“What the f**k happened?”

The most militant union in Australia, the CFMEU’s construction division, is under government control. Hundreds of officials are banned from ever holding union office again. For at least the next three years the union is ruled by a King’s Counsellor, able to hire and fire whoever he wants and dispose of union assets at will. All union EBAs are subject to special review, already leading to pay cuts for thousands. Organisers and delegates are being purged, with those deemed “obstructionist” by the administrator facing up to two years jail time.

How is this possible? This is a union whose leadership broke anti-union laws countless times, who stared down three Royal Commissions and the union-busting ABCC, and on occasions risked their own imprisonment. Leading up to the takeover, Queensland secretary Michael Ravbar swore “We will defend each other to the ends of the earth.” New South Wales secretary Darren Greenfield recently declared he would defend the union to the “last breath in my fucking body.” Former Victorian secretary John Setka repeatedly vowed that no one would ever get the CFMEU.

There was no lack of verbal militancy in the union’s leadership. At times, this also translated into militancy on the ground. But the reality is these leaders were not up for an all-out confrontation with the Labor government they had worked hard to put and keep in power—which is what was desperately required to repel this historic assault. The CFMEU had in fact been a key part of the ALP machine, even after Albanese expelled Setka in 2019. Setka’s quitting a day before the “Building Bad” media hitjob captures the problem. He says he quit because he thought he had a deal with the ACTU and government not to put the union into administration in exchange for his resignation. If true, this is a damning admission officials knew Albanese was contemplating a takeover before “Building Bad” even broke, and kept this secret from the membership. Even more damning, it reveals the touching faith of Setka & co in the words of the snake oil labour statesmen that run the ALP and ACTU.

Thoroughly schooled in the wheeling and dealing of Labor Party politics, even as preparation for administration began CFMEU officials hoped against hope to finagle a deal to avoid outright takeover. National secretary Zach Smith attempted to appease the bloodhounds with whom he shared the high councils of the ALP—throwing the Victorian leadership under a bus by taking over the state branch and pleading them guilty. As Smith spent the weeks before the takeover frantically knocking on the door of Fair Work Commission boss Murray Furlong, pleading to be given the time of day, the government was busy putting its ducks in a row, setting up the machinery for administration. In the meantime, members were kept in line with bogeyman stories of the union being isolated while the bureaucrats dangled the prospects for a fight “eventually.” Workers were kept waiting…waiting…waiting.

Make no mistake, this takeover could have been spiked on day one. A single phone call and tens of thousands of construction workers would have walked off the job to defend the union. This would have inevitably escalated into a broader class battle against a Labor government determined to assure financiers it could bring down the cost of labour in these unsettled times. Equally determined to avoid such a battle, CFMEU officials simply handed over the keys. No strike, no stoppage, nothing.

Having been told to wait for the call, members then demanded to know what the hell happened. So officials moved to organise a one-day strike four days after the takeover to let members blow off steam. This strike could have been an opportunity to launch a rearguard action to turn the situation around by occupying building sites and locking them down with mass pickets until the administrators were sent packing. Instead, construction union officials served up a smorgasbord of hollow rage against the ALP, a pie-in-the-sky appeal in the bosses’ court, and promises of future action in the sweet by-and-by. Members were sent back to work. The union had been put into administration without a shot fired.

A pre-emptive assault

Why did the ruling class strike now with such determination? And how could the leadership give up the fight so easily? Attacks on the union have been stared down and weathered for years—including many of the same spurious allegations today justifying administration. This time, however, the modus operandi of the CFMEU leadership crumbled in the face of resolute commitment by the bosses to crush the union.

Over the past few years, the CFMEU have copped the ire of the bosses who saw the union as a notable exception to the deteriorating working conditions and declining real wages of most workers in Australia. The “Building Bad” hitjob showed several times one delegate saying that this year’s Victorian EBA promised such good times in which there would be “not enough Ford Rangers in the fucking country. First-year apprentices are going to get Raptors.” CFMEU workers have been more than willing to fight for their interests, famously even rebelling against their own leaders’ COVID lockdown sell-out outside the CFMEU office in Melbourne. Bucking the trend of workers’ economic decline was not only immediately unaffordable for profit-hungry developers, it also put the CFMEU and its militant base in a real position to launch a broader working-class fightback for even more.

