ANDREW FISHER ON TRADE UNIONS: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
It is hard to imagine a more ill-judged intervention into the debates about the public sector pensions dispute than that of Andrew Fisher, who is apparently joint secretary of the Labour Representation Committee, and I was therefore surprised to see it reproduced at Left Futures, and praised by Gregor Gall, who is usually an astute commentator on trade union affairs.
Trade union politics is complex, because as organisations they represent the voluntary combination of individuals into a collective; but those individuals bring with them the prevailing common sense ideas of society, and reflect the existing power relationships within their workplace. As institutions, trade unions provide an ideological and organisational superstructure for perpetuating the tradition and past experience of class conflict, which helps bind together a network of activists, and the trade union movement necessarily creates a sub-culture that celebrates its own history and symbolic signifiers of belonging to a collective. However, this sub-culture for activists is normally distinct from the experience of the majority of members. Collective consciousness of trade union identity normally includes only a minority; and the majority of members share a more passive reception to the union’s brand and messaging.
Industrial conflict involves an interaction between the activist minority and the broader mass of members in order to connect the latent potentiality for class conflict inherent in trade union membership with an immediate issue that the members feel aggrieved about. There are a number of factors which complicate this. Firstly, many organised workplaces, especially in the public sector, are serviced by lay members on release, and the union is structurally embedded into consultation with management, and to members can seem like an adjunct to HR. This has strengths and weaknesses, because it legitimises and normalises trade unions, as well as being a good sustainable busines model for the unions; but it also institutionalises trade unions into the day to day workplace power relations. This is why the 1966 Donovan Commission recommended creating such a layer of full-time or part-time lay members on release, as it potentially defuses the potential for trade unionism to be an oppositional activity.
There is no doubt that the increased professionalism of trade unions in using the law, in representing members through case work, and in sharing best practice across employers has benefitted both harmonious industrial relations, and also improved working conditions for members. However, it also means that there is inertia that makes shifting towards industrial action more difficult.
Social changes have also meant that there is less homogenity in working class experience, and trade union membership is less likely to be seen as central to many peoples’ lives. The series of defeats such as the miners’ strike and Wapping, (combined with the international defeat of the actually existing socialist countries, which further demoralised some activists) weakened class consciousness ; and the 1980s saw the unions gripped by a revisionist enthusiasm for social partnership.
Taking the 1980s as a reference point is instructive, because compared to the likes of Ken Jackson, Eric Hammond and Bill Jordan, all of the current crop of leaders of the big three unions could be regarded – in historical terms - as left wingers. Gregor Gall argues that “A divided left in Unison for example witnessed three left challengers to Dave Prentis at one point.” But more relevantly Dave Prentis is widely popular and well respected throughout most UNISON activists and branches, and is regarded as doing a very good job by many members; that should be a bigger cause for reflection for the soi-dissant left in UNISON than their inability to agree on a single challenger. For good or ill, the model of trade unionism that Dave Prentis represents accords with the expectations and experience of most UNISON members, most of the time.
I say this not because I necessarily agree with either Dave Prentis’s politics or attitude to trade unionism (I don’t), but because our starting point must be to understand what the actual level of trade union consciousness, combativity and confidence is at the grass roots.
Trade unionism is normally sectional, and although a layer of activists take an interest in the affairs of the whole movement, most ordinary members are unaware of either defeats or victories that don’t affect them personally.This means that in the context of modern trade unions, even where a section of workers does become much more combative, like the oil refinery workers a couple of years back, the BA strikers or the electricians currently, it has limited impact on the consciousness of most other working people. This is very different from the situation in the 1970s, when AEU distict committee meetings allowed activists to compare notes on succesful pay disputes.
The trade union movement has therefore faced a significant challenge since the current Tory led government was elected. For example, I understand thatprivate polling by UNISON, revealled that a majority of even its own members initially supported the government’s cuts, thinking that there was no alternative. Secondly there has been little or no recent experience of widespread industrial conflict in the public sector; and many members regard their trade union as a sort of insurance (In the retail sector, USDAW even use the advertising slogan “Your insurance policy at work”). Thirdly, the wider shifts in society mean that there are fewer trade union reps than we need, and in reality trade union reps often have a lower level of awareness of the traditions of the labour movement than they have had in the past.
