"Historically, employers seldom resorted to locking out workers, with the principal exception of the 1951 waterfront dispute, although there have probably been more in the meat industry than most other sectors," he said. "The Government often played an active role supporting employer activism through legislation privileging employers or by direct interventionist techniques such as the deregistration of unions, aggressive policing of disputes, or using troops to replace workers, as in 1951.
"In the current context, the Government seems keen to stay in the background and, by its deafening silence, empower employers to act as they please."
He said there were a wide range of alternative strategies and the union's reluctance to immediately agree to new contract terms was understandable.
"How would you react if you were asked to work more quickly, for less money and with less security? I wager you would not be rushing to sign on the dotted line.
"Employers feel empowered and can even shamelessly suggest threatening a lockout is part of good faith bargaining."
Affco operations manager Rowan Ogg said the mandate to lock out came from legislation and not "government silence".
"It is very clear there is now considerable employment law in place embodied in the Employment Relations Act 2000 and its amendments, which renders that statement simplistic and superficial," he said.
"I also take issue with Dr Taylor when he infers that we are asking employees to work more quickly, for less money and with less security. Before Dr Taylor launched into such unsubstantiated inaccuracies, he might take the time to speak with us first and avail himself of some factual evidence."
The union and Affco have agreed to mediation after Easter.
The NZ Meat Workers Union is challenging the lockout in the Employment Court.