Workers Pawns in a Game of Thrones
In my study of the stories told by the media about industrial disputes, I’ve discovered workers are surprisingly absent from the plot. The reason this is surprising is because industrial disputes are all about workers. So how can it be that they are missing from the story? To explain what is going on here, and what could be going on instead, I will use a neat Games of Thrones analogy. If you’re not familiar with Game of Thrones, read on, as I’ll provide explainers. If you are familiar with the show, and haven’t finished watching the latest season, I won’t be including any spoilers, so you’re also safe to keep reading.
For those who haven’t been following along with my PhD research at home, the case study I am analysing is the industrial dispute over stalled EBA negotiations between paid firefighters in the CFA and the CFA bosses which played out in mid-2016 during the last Federal election campaign. You would think, since the EBA is at its essence an agreement between a group of workers and their employer, that this group of workers and their employer would be front and centre of the cast of characters in the media’s reporting of the dispute. You would think. But, what I am finding, overwhelmingly, is that the workers are almost invisible in stories about EBA negotiations.
Instead, the democratically elected worker representative is the key character who takes centre stage. Yes, I’m talking about the union leader; in this case, Peter Marshall, secretary of the United Firefighters Union. And sadly, but unsurprisingly I need to report that my research is finding Marshall framed in the vast majority of stories covering the dispute as the villain of the story. The employer, who doesn’t show up all that often either, in this case the CFA, is framed as the victim in the dispute. And oddly enough, a particular quirk of this case, the main hero and victim of the story about an EBA for paid firefighters, are volunteer firefighters, who are not covered in any way shape or form by the EBA.
There is obviously a lot more to be said about my findings, which are a work in progress, and eventually will contribute to an 80,000 word thesis containing more theoretical layers than this single blog post. But one last finding that is worth noting at this point is that anyone who takes the side of the villain is, like in any narrative plot, also framed as a villain. And you guessed it, in this case this side-kick villain in cahoots with the union leader, and beholden to this king-of-all-villains is the Victorian Labor government (represented by Dan Andrews) and the Federal Labor Opposition (represented by Bill Shorten).
So, how does this representation of the big bad union boss, his co-conspirators in the Labor Party and the practically voiceless paid firefighters turn into a Game of Thrones analogy?
Peter Marshall is framed as the Night King. The Night King is the leader of the White Walkers, who represent the role of the paid firefighters in this story. The White Walkers are literally zombies and make up a massive Army of the Dead. They have no voice, except to snarl and gnash their teeth at their next victim. They don’t have much flesh, they are really just skin and bones, and like all good zombies, they blindly follow their leader with the goal of converting more humans to zombies, who then join their ranks, giving the Night King more power over his enemies. The Night King has special powers to turn huge numbers of innocent humans into zombies much more efficiently than individual White Walkers can, such as by shooting ice at them from his wand. Sort of like the way Marshall presumably is assumed to have more power to ‘unionise’ unsuspecting workers than individual union members do, turning them into pawns in his army.
At this point I want to bring in the key role that motive plays in the framing of any villain, whether it be in a fictional story, or in a political story. I am finding that the supposedly villainous Marshall is framed as behaving in evil ways due to his quest for more power. The EBA Marshall is negotiating on behalf of his zombie-voiceless-workers is not reported as a contract that seeks to improve the salaries and safety conditions for the CFA’s paid firefighters. No, the EBA is a weapon Marshall is apparently using, with the help of his beholden Labor co-conspirators, to help the United Firefighters Union take over the CFA.
Why would the union want to take over the CFA? So far I haven’t seen a journalist ask, or answer this question, but they still assume this to be the overriding motive of Marshall’s villainous actions. Similarly, in Game of Thrones, why is the Night King hell bent on increasing the size of his Army of the Dead and marching ominously towards confrontation with the humans south of the wall? Because his motive, unspoken, but obvious, is to take over, to seize more power, to grow his power base to help him get even more power. Remember the show is called Game of Thrones, and is based on a constant battle between different groups for ultimate power and control of the people.
If you don’t believe me that the industrial dispute story framed Marshall as villainously working towards his ultimate goal of taking control of the CFA on his non-stop quest to take over the world, look at this quote by The Australian’s Rick Wallace on June 3, during the heart of the dispute:
‘Premier Daniel Andrews is facing an unprecedented revolt from 60,000 volunteer firefighters and growing internal alarm after refusing to back down over the push to unionise the Country Fire Authority’.
That’s right, those poor volunteer firefighters at the CFA are being threatened with unionisation – a fate worse than death!
As part of this plot to grab power, Marshall is accused of various wicked actions, such as including a clause in the EBA which required seven paid firefighters to be dispatched to structural fires. This was a safety clause, and in reality would have no impact on volunteer firefighters, but that didn’t stop the media framing the clause as evidence of Marshall’s evil intent in his power grab of the CFA. Here is a quote from Liberal Wendy Lovell in Victorian Parliament to give you a taste of how this accusation against Marshall, and in turn the Labor Party, played out:
‘In many of our country towns this would mean houses would burn to the ground while CFA volunteers would have to sit in a truck and watch them burning as they waited for career firefighters to attend… This is no doubt a desperate measure by the UFU to have an increase in the number of paid firefighters on the ground, which will mean more union dues will be paid back to the UFU so it can then direct that back to the Labor Party in contributions’.