The anti-cuts protest last year, and the pensions dispute, have therefore been sometimes problematic: we are seeking to wake up a slumbering giant.
This long pre-amble is to challenge Andrew Fisher’s assertion that there are “fighting unions” being held back by the rest of us.
Let us look at a few sobering truths. Fisher includes the FBU as one of the “fighting unions”, presumably because the FBU is led by a Trotskist and is affiliated to Mr Fischer’s own organisation, the LRC. But a leading grassroots FBU activist recently described his union to me as “bringing up the rear” in the pensions dispute, having failed to ballot last year, and therefore so far having not taken any industrial action. What is more, for those of us who spend a bit of time in trade union meetings, I am sad to say the experience of listening to people compete to be the most verbally left wing person in the room, but unable to actually deliver their members is not an uncommon one.
The so called “fighting unions” share the same problems as the whole movement in having to manage a disconnect between the combativity and confidence of an activist minority; and the capacity of the union to employ the potential industrial strength of its whole membeship. This is well known in trade unions as the problem of managing discontent, particularly a problem when the most militant activists overestimate their capablity to call action, and therefore unwittingly court the risk of defeat through adventurist action. The unions continuiing to prosecute the pension dispute are NOT adventurist, but the rhetoric from some quarters may be encouraging what could turn out to be a rash end-game, and this needs to be guarded against.
N30 was indeed a massive strike; but let us be frank. The strike votes in the big general unions and in UNISON were on the basis of low turnouts (GMB was the highest of the big unions with 34%), and in some sectors of local government and the civil service, turnout in the strike was low. This reflects the curent political level, and confidence of the rank and file members, and the relative weakness of shop steward organisation in being incapable, in many cases, to overcome that.
Compared to these subjective and objective factors, the difference between “left” and “right” in the unions were of merely secondary importance. It may or may not be accurate to describe Brian Strutton as a “moderate”, but the level of commitment that GMB put into delivering a strike, from shop stewards and office staff up to the national officers and General Secretary, was extraordinary to watch. My observation from the outside of UNISON is that it matched the same level of commitment.
Andrew Fisher is naive to say:
The major tactical mistake by the unions was to agree to enter into scheme specific talks after the 2 November offer. This allowed the government to play divide and rule – offering different minor concessions and delays here and there. Some unions, including the FBU and PCS seemingly counselled against this approach, but were over-ruled at the TUC by the large unions in the local government scheme
His desperate gambit to rescue the FBU’s standing as a leading left union stretches the limits of credibility here. In fact the FBU were so far from counselling against seperate negotiations that it was the Firefighters alone who pulled out of industrial action before N30 on the basis of the success of the seperate commitments about the Firefighters pension scheme that they had pressed the government for. That is why on 20th October Matt Wrack called off the strike ballot.
Fisher argues that unions can be regarded as “fighting unions” or otherwise on the basis of the strength or otherwise of their broad left. This makes the mistake common among British socialists, argued in Alexander Lozovsky’s influential 1934 book “Marx and the Trade Unions”, that unions should be judged not in their own right as complex mass organisations of working class solidarity to maximise negotiating power within the constraints of capitalism, but against the standards of an historic mission; as if trade unionism is not just trade unionism, but must be judged as a transitional activity towards socialism.
I would propose that a more meaningful defintion of the “left” in a union, is not whether someone makes the right noises about Palestine, or castigates the Labour Party, but whether they build and encourage workplace organisation and empower reps to stand up to management, whereever possible through charm and persuasion, but when necessary through muscle. In that regard, I am much more impressed with someone who actually delivers, than in verbal intransigence.
In fact, there are differences of rule book constraint and culture that make broad left organisation more or less meaningful in different unions; but politics asserts itself anyway.
