Background
The Wide Comb dispute was a significant industrial conflict in Australia during the early 1980s, primarily involving sheep shearers and the Australian Workers' Union. At the heart of this dispute was the alteration of the Federal Pastoral Industry Award, which previously restricted the use of shearing combs wider than 2.5 inches.
Historical Context
The restriction on wide combs was a long-standing union rule dating back to 1910. It was formally incorporated into the Award in 1926. Despite its longevity, the origins and rationale of the rule were somewhat obscure to many by the time of the dispute. The rule was considered almost sacred by unionists, representing deeply ingrained workplace values rather than practical concerns.
Key Issues
The conflict arose when business and farming groups, notably the National Farmers Federation, advocated for the use of wider combs, arguing that they significantly increased productivity in shearing operations. This change was seen as a threat by the union, which feared it would lead to job losses and lower wages for shearers.
In response to these tensions, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was embroiled in the resolution of the dispute. The commission eventually decided in favor of allowing the use of the wide comb shears.
The Strike
The disagreement over comb width culminated in a 10-week national strike by shearers in 1983. This strike was notable not only for its duration but also for how it highlighted the clash between traditional union values and the evolving demands of modern industrial practices.
The resolution was seen by some as emblematic of a broader shift in industrial relations in Australia, echoing other significant disputes of the era, like the Mudginberri dispute and the Dollar Sweets dispute.
Perspectives and Interpretations
Observers have noted that the Wide Comb dispute was not merely about the physical attributes of shearing equipment but was deeply rooted in conflicting values and ideologies. It was described as "an argument about values" rather than "about the facts." This characterization underscores the cultural and socio-economic complexities inherent in the dispute.