That’s right. Marshall is willing to let houses burn down to help the Labor Party win power. It sounds ridiculous and over the top, but remember, every single journalist who reported that this clause was ‘contentious’ had to assume that this was Marshall’s motive in including it in the EBA. A grab for power. Nothing to do with the safety of firefighters battling structural fires. That was never discussed, even when Marshall implored journalists to better understand why the clause was there. Nothing to do with the safety of the people those seven firefighters bravely pull out of a burning building. The Night King is evil because he is evil, and he wants power because he wants to be powerful. And he’ll stop at nothing to get his way, working to grow his army of zombies to help him achieve his villainous goals.
There is actually an analogy from Game of Thrones which represents an alternative narrative frame the media could use to report an industrial dispute. They’re not going to, but it’s there if they ever change their mind. And, by the by, the union movement could consider this story when trying to convince workers to join their ranks. Peter Marshall, or maybe it works better in this case to say Sally McManus, could represent the democratically elected people’s hero: Daenerys Stormborn of the House Targaryen, First of Her Name, the Unburnt, Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea, Breaker of Chains, and Mother of Dragons.
Daenerys is fighting to take her rightful place on the Iron Throne, giving her control of the Seven Kingdoms, but is currently distracted from this goal by having to fight the Night King and the Army of the Dead. For those who don’t watch the show, that’s control over everyone. As well as having dragons as children, who are very useful in fighting battles, you’ll notice in Daenerys’s title that she is Breaker of Chains. This is because she has built her army by freeing slaves (workers who aren’t paid, and are treated poorly, such as having their genitals removed!). She became Queen of the Andals and the First Men by convincing groups of people to ‘bend their knee’ to her, which means to democratically elect her as leader. Workers acting as a collective army are far more effective in having a say in their working conditions than lone soldiers. Armies need a general, a hero like Daenerys. An army like the trade union movement, a hero like Sally McManus.
Daenerys’s main opponent in Game of Thrones is the not-democratically-elected-there-by-birth-right current Queen, who is as evil as evil gets, Cersei Lannister. The Lannister family is obsessed with gold, nepotistic and cruel. I see them as representing neoliberal leaders such as Malcolm Turnbull and his big-business-backers. The Lannisters are deeply threatened by the popular Daenerys. Bring on the battle, bring on the election!
Game of Thrones might just be a fictional show, but think about the implications of the media framing the union leader as villain, and ignoring the plight of the workers in their storytelling of industrial disputes. I can tell you one thing. Zombies don’t live happily ever after. Their opponents always find a way to kill them and their leaders in the end.
6 commentsLogin here Register here
Must admit to never watching Games of Thrones, but living outside Oz listen to ABC RN podcasts plus watch video pods of Media Watch and Insiders. I don’t ever recall seeing or hearing any union guest versus sock puppets from the IPA who lack any direct knowledge or experience of any sector or occupation, but well versed in PR communication techniques.
I assume unions and/or leaders get media attention when they are perceived as misbehaving by the powers that be; ditto ‘immigrants’ are almost never presented in a positive light by media nowadays.
My understanding of how media works, the psychology and desired outcomes is based more on Jane Mayer’s informative interviews for her book ‘Dark Money’ explaining the oligarch sponsored Freedom Works coordinated by the Kochs. This is a ‘media assembly line’ corrupted by corporate and political interests that delineates not only what news is broadcast, but also changes how people think (or not).
The latter manipulation is delved into by Adam Curtis’s BBC documentary ‘Century of the Self’ explaining the psychoanalytic roots of focus groups for products informing corporates for PR and advertising, via Anna Freud and her cousin Edward Bernays. In last generation same techniques have been used to influence politics and media e.g. focus upon emotions, dog whistling, cartoonish behaviour in politics etc.; in Australia appears journalists and/or reporters are robots deferring to conservatism (and nativism’).
Finally, Ian Haney-Lopez, an expert on ‘dog whistling’, explains that it’s not just about immigrants or ‘other types’, but about demeaning and discrediting politicians, politics, govt., public sector and institutions, which can lead to e.g. grid lock in parliamentary democracy.
But please don’t forget the “fawfawter” (Don) who, in the view of the repugnant Michaelia Cash (yes, that is how she pronounced the word), was going to suffer untold agonies, by presumably being cast into the flames, by Marshall, Andrews and Shorten’s evil and malicious intent. She could never actually explain exactly how the fawfawter was to be adversely affected.
I don’t watch Game of Thrones, but suggest that if there is not a character in the show named “fawfawter”, there definitely should be!