As discontent in the population simmers over the cost-of-living, health and housing crises, Australian capitalists are anxious about the working class flexing its muscles in the coming period. Striking against the CFMEU was therefore increasingly necessary. It helped that the ruling class had a Labor government in power—their preferred instrument for union busting while keeping the working class as a whole on side. Thus, a pre-emptive assault could be carefully and methodically organised, avoiding any sharp response which could blow up in their face. More than just bringing one union to heel, this attack was calibrated to send a clear warning to the rest of the workers movement to keep their heads down: sit down and shut up—or else. This is the real context of the attack on the CFMEU, and why it meant a throwing down of the gauntlet to the whole working class.

With a clever media campaign, which sought to portray CFMEU workers as a “privileged” minority, the ruling class aimed to turn discontent at a decaying social order into a bludgeon against the union rather than a source of solidarity. By assaulting the union the ruling class drew a clear line, and once the challenge was made, there was no going back. Albanese walked a tightrope, attacking a union which had been a pillar of Labor’s base. The ALP were backed by the ACTU bureaucracy, and fought to keep elements of the CFMEU leadership, and of other “left” unions (AMWU, ETU, etc.) on board or pacified. Construction and Building Unions Superannuation Fund (Cbus) positions, which were made vacant by the administrator, were then awarded to CFMEU and MUA tops like Paddy Crumlin. When administrators marched into their offices they were studded with “unionist” cred: some had history in the union movement (including one ex-CFMEU official); one cynically declared that they would “stand up and fight back.”

But for those leading the attack there was never any question of backing down. Albanese’s leaning on and batting for the bosses was abundantly clear, exemplified by collaboration with the Liberal/ National Coalition to push through the legislation to put the union under administration without legal recourse. In fact, the ALP posed themselves as tougher on the CFMEU than the Coalition, arguing that the Coalition’s union-busting strategy (from the ABCC to de-registration) was weaker and less effective than the ALP’s. Much of the ruling class appear to agree.

In times now past, militant language and guerrilla tactics involving the strategic skirting of bourgeois legality could win gains and stave off some attacks. But now things have shifted. At this juncture for Australian capitalism, in which the gutting of the union had become the task of the day, the whole edifice of the CFMEU leadership’s union militancy simply collapsed. At its core, the strategy has been to “make capitalism work” for the CFMEU membership, which ultimately amounted to getting the Labor Party into government and exerting pressure on it through a mixture of tough talk, turf wars, factional squabbling, and occasional militancy on the ground.

These officials deeply imbibe the Laborite myth that workers in Australia and their bosses have a shared “national” interest. Their careers have been predicated on attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable interests of proletarians whose lives depend on their ability to sell their labour power, and capitalists whose profits, and hence power, derive from the exploitation of that labour power. In reality this class collaborationism could only lead, in any decisive class showdown, to the subordination of the interests of the working class to the financial parasites who live off the fruits of their labour. This is why, at the critical moment as Albanese brought down the hammer, the CFMEU tops tied the union to him in their desperate attempt to either squirm out of the way or convince him to change his mind and back down—something he and the ruling class would not do.

The whole situation called out desperately for a class-struggle strategy separate from and opposed to the existing leadership’s blind alley. The task for those who understood this was to delineate why the CFMEU bureaucracy’s strategy was doomed, to concretely counterpose a new path based on the understanding that to defend the union it was necessary to break with the old course. Red Battler’s intervention into the struggle to defend the CFMEU fought for just this; any left intervention which did not would end up as impotent as the existing union leaders it tailed behind.

Where was the left?

