'This is Not Charity': The Masculine Work of Strike Relief

On 19 February 1951, Auckland waterfront workers were locked out. For the next five months, 2,000 workers and those dependent on their earnings had to survive without wages. By the end of February, the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Waterside Workers Union (NZWWU) had set up a relief committee to meet members' most urgent needs. The complexity of the relief committee's task was hinted at in the first weeks of the dispute when the lockout newsletter contained this notice for members:

The committee desires to impress on all members that this is not charity. The Distribution of goods to necessitous cases is a responsible, legitimate Trades Union function.¹

A week later, men in the relief distribution depot refused to work alongside women, and women were excluded for the remainder of the dispute. In 1951 the Auckland relief committee prioritized distributing welfare in a way that did not reproduce class hierarchies, which they did through enforcing gender segregation. The relief committee set up an alternative welfare system under circumstances very much not of their own choosing, circumscribed both by their limited resources and the cultural environment that they operated in.

In New Zealand, as elsewhere, conflict between employers and workers on the waterfront was at a peak in the aftermath of the Second World War.² The vast majority of goods that came in or out of New Zealand did so on a ship, and were loaded and unloaded by watersiders (watersiders and wharfies were the local terms for those who worked on the waterfront, rather than dockers or longshoremen).³ The importance of waterfront work had created a militant unionized workforce, which politicians and the press resented and demonized.⁴ Therefore the key struggle over the shape of the postwar industrial landscape in New Zealand was fought on the waterfront. In February 1951, a wage dispute between watersiders and employers escalated, as watersiders refused overtime and in response ship-owners locked them out. The National government took control of the dispute with the goal of breaking the militant NZWWU. Workers in industrialized meat-processing (known as freezing workers), seamen and coal miners went on strike in support of watersiders. Altogether over 15,000 workers were locked out or on supporting strike for five months.⁵ The dispute ended in July 1951 with victory for the government and a defeat for the union; the NZWWU was destroyed. The National Party called a snap election in September 1951, fought on its record during the lockout, and was returned to government with an increased majority. The 1951 dispute set up a new postwar order with defined limits on workers' power and cemented National as the natural party of government, but also dispersed militant former waterside workers throughout the workforce.⁶ Before it had even ended, unionists were claiming 1951 would be remembered as one of New Zealand's great industrial conflicts, and in the decades that followed ensured this prediction came true.⁷

The 1951 waterfront lockout and supporting strikes were a national dispute: all cities, and almost all towns of any size, had locked-out or striking workers. However, relief was organized locally by union branches. The Auckland relief committee's decisions during the 1951 waterfront lock-out are well documented, unlike other branches, where very little material has survived. Thanks to the diligent work of historian Herbert Roth, union records have survived. They include minutes, a cash-book with details of what was spent over one month and reports of the relief committee.⁸ In addition, in February 1951, Cabinet passed emergency regulations that criminalized a range of union activity, including providing relief to water-siders. The regulations were widely flouted, but criminalization greatly increased the recording of relief activity by the police. Their files relating to 1951 were made available to researchers in 2008.⁹ The union and police sources provide detailed information about how relief was provided and what was distributed. The 1951 waterfront dispute has also been well served by oral history interviews and these provide information on how union members experienced, remembered (or forgot) and told stories...