Fisher is simply wrong and naive to think it was ever possible for the unions to oppose seperate negotiations scheme by scheme; as the practical and moral responsiblity of the unions is to their own members. How would it have worked if NUT, UCU and NASUWT, for example, had refused to negotiate on the Teachers pensions scheme, and for example Voice and ATL had negotiated a settlement, which was then rejected by the government due to the non-participation of the other unions; and the eventual settlement was worse than what ATL and Voice had obtained? (Whether or not this was likely, it is a scenario the unions had to consider) How would it have worked had UNISON and GMB members in the LGPS formed the opinion (encouraged for example by the Tory press) that their unions could have reached a deal on the LGPS, but had refused to do so, in the interests of unity with civil servants? Even in the heady days of the early 1970s, such an approach would have been potentially suicidal for a union leadership, risking being seen as trading their own members’ immediate interests in pursuit of a different agenda.
Fisher is also mistaken about the role of the TUC. The TUC can do no more than facilitate cooperation, and the only powers it exercises are those that have been delegated to it by the unions. The decision making processes of the individual unions must always be deferred to. therefore if UNITE, GMB and UNISON were intending – for example – to pursue seperate negotiations scheme by scheme, then it would have been improper for the TUC to seek to constrain them. It is not without precendent for the TUC to develop a collective position and then make acceptance of that position a criterion for membership; for example, in the 1970s, COHSE, NUBE and a few other small unions were briefly excluded from the TUC for registering with the Industrial Relations Court; but that is a long leap from merely tactical differences over a pensions dispute.
Andrew Fisher seems to be arguing for individual activists to leave the “non-fighting unions” and join the “fighting unions”. Not only is this divisive, but it would destabilise workplace organisation, and weaken the trade unions overall. Furthermore he seem to be arguing for the “fighting unions” to leave the TUC. This is a direct atatck on one of the main achievements of the British trade union movement, that we have avoided fracturing our trade unions along political lines.
It is important to understand that the pensions dispute is only one aspect of a broader onslaught on working people by the government and the employers. For many of our members, especially the lower paid ones, the pensions issue is less important than pay or redundancies.
I rather provocatively described the deal on the LGPS as a victory for the unions, this was cheeky of me, but it is no more inaccurate as describing it as a defeat; and it is more accurate to describe it as a “victory” than a “sell-out”. In truth the government backed down on some important aspects on the LGPS, we moved forward and they inched back. So the result we got was a score draw, but a draw that helped us put our public sector organisation on a better footing for the next battle.
Well done USDAW on getting the most of Woolies staff their redundancy.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/woolworths-staff-win-67-8m-payout-225645928.html
I’d seriously question whether the membership of UNISON & GMB believe that they’ve achieved *any kind* of “victory” by suspending their action on the terms the government has offered.
What their leaders have undoubtedly done is weaken the common front against the Government.
Rank and file members of these unions should challenge the actions of their leadership by the means open to them;
branch resolutions, conference motions, internal ballots and special conferences.
Meanwhile, unions representing over a million workers are still involved in industrial action;
These include the PCS, NUT, Unite, UCU & POA with the FBU and BMA likely to join them soon.
This is a basis to continue the Pensions campaign.
Achieving unity in action within the public services is no mean feat.
All of them have seperate occupational pension schemes and conditions of service.
They’re all constrained by Tory anti-union laws.
These gives the employers numerous means to subvert any action.
What’s remarkable is that despite this, over 2 million workers struck together on N30.
But the fact remains that the attack on pensions is not coming from seperate employers.
It’s centrally organised by the Coalition government.
They simply use the bureaucratic fiction of seperate negotiations to divide and rule.
Under the circumstances, it is quite justifiable for the unions to take a common stance rejecting this approach.
They can simply demand that the government inject the necessary cash into the pension schemes by raising it from progressive taxes on rich tax avoiders.
This of course requires inter-union coordination – something that the TUC and right wing bureaucrats won’t provide.
The initiative now lies with the rank and file of the unions and those left leaders willing to rely on its strength.
Build a rank and file movement in the unions!