I’m also bewildered how Turnbull can, with a straight face, insist that Labor was lying about the LNP’s plan to privatise Medicare, but the lies peddled by the LNP over the CFA debacle were somehow appropriate and, more problematically, not really challenged by the media.
The media masters are the same as most employers,they despise Unions
It comes as no suprise that you will rarely see Unions mentioned in the MSM as anything but corrupt thugs
I have never watched the show, but it has always been international capital versus international labour the sad thing is that union members have softened over time as tory governments have taken workers rights away. Once upon a time a union of workers could go on strike and other unions would support them by going out in sympathy, over time tory governments have taken that right away, but I take heart from the Retail and Fast Foods Workers Union (RAFFWU) who are taking old EBAs to the Fair Work Commission for their underpaid workers, and the injection into the mix of Sally McManus as ACTU Secretary.
What’s going on? That’s not really that hard to figure out. Media is the forth estate. They are there to push the narrative & agenda of the ruling class ie: the ones who own the businesses. Heaven forefend! they might actually address the worker’s issues.
No matter how many different ways we paint this, it will remain emblematic of the modern crucible. The employee/employer relationship is that of labour versus capital. A conversation as old as capitalism itself. The rights and/or entitlements of the participants will be viewed by the participants through their own lens.
It is being used to mask another issue. The not so subtle introduction of ‘market’ forces to replace what we used to expect from governments.
I’m no fan of ‘privatisation’, or its insidious cousin, the ‘public private partnership’. That this model does not work with specific regard to essential services is well documented. My bad. It works for the provider. Not so much for those reliant on essential services. They used to be called constituents. Now, they are referred to as consumers.
Whether education, health, communications, public transport, power supply, water, etc, are viewed as essential services is an argument that has already been lost. They are now commodities, available only to those capable of paying, in a free market.
Here’s the rub in this current manifestation. How do you vilify the workers, when that very vilification will consign you to political irrelevance?
In any other ‘employee’ dispute, you just bastardize the workers. Those construction employee’s, those shop assistants, those tradies. Greedy bastards. The lot of them. It follows that their representatives, their unions, are just thugs. Acting for greedy bastards.
There are some ‘sensitive’ areas that require some finessing of the argument. Teachers and nurses, for example, get slightly softer treatment. They are, demonstrably, not greedy. However, if they seek commensurate pay, their thuggish unions will be open slather.
Emergency service workers, first response workers, even our military personnel, are, however, sacrosanct. How can you bastardize them, whilst trying to garner public support for the untenable? Easy peasy. Make their representatives unrepresentative. How can a union represent both volunteers and salaried people?
The CPSU have stopped industrial action on more than three occasions in their four year dispute with dutton’s ‘border farce’ EBA negotiation. Because of ‘terrorist threats’ in Europe and Asia. Dutton has never vilified the workers. He has, repeatedly, accused their representatives of being radicals.
To put it in context, the CFA have 54,000 volunteers and about 2,500 staff. The MFB has 2,200 employees. These two organisations exist to service a population of 6mill in an area of some 227,000 square kilometers.
The terrain in Victoria is varied, from arid to heavily wooded, from alps to plains, from ‘built up’ to ‘vacant’ (of structures). It is the terrain that will dictate the skill set required of the people who fight fires. We have enquiries into most significant fires. Whilst the enquiries identify the same issues, on a recurrent basis, addressing those issues is always frustrated by the illusion there are two employers, the CFA and the MFB, to provide the same emergency service. What crap! The employer, the people of Victoria, through the state government, is one entity.
That the workers should have equal access to training, facilities and equipment, is a ‘no brainer’. That they should have equal access to compensation is a ‘no brainer’. The aspect of ‘volunteerism’ comes up every time there is a significant fire. Our volunteers, particularly in rural areas, give their time, sometimes subsidized by their employers, for extended periods when the fires are severe.
As for funding, the Fire Services Levy (FSL) is worth a mention.
Prior to July 1, 2013, it was funded off insurance charges. Now it is funded through rates.
The formula is complicated. The ‘fixed’ charge on every property in Victoria varies from $107 to $216. The ‘variable’ charge pertains to property usage and whether you are in a ‘CFA’ or ‘MFB’ area.
It’s not hard to fix this. Identify the problem. Acknowledge the problem. Fix the problem.
Apparently too hard, for those wanting to profit from the problem. The most recent figures I could find were from the 2014/15 budget. The allocation for fire services was $783mill. How hard can this be? The ‘income’ required can easily be generated through the FSL. The ‘expenditure’ can easily be defined, based on cost components such as labour, plant and equipment.
Oops. This is about justifying the status quo, however antiquated. Addressing the problem serves to suggest the status quo was wrong. Therefore, one must retreat to the last defence. Those bloody unions.
Yeah. Marshall is the reincarnation of Gallagher.
That’s what we need to talk about.
Thank you Ms Rollison and commenters. Having never seen Game of Thrones, I’ll go back to some old DVD’s. The Hunger Games. Take care.