From Rebel Worker Paper of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Network
Vol.43 No.1 (239) May – June 2025 www.rebelworker.org

Debate on the Woolworths Distribution Workers' Strike & Corporate Union “Smoke & Mirrors” Performance

Back in December 2024, Woolworths distribution workers accepted an Enterprise Bargain Agreement after 17 days on strike which cost the company upwards of $140 million dollars. The strategy of organising undertaken by the United Workers Union (UWU) demonstrates what it means to walk the daggers edge between exercising workers power by fighting bosses and avoiding union de-registration and government fines. We think it’s an interesting case study to discuss whether or not it represents a viable strategy for a fighting workers movement longer term.
On the 21st of November 2024, 1,800 Woolworths and Lineage workers kicked off indefinite strikes across three states, a total of five distribution hubs and cold storage units run by Primary Connect, the supermarket giant’s supply chain arm. Organisers remarked that it was a 10 year process leading up to the strike action. The strategy was to line up the EBA (Enterprise Bargain Agreement) negotiations for the five shops and strike to demand an immediate pay rise of 25% with further rises indexed to inflation, as well as changes to an AI productivity “framework” that scores workers according to a speed metric, so management can discipline and even fire those who fail to meet 100 percent targets. Woolworths is one half of Australia’s supermarket duopoly and controls 37% of the country’s grocery market. Striking workers managed to shut down 75% of Woolworths output.
To further crank up the pressure on Woolworths bosses, the strike action coincided with the holiday season across Victoria and New South Wales. News coverage showed shelves notably empty of essential items like toilet paper, nappies, bread, meat, dairy, frozen food, with drinks at Dan Murphy’s and BWS also affected. Every night, corporate news stations found people to sook about the strike and blame the workers for ruining Christmas, while Christmas-themed ads for Woolworths played in the ad breaks.
The Dandenong South warehouse saw 200 workers on strike. It’s responsible for 40% of Woolworths output and 85 percent of the workforce had joined UWU since the warehouse opened. Only 10 workers in the whole warehouse were in the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), a notoriously yellow union. Notably, Woolworths moved distribution to the location after shuttering it’s Hume store which was heavily unionised, gutting 700 jobs all up and promising an increase in ‘efficiency’ and ‘productivity’ with half the employment rate at the new site.
Community, left-wing groups and other unionists showed out in support. Victorian Socialists were prominent early on. Over the length of the strike the picket was maintained by a small but committed group of militant unionists (not in UWU) parking their cars in front of the driveway and playing uno on the nature strip.
Woolworths’ strike-breaking tactics are worthy of note. They locked workers out, erected bollards over the main driveway, and installed Wilson Security guards who occasionally reported the movements of workers and supporters to management. Worryingly, there was a police solar trailer with cameras surveillance of workers and supporters for the duration of the action – which was also noted at the Webb Dock picket earlier this year.
Labour hire company ‘Programmed’ came to the aid of Woolworths, keeping what picketers dubbed ‘alternative workers’ in an abandoned building down the road until they could be piled onto buses at a moment’s notice when security reported a sufficient opening in the picket.
Woolies bosses left no stone unturned, sooking to the pro-boss FairWork commission, which ruled against the workers, arguing that UWU was not bargaining in “good faith” with Woolworths, and that the picket lines were “obstructive” and a “metaphorical gun” that undermined the bargaining process. The possibility of protected action for unions stops just short of disrupting companies like Woolworths from continuing business as usual with scab labour. Strikes are permissible, but not pairing them with a hard picket of the workplace would gut the bargaining power of the strike and render it futile. In this scenario, striking would be akin to quitting “en masse”.
The capitalist class has been clear that it would prefer if workers came to the bargaining table and asked politely for a raise, so workers could be rejected without it affecting their companies’ bottom line. With arbitration laws and unions placed into administration, they get ever closer to that reality every year. In the bosses ideal world, unions would be functionally useless advocacy bodies for workers that can do little more than ask nicely, and give the illusion that real bargaining is happening and workers have a say, when in reality they don’t. The worrying thing is, union bureaucrats can be sold on this reality too. A passive funding base of workers dues and no hard organising work risking fines or de-registration. The bosses hand out the union sign up sheets with workers contracts. The union gets their funds, the bosses get their profits and the workers get shafted. This is the strategy of yellow unions like the SDA.
Because Fair Work is not a court, there would be no impact if workers decided to continue picketing anyway. Woolworths would have to bring proof that the Fair Work order was not being complied with before seeking enforcement in Federal Court. They would do this by trying to get scabs in and upon workers or community picketers turning the scabs away, they would have a case, serve the strikers with an injunction, and eventually that would lead to police removing picketers by force.
Upon the Fair Work ruling alone, community picketers were warned not to talk to workers or organisers, in order to not be seen to be colluding. Workers seemed to be staying away from the picket line from this point. It was as if the injunction had already been served and everyone was waiting for the picket to be smashed by police, but no order yet existed.
At a particularly weak point in the picket one morning, a bus had arrived and managed to get some workers in. A garbage truck had been turned away from entering by a group of about 10 community picketers linking arms, which seemed to be the excuse for Woolworths to go to court to request police intervention to end the picket. The news media was conveniently right there to snap photos of the affair.
With no plan, no coordination or briefing with organisers at all, the defence of the strike was about as organised as could be expected. Community picketers discussed what would happen if the police came, what people would be prepared to do to defend the strike. $142k had been raised in a community strike fund, $50k donated by the ETU, and the muscle of the strike ended up being a skeleton crew of committed randoms, eating from the local servo because they couldn’t eat the food provided by union funds for fear of accusations of collusion. Expecting police to roll in soon, some of the picketers concluded they’d be willing to hold the picket beside workers risking arrests and fines, not get arrested and fined in their place. All tentative plans were interrupted by the workers taking a deal.
Not long after we heard news about NSW distribution hubs accepting a similar deal, the workers voted to accept an agreement which included around an 11% percent wage increase over three years, along with some cash and gift-card payments to workers. Related to the AI productivity changes, workers in VIC had won “No disciplinary action solely on performance”, which is legally ambiguous at best and begs the question whether bosses could find ways around the agreement. UWU Secretary Tim Kennedy worded it slightly differently in an official statement, saying about the clause that it “ensures workers will not be disciplined for the speed they can work at”. The statement also says that Woolworths made “an acknowledgement that not everyone can pick at 100%’.
Woolworths has been known to use deliberately misleading language in other negotiations. For supermarket workers, the SDA endorsed a deal that mapped pay rises to Fair Works’ new award rates and this was sold as a massive concession on behalf of the bosses.