John,just read your piece(again). Certainly it is well constructed and articulated and raises a number of valid points and issues.You highlight a range of practical and limiting factors which mitigate against mass united strike(and other) actions following N30.That day witnessed almost 40 unions (as against 6 on June 30) involved in the largest strike for decades,some argue since 1926. Of course within this apparent unity there was,and remains sectional and even conflicting interests.But such is the nature of the beast.The old maxims of United we Stand,Divided we Fall,An Injury to One is an Injury to All,etc are not some outdated cliches,but are as important and relevant than ever particularly in the Neo Liberal onslaught here and abroad. Of course John,i dont for one second expect you to agree. One cannot ignore the very real obtacles and inertias to achieving anywhere near this outcome. However the point is NOT to be constrained and hidebound BY them.There are multitudes of divisions both within Trades Unionism,and wider society in general(race,gender etc). Whilst Capitalism never created all of them,certainly they are consciously and inherently reinforced. The key is not acquiessence to this reality but constantly trying to find ways and means of overcoming and transforming that situation.Your critique,whilst having some merits,is ultimately pessimistic,fatalist and conservative and more than a little over sociological(IMO).You make much of the low ballot turnouts ,but with a few exceptions,the actual percentage STRIKE turnout on N30 was considerably greater if Dundee is any barometer(8/10,000 from a population of 150,000 though not all were from the City itself).Perhaps a majority of eventual strikers didnt actually participate ,or even voted against in the ballots originally. Needless to say John you dont seem,or indicate concerns over the Labour Party being elected on less of a mandate,especially in local elections! Your sub text is that anyone who does not share your perspective and is still trying to push the pensions dispute forward,and NOT just in the dubbed “Rejectionist Unions” are naive idealists and ultra lefts etc living in cloud cuckoo land trying to win a defeat from the jaws of victory!Have heard this all for over 40 years.Well,just for your edification,and partly in response to your stuff on the education unions,the UCU executive have just voted 3:1 to call for a further strike day on March 1st. They are further committed to approach other unions for coordinated action on the day.Together,those unions not signed up to the Heads of Agreements represent over 1 million workers and there are fights to be fought and hopefully won inside those unions which are.So the game is not yet a bogey as they say up here.Finally,i have read Fischers article,to which yours was a reply. Overall, i am much more attuned and in sympathy with his contribution BUT with a major caveat.Unions are not to be simply reduced to Fighting and Non Fighting ones.In any event,that is time specific if one has even a cursory knowlege of Trades Union History. And ultimately the main division is Not between Left and Right officials but between the bureacracy and the rank and file(this merits a separate thread).Lastly,like John(i think) i am utterly opposed to socialists/militants hopping from supposedly non fighting tosupposedly fighting ones.This is a flawed and ultimately disastrous strategy which needs to be challenged full on. There are past,indeed current examples of this. Worse still is the question of “Breakaway Unions”,particularly from the left. I remember being involved some years back when many of the best militants inside the electricians union (ETU/EETPU)were arguing to leave,and ultimately did on the grounds it was firmly right wing and had constitutional BANS and PROSCRIPTIONS against communists and trotskyists from holding office.Apart from the little difficulty that these were introduced in the 1960s following ballot rigging scandals orchestrated by left,especially CP officials,i argued vehemently the decicion was absolutely wrong. This merely consolidated the right wing leadership further whilst removing or at least seriously reducing any internal rank and file pressure from the left.This also isolated relatively small numbers of sparkies fromm the mainstream. The resultant organisation the EPIU had some successes,but ultimately were compelled to abandon their independent organisation(not TUC recognised) and i believe firstly joined the TGWU, then AUEW and returned to the fold. Arguably,this legacy has impaired somewhat the electricians in their current battles against those construction contractors out to destroy the JIB (and other)agreements though many of the younger ones were not even born when all that happened.
I thoroughly agree that unions are “complex mass organisations of working class solidarity to maximise negotiating power within the constraints of capitalism”.
