the day, so the opportunity to get a bigger tally with the wide comb was something to be welcomed - one would think. Indeed, that was certainly the case. But fanatical opposing opinion could not easily be overcome. It was ‘un-Australian’ to even think about it. But equally, it was ‘un-Australian’ NOT to be allowed a free choice to use whatever equipment did the job best. Diametrically opposed points of view were quite irreconcilable. The oldest and most powerful trade union in the nation’s history stood behind the strike. The Australian Workers Union, known wide and far by its acronym ‘the AWU’, had risen in the 1890s. Ruthlessly efficient at grass roots organiser, God help any shearer trying to occupy a stand without an AWU ticket. And God help any greedy upstart questioning AWU wisdom on industrial matters. The shearing workforce had always been a rambunctious, contrary lot. The work was punishingly strenuous as well as highly skilled. Infectious group camaraderie governed its cult of ‘mateship’. This was also prone to impenetrable ‘insider-outsider’ idiosyncrasies. There was money to be made for those who could stand the pace, but strong tribal loyalties to the union dictated customs and rules in the woolshed. Many different types gravitated into shearing. At one end were staunch unionists preaching ‘mateship’ and class solidarity. At the other end self-improving moneymakers accumulated funds get started as farmers. For the most part the two groups ‘got on’, or at least tolerated one another. Hard core class warriors enjoyed the competitive camaraderie and were not themselves against making money. Moneymakers were not averse to a bit of class solidarity if it bolstered shearing rates of pay. They were less tolerant of rules which slowed them down. In its foundation years the AWU had been pugnacious and militant. Violent strikes in the 1890s did not go well for it. Too many members were farmers who ‘scabbed’ during strikes. The arrival of contract shearing further diluted the link between ‘mateship’ and union solidarity. In 1902 moneymaking professional shearers were so exasperated by AWU belligerence towards woolgrowers, they formed a rival ‘Machine Shearers Union’, more friendly to the graziers. AWU leaders had to use all their guile and cunning to outwit the upstart MSU. The AWU moderated its militancy, adopted a policy of opposing strikes, and put its faith in the newly established Arbitration Court to fix wages and settle disputes. Unfortunately for the AWU, factions within its rank-and-file remained attracted to the mythology of class war against the graziers. During World War I, the Arbitration Court was very laggard in updating the shearing award and militants had their chance. In defiance of the AWU a very successful strike was organised in Queensland. This opened the door for a militant faction with communist connections in the interwar period. The AWU’s firm policy of ‘arbitration not direct action’ was ridiculed. The AWU denigrated them as ‘bogus disrupters’ and excoriated their point of view, but at the same time adopted militant-sounding rhetoric. The union could not afford to be accused of being on the side of the bos