Is this really the future of unionism?

The efforts the union made to maximise workers power, coupled with the caution and self-preservation practised by the union at the strike would lend itself to the idea that union officials were interested in costing Woolworths as much as possible in a short period of time to put the pressure on the company to wrap the dispute before there would be time to serve an injunction and rack up fines – Whatever the workers can get in that time period would be what they get.
But to expedite negotiations by bleeding Woolworths out, organisers and workers had to spend 10 arduous years organising multiple job-sites, to go on strike together and at the first whiff of an unfavourable Fair Work ruling their campaign had to be brought to home base by disorganised community members the union didn’t communicate with, plan with or fund. Community members that had to patch together a hard picket and incur potential risks to themselves, in order for the union and workers to avoid the same. If what we saw here is the piece de resistance of union strategy in the modern day, then we have a problem.
What this implies is that unions that want to fight are trying to balance wins for workers and also the survival of the union entity itself, but because of current anti-union laws, these things eat into each other. If this same strategy is emulated, it won’t be long before bosses realise that no matter the costs to the company, they can call a union’s bluff by waiting for an injunction so the union folds like a house of cards, and likely that wasn’t long away for UWU strikers.
Bosses get to act like entitled children, but workers, unionists and community members are trying not to swear on the picket line cos it might be picked up on a hired goon’s body camera, police surveillance tower, or featured on the 6 O’clock news. Even slightly masculine or tattooed people were followed around the picket by cameras so the news media could play the “union thug” card the bosses love so much.
The law has been continuously weaponised against workers and unions. Understanding what class war looks like makes it obvious that the answer is to defy these laws, not to go over them with a fine-toothed comb with highly paid union lawyers to find a sneaky little opening. The reality is that the bosses want unions to heel so they can pay workers peanuts. If the contemporary union movement keeps playing the bosses’ games, it won’t be able to organise its way out of its own grave before too long.
Anti-union laws mean unions screw workers so bosses don’t have to