The evidence is, as Andy Newman, says, that there is no large-scale desire to rush to the barricades. Or that there is a country-wide head of steam from union members to go head on to achieve their maximum demands.
As a UNITE Branch Chair I have loyalty (something some on the left find hard to understand) to my union leader Len McCluskey(who I voted for).
As Trades Council activist I have respect (from long-term contact) for the role the TUC plays.
Many of us are not sure about the deal-making process.
What Len McCluskey will say on it will carry weight with me now.
But I appreciate Andy Newman explaining what unions actually are all about. My father, an USDAW Chair for years and years, spared no effort in the direction.
Having talked at length and seriously with the UNISON full-timer responsble in our area for thousands of Council workers she pointed out, amongst things, that some, probably many, are Tory or Liberal voters, and that the nature of local governemnt employment does not make for ‘militancy’ across a wide range of jobs.
Marxists should fight in every forum and indeed every union for their programme and to promot struggle. Leaving the field is not an option.
There have been calls for disaffiliation from the Labour party in the light of the New Labour shadow cabinets confirmation that it will attack workers’ rights, pay and pensions if it ever comes to power again but then what. What the unions, and the rank and file within them, should be doing first is developing its own political, socialist programme to juxtapose to that of the Coalition and New Labour that protects the interests of workers and offers a way out of this crisis to society as a whole. Once it has gathered sufficient forces behind said alternative then the question of tactics in relation to New Labour can be revisited with more confidence and purpose and of course clout. It could be that an alternative will need to be established or it could be that we are in a position to drive the New Labour scum and their secret revenue streams and supporters in the ranks of anti-working class forces out of the party.
The fact is that the unions were colletively trying to build the maximum possible unity for N30.
The FBU called off its strike ballot because they got a separate deal.
Talk of a ‘fighting union’ is simply posturing, and calls for disaffiliation- from either the LP or TUC- merely a way of permanently staying in your tent.
If Left-led unions disaffiliate they will be initiating a strategic division of the TUs and an historic breach with the Labour Party, which has been the aim of the ruling class in Britain since at least the formation of the SDP.
It is wholly insufficient for the ruling class to exercise hegemony through a Tory Party that cannot gain more than 40% in the polls. It is also necessary to have a completely house-trained Labour Party with essentially all the same policies, as was the case under Blair.
Blairism is the political expression of absolutely bourgeois poitics inside the labour movement. Disaffiliation only strenghtens the relative weight of Blairism within the labour movement.
Andy
Rather than provide a more lengthy comment on Andrew’s piece and in similar terms respond right now to your article, I’ll just say that I find many of your starting points uncontentious so that what the debate are the implications of how this unfolds in general and specific terms ie what the debate is really about is the gap between what is the different situation in each union presently is and what can be achieved in terms of further prospects of mobilisation. In this I’ve always recognised that Unison may not be in the strongest position but that is where the leadership factor has a role to play.
My forthcoming article in the new Red Pepper and the Morning Star (Fri 27 Jan) deal with these issues.
Just to also say that I was not implying Prentis is on the right. Compared to Usdaw, Community and the like he is clearly centre-left but the left I was refering to was those to the left of him.
Gregor
It is certainly possible that even if the union movement mobilizes all the forces at its disposal to the uttermost, these will not be sufficient to drive back the government’s attack on pensions. Perhaps one or more of the mainstream ‘decline of the working class’ arguments is true, in which case we no longer have effective means for resisting government and employer attacks. We then confront the prospect of ever nastier and more decrepit versions of capitalism until the system eventually consumes itself and us.
But, I don’t believe this and it certainly isn’t axiomatically true. The power of the organised working class in Britain has not been tested in this crisis. The stakes are incredibly high and defeat on pensions (defined by significantly reduced entitlements) would be a defeat of landmark proportions. Given the economic prognosis, we can’t even say for sure that these rotten deals will stick for more than a couple of years. It’s entirely feasible they’ll be back for more. Most likely, they’ll be emboldened to sustain and escalate other attacks on pay and conditions.