A betrayal of such proportions by the CFMEU leadership provided a historic opportunity for the left to demonstrate how to fight for an alternative, revolutionary leadership for the working class in a critical struggle. Unfortunately the record is not good. Different leftists bought into the bosses’ story that “criminal infiltration” was the issue. Socialist Alternative (SAlt) stood out in this regard, regurgitating Smith’s concerns about serious “criminal conduct.” They continually complained that the problem with administration was that it was targeting the union “at least as much for being industrially effective as it is for allegedly harbouring criminal gangs”—as though it might be okay if it just focused on the “criminal infiltration.” Having read the legal briefs they did conclude “administration will dramatically weaken the CFMEU’s industrial effectiveness.” But simultaneously they downplayed the attack’s severity and wide-reaching implications. Don’t worry too much: “Construction workers still have the potential to shape the outcomes of federal administration through their industrial strength.”

Construction workers didn’t have the luxury of entertaining such illusions. While SAlt accepted administration as a done deal, these workers, knowing their livelihoods were on the line, twice walked out in their tens of thousands. This forced SAlt to accept that a significant struggle of contending class forces was taking place, one in which the workers understood they had a real stake.

There was clearly equivocation in SAlt’s leadership about defending the CFMEU. As part of the “Building Bad” hatchet job, Nine Network eventually found one solitary ex-CFMEU activist, Robbie Cecala, prepared to back the takeover. When this rat was defended on the Unions Australia Facebook page by another former CFMEUer, SAlt cadre Liz Ross rushed to extend her unequivocal “solidarity” to these bosses’ stooges.

If SAlt seemed at times unsure of whose side they were on, they left no doubt as to their one abiding loyalty: to the “left” bureaucrats who had just given away the shop. To the degree they commented after administration, it was to invariably praise the sellouts and their spokesmen. The bureaucracy’s arse-covering 24-hour rally after the fact was described uncritically as a “vital and encouraging first blow.” Unsurprisingly SAlt were duly rewarded for this sycophancy by being given key speaking slots in post-administration rallies organised by the officials.

The Revolutionary Communist Organisation (RCO) appear a very different animal, often distinguishing themselves with radical-sounding calls for red revolution. But while sometimes groping in the right direction, for opposition to the union bureaucracy, their inability to delineate from the existing leadership a way forward in the struggle to defend the union left their intervention lifeless and frequently backwards. The RCO declared from the start that “the working class must resolutely oppose any and all attempts by the state to repress, manage, or administer the trade union movement.” But in an effort to show how red their red was, their first statement on the attack entirely accepted and foregrounded the bosses’ framework of union criminality and a “long standing friendship” of the CFMEU with “underworld figures.” Joining the reactionary chorus targeting former leader John Setka, with no basis beyond his Croatian background, the RCO went so far as to accuse the CFMEU leadership of being riddled with “fascist Ustasha sympathisers” and collaborators!

Consistently, the RCO dismissed the severity of the attack on the union movement, equating “ACTU cretinism and Setka-ite gangsterism,” as “two sides of the same coin—class collaboration.” But to equate the open union-busting ACTU leadership with those being removed to enable a government takeover is to provide a justification for not taking a side in this naked union-busting. Contradicting this nonchalance, their call for “All out to defend the CFMEU!” ends up an empty slogan, not backed by anything to demonstrate that communists have something to offer the struggle to defend the union.

The conclusion of their first statement was that “the CFMEU remains a conservative, economistic trade union which lies in bed with some of the most atavistic layers of the middle bourgeois”—and that “trade unions, absent a militant, class struggle orientation and a communist politics, are simple economic organisations that do not fundamentally threaten the capitalist order.” Fine, but these abstract formulations do nothing to motivate why it is necessary to wage a real struggle to defend the union, or to trace a line against the betrayal of that struggle by the CFMEU leadership—the only basis to propagate militant, class-struggle communist politics. Instead, a crude and capitulatory line is drawn on “corruption” and “fascist gangsterism.”