There was a distribution centre strike at MLDC back in 2015 called by the workers themselves after bosses broke part of their EBA in saying all new hires would be from labour hire companies. Other warehouses joined them in solidarity. The strike action outlasted threats of fines and dismissal and an order from the Fair Work commission. Workers burned the Fair Work order and restated their demands. ‘No labour hire, and no repercussions for striking.’ The National Union of Workers (NUW) marched down to the unauthorised picket and tried to shut it down, convincing workers the only way to avoid “$10,000 fines and jail time” was to authorise leadership to meet with bosses and cut a deal. The deal the union struck banned the right to strike, in direct contradiction of the workers stated demands, and the union agreed with the bosses that an independent investigator would be instated to facilitate retributive action against the three workers that instigated the strike. The union didn’t want to risk repercussions and sold the workers out to save itself, to the point of collaborating with the bosses. The workers were pressured to take the deal despite the disapproval of a minority of militants involved.
The MLDC strike proves the function of anti-union laws – to incentivise union bureaucrats to turn against workers to save themselves. Still, the strike showed the kind of militancy that Anarchists argue for. Militancy for us means defying bosses, bad laws and, if necessary, union leadership to exercise workers power. Power built on the rank and file level flows upward into stronger unions and more accountable leadership. Bosses are a threat from above, pressuring unions to capitulate, and so the workers must be a threat from below, able to embarrass or undermine or even replace unions that refuse to fight for the workers.
How we fight backlash when we break anti-union laws
Since the recent Woolworths strike, two workers have been dismissed and other employees are being investigated for alleged ‘unlawful picketing’ during the strike action. An UWU spokesperson has issued a statement saying “United Workers Union is representing members in these matters with the goal of ensuring members are heard and they receive fair outcomes.” No subsequent strike action has been organised to demand the reinstatement of the dismissed workers or an end to the bullying investigations by Woolworths bosses. Time will tell if UWU’s representation amounts to anything substantive.
When workers defy anti-union laws, there will be backlash from the state and bosses. Historically power that has been capable of forcing the hands of bosses and the state has also been capable of protecting organisers from such backlash. Builders Labourers used to ensure that contracts guaranteed the re-hiring of lead organisers of previous strikes in order to encourage the leadership of future militants. Tramway Union secretary Clarrie O’Shea was jailed for his refusal to pay fines built up from unprotected industrial action in the 1960’s. As a result, twenty-seven unions and up to a million workers undertook a general strike which led to O’Shea’s prompt release from prison and ensured the anti-union laws of the time were never used again. We must build toward the same goals today if we want a strong workers’ movement that protects those willing to take the necessary risks to push the struggle forward.
$140 million in losses is substantial for a two week strike. Shutting down our workplaces is clearly a stronger bargaining chip than arbitration or that too would be illegal. Imagine what we could bargain for if all workers in all industries were prepared to stop work to defy bad laws, coordinate actions and make demands of those in power. As unionists have done in the past, we could win more than wage raises, but a better world altogether.
All unionists and workers need to make a choice, or have it made for you. Continue to fight in rigged fights landing whatever punches you can, or take the gloves off and make unionism a real, lasting threat to the bosses and to any unions that would sell workers short.
– Arc Up! Anarchist Communists Red & Black Notes

Reply
Some points:
1. The fiasco of the Woolworths strike fits the pattern of the “smoke & mirrors” technique of the corporate unions to assist the employer offensive and Neo Liberal push associated with “Enterprise Bargaining”. A common feature is the role of certain leftist groups from the Marxist Leninist heritage and others helping usually in not very effective community/workers' picket lines. Victorian Socialists is the electoral front of one of these groups “Socialist Alternative”. Providing the union bosses with the aid of the corporate media the pretext to isolate the workers on strike and avoid mobilising members of the union across other workplaces to provide industrial solidarity. As the union officials and corporate media focus on the lame duck community picket lines. In the case of the UWU it has overall 140,000 members, with most kept in the dark about the fine details of the strike by the union bosses. Meanwhile the union bosses of other corporate unions head off or sabotage any grass roots moves for industrial solidarity. Any push by workers for effective industrial action during the strike is headed off with talk by the union bosses of fines by the un-Fair Work Court due to “illegal” industrial action. Ignoring the role of the corporate union hierarchy in collaborating with various Governments in the imposing of the associated punitive industrial legislation and the enterprise bargaining fraud. With the strike/campaign set up to fail and vent grass roots frustration. Fake victories are claimed by the union bosses and real defeats for workers are achieved. Only apparent when examining the fine print of the EBA documents requiring industrial lawyers to effectively interpret. (1)