The fight for revolutionary leadership is a fight to tear CFMEU militants and others away from their existing “left” leadership by showing how its prostration to the ALP renders it incapable of even effectively defending the unions. The RCO’s lack of this perspective was evident in Partisan! No. 3’s report of the last Queensland rally. Effusive of the keynote speech by SAlt cadre Bec Barrigos, the one criticism offered is that it did not break out of the generalised framework of “economism.” But Barrigos put forward not one word of criticism of the union leadership. So it is perhaps not surprising the RCO’s report was unable to identify the main problem with the bureaucracy: that their Laborite program of seeking to reconcile the interests of the working class with the Australian bourgeoisie paralyses the necessary struggle against the bourgeoisie, its government, and its attack on the union.

Grasping for a way forward, the RCO correctly calls “For a Red Faction in every union!” However, in an application of their general project of left unity, they describe this simply as: “Socialists, communists, and all those committed to the organised power of the working class must come together to organise rank-and-file committees.” This doesn’t cut it. If these committees are not based in the first place on opposition to the current union misleadership, and to their betrayal of the concrete struggles of today, then they can only become a tool of this same misleadership.

The case in point is the Rank & File: Hands off the CFMEU group (now Defend the Unions—Defend the CFMEU) set up by various leftists including Socialist Alliance and Solidarity. This committee undoubtedly attracted genuine militants looking to fight the administration, but rather than organise them on the basis of opposition to the tops’ disastrous strategy, it has uttered not one direct criticism of the “left” leaders responsible for the takeover. Thus, their first public meeting promoted recently-retired former CFMEU national secretary Christy Cain—an expert at making empty declarations about the need for struggle while amnestying the left Laborite union bureaucracy.

Since then they have become ever more openly a vehicle of the old leadership. Even earlier polite differences with the sacked leadership’s High Court appeal have fallen away. In line with this they dissolve the fight for a class-struggle opposition within the union into a “broader campaign” to mobilise “community” opinion in opposition to the takeover.

Their role as handmaidens for “left” officials was seen in their grovelling apology to Victoria’s Building Industry Group union leaders when these union tops denounced their planned rally against impending administration back in August. Rather than use this to expose these traitors’ fear of upsetting the ALP and ACTU the group rushed to assure these sellouts: “We have heard [your] concerns, and have decided to cancel our planned protest. We do not want to harm the campaign to defend our union, and want unity in action with our officials.” The only “action” from these officials before administration was to quash any action!

Solidarity’s parent group in Britain, the SWP, are long-versed in setting up “rank and file” groups in the unions. These are only ever conceived of as vehicles to pressure the existing misleadership to the left, or for “progressive” out-bureaucrats to unseat reactionary incumbents. What is really needed in the unions are class-struggle caucuses, linked to a revolutionary party, based on challenging today’s sellouts for leadership of the unions on the basis of applying a socialist program tailored to the needs of workers in their particular industries and situations.

One can scream or make solemn admonitions all you want about Red factions, Red Armies, Red revolution and so on, as the RCO does. But if you have no strategy to break the working class from their left Laborite misleaders, then you are never going to be able to realise these things, and the verbal militancy becomes merely a cover for the lack of such a strategy. This puts you in the same place as SAlt, Solidarity et al., who leave the workers to the tender mercies of the labour traitors who employ their own verbal militancy to cover their treachery.

Rather than disappear the fundamental bureaucratic obstacle to a successful struggle or try to substitute eternal dogmatic formulae for a revolutionary strategy, the SL put forward a concrete path of action flowing from the objective needs of the struggle at each step. Our interventions struck a chord among broad layers of construction militants at different times because, while always guided by the final socialist goal, it was grounded at all times in a materialist appraisal of the shifting balance of contending class forces. Key was the constant perspective to break workers from the death grip of their Laborite misleaders to take the struggle forward.

For CFMEU members the struggle is not over. With the union under the jackboot, the coming period will bring a series of defensive struggles as employers seek to take advantage of the stranglehold to drive down wages and conditions. For the working class to come out on top, every opportunity needs to be seized and turned into a fight against administration, the immediate obstacle to any new victory. But for any struggle to be waged with success, militants, the left, and the whole workers movement must assimilate the lessons of how we got here.