2. The author presents a very a-historical view of bureaucratic unionism. Failing to take account of a major change from bureaucratic reformist unionism to “corporate unionism” which developed during the ALP/ACTU Accord Hawke/Keating Government period 1983-1995 followed by the “Unofficial Accord” years. The development of “corporate unionism” has seen the union hierarchy interwoven with the corporate set up by innumerable threads. In 1984 the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) was established by the Hawke ALP Govt. as an “unofficial” part of the Accord. It has been allegedly involved in massive corruption entailing rigging of union elections and EBA ballots by ALP networks in the AEC in association with agencies of the Deep State such as ASIO. Prior to the Accord era certainly union ballot rigging occurred but it was not an alleged full on State agency job. Meanwhile Industry Super funds established as part of the Accord involve union officials directly managing the capitalist economy and fund the union hierarchy via large payments for officials being on Super Boards and using various other pretexts such as so co-sponsorships, etc. Employers also pitch in considerable sums to fund the corporate unions using various pretexts such as funding so called training. Union officials also plunder members' funds for slush funds. The predominant corporate media, legal fraternity together with sundry Governments/state agencies are all heavily involved in the cover-up of the massive rorts in the corporate unions and state agencies. In much of the pre Accord era there was a significant independent alternative media in Australia and forums such as the Sydney Domain speakers' corner together with many others which would create a significant obstacle to this brazen cover-up and “smoke and mirrors” performances of the union officials associated with enterprise bargaining.(2)

3. The author refers to the general strikes and strike wave particularly focusing on public transport and the metal trades in Victoria over the gaoling of Clarrie O'Shea/Industrial Court Penal Provisions. However, these general strikes must be seen in the context of the militant traditions of public transport and metal workers in Victoria, particularly the successful 1946 Victorian rail strike. Another important factor in the launching of the general strikes was the breakaway Melbourne Trades Hall unions associated with the Socialist Left faction of the ALP. Today, the myriad of threads entangling the corporate unions with the corporate and Deep State set up has been associated with the virtual merging of ALP factions in the union hierarchies and the wide spread ultra bureaucratic methods of the corporate union officials. In the pre-Accord era mass union meetings were a common occurrence in many unions. Today where the union officials are forced to hold mass meetings, these gatherings are much more infrequent and often very crudely manipulated. Today we are in a completely different situation to the era of bureaucratic reformist unionism. In the case of “corporate unionism” at the top levels there is no “union”. Its just another dimension of the corporate set up. A relationship involving various tentacles of the ALP octopus reaching into the legal fraternity, real estate industry, union hierarchy, corporate media, employers and various components of the State.

4. The author recalls the eruption of a major strike wave movements/General strikes such as with the O'Shea gaoling which defeated Industrial Court Penal provisions in 1969. Such recollections and harping back to a romantic militant past are not sufficient. Strategic organising is required now to catalyse the processes of a strike/direct action wave to break out of the Fair Work Court and associated repressive industrial legislation straitjacket. Facilitating the possibility for major syndicalist breakaways from the corporate unions and steps toward a mass syndicalist union confederation opposed to the ACTU and all political parties in the context of greatly raised morale of workers. In the case of a much larger strike wave, general strike involving 10 million workers and associated factory, school and uni occupations during May 1968 in France, there is evidence of strategic industrial organising in its lead up. Particularly the activity of the “Socialism or Barbarism” group in the 1950's. It assisted the publication from the early 1950's of a bulletin by militant workers at the largest factory in France, Renault Billiancourt in Paris employing 30,000 workers. It was also a key stronghold of the French Communist Party and the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) which it controlled. In the late 1950's, this bulletin encouraged and linked up with other such workplace papers in other factories and firms in France, creating an anti-Stalinist/union hierarchy pole of attraction in important work places. (3) During May 1968, this workplace organisation played a key role in the spread of the strike wave.
In the case of Drivers for Affirmative Action Group during early March 2004 involving 600 train drivers, it waged a “work to rule” campaign in the NSW Railways for 4 days. It was the very early stages of a possible strike wave/direct action movement with similarities to the early phases of the public sector strike waves in France during late 1986 early 1987 and December 1995. The initiator and spokesman of the group was involved in the Sparks (transport paper) network and was associated with long term ASN assistance to militants' activity and an important victory against privatisation in the sector. Sparks has a key role in transport today in facilitating a strike/direct action wave movement together with Rebel Worker assisting syndicalist education and networking of militants in other industries and the spread of a strike/direct action wave across industry.
M.

Notes
1. See “Spotlight on Rorts in the Union Office” in RW Vol.36 No.2(231) Aug.-Sept. 2011; “Industry Super Fees: A Bonanza for Unions”, The Australian 17/3/21
and See “RTBU Elections 2018: Were They Rigged?” in RW Dec.2018 – Jan. 2019 Vol.36 No.3 (223) on www.rebelworker.org
2. See “From Corporate Bureaucratic Unionism to Grass Roots controlled Direct Action unionism: Perspectives for Activity % Strategy for Australia, Today,” in RW Vol.41 No.3 (235) Dec. 2023-Jan.2024 on www.rebelworker.org
3. See Socialisme ou Barbarie: A French Revolutionary Group (1949-65) by
Marcel van der Linden from Left History 5.1 (1997) reprinted in libcom.org