One way to test the potential for escalating the fight back is for the trade union leaders to begin arguing hard for it: mobilizing, fanning the flames, trying to instil confidence, speaking tours, and otherwise building the struggle. Dave Prentis and Sally Hunt etc have done nothing of the kind. Instead of articulating the gravity of the situation and the need to resist the attacks, they use dreary, passive language in their missives and even, disgracefully, endorse the government’s vocabulary of ‘final offers’ to demoralize the membership into submission – while disingenously arguing ‘the decision is yours’. Congratulations to the UCU Executive for slapping Hunt down.
It is obvious that the confidence and impetus for militant unofficial action does not exist in the public sector, so pressuring the union leaders to organize a proper fight is crucial. Otherwise, we’ll be inflicting defeat on ourselves while the ConDems stand by laughing and preparing the next round of attacks.
Sorry, this article reads like a polite hatchet-job on the likes of Serwotka and McCluskey. The govts proposed pension scheme “reforms” are surely one of the most brazen attempts to make the workers pay for the screw-ups of the rich. And the horror of what we have lost will only dawn upon some once it’s gone. Better to err on the side of militancy and try to wake up one’s membership than to relinquish such an important thing as our pensions. And I don’t know if you’ve heard the news, but Milliband and Balls don’t give a damn about us, and would quite happily kick us aside – until election time,of course.
[...] note that Andy Newman has a somewhat opposite perspective of a duty of trade unions. I’m certain he honestly thinks [...]
IAIN Brown, I wrote this article not John.
Just to make clear, I am not criticising the unions who have not signed the Heads of Agreement. They have to make their own evaluation based upon their capacity to put more pressure on the government and what is currently on offer. As I have said before, I think there is a better deal to be had on the Teachers scheme in particular; and with the BMA joining, there may still be more to play for on the NHS scheme.
What I am objecting to is the divisve criticism of unions who think that the Heads of Agreement on the LGPS. Represent sufficient agreement to move to negotiations. Actually UNITE are in a difficult position here as it is not at all clear what I dustrial strength they have with LGPS members.
The important thing to note is that the pensions dispute is not the only battle going on, and should not be used go divide us.
Prianikof, a “rank and file movement ” cannot leap fully formed from nowhere. Rebuilding grass roots confidence can only be forged through practical experience
From the discussions I have had with people most activists in GMB &UNISON share the same view as the union leaderships on LGPS.
Gregor I look forward to reading your article. I am always interested in your perspective.
It is however worth pointing out that Andrew Fishers afticle , that you have sort of endorsed, argues not about the different capacity issues within the unions and the gap between where we need to be and where we are. Fisher reduces the issue to only the issue of ‘fighting’ leadership.
Of course it is silly to suggest that socialists should change unions. The point is to join what ever union organisation exists in your workplace and fight for a progressive direction within it.
Although very old and outdated in some respects, the basic argument of the chapter ‘Should Revolutionaries Work in Reactionary Trade Unions?’ in Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder springs to mind.
I started my first job in a supermarket 6 years ago and was an USDAW rep. Most of my colleagues were also members, but should I have joined another union? Of course not.
However, there is a lot at stake with this struggle. Okay not every union member out there is up for a fight, many are apathetic, scared or, in some cases, in favour of the government.
Yet look at Royal Mail, the chief factor preventing the outright privatisation of it was the fact that the government couldn’t find a buyer who was prepared to take on the pension. Why do you think the government are so keen to attack public sector pensions?
Calls to leave unions that are not ‘fighting’ unions are clearly unhelpful. Arguments still need to be won, people are yet to be persuaded, many are yet to gain the confidence needed to fight.
Yet this is not the time for defeatism.
There is a lot at stake, the very existence of the public sector in its current form. If we settle for nothing now, we will certainly settle for nothing later.
Rorscasch the option of the union leaderships staking the credibility of their unions in this issue is that both the turn out in the ballot and the strength of the strikes suggest that this js not the issue that members want to go to war on.
#10,apologies Andy for getting persons and threads mixed up.Its been a long day.However,that aside, i wish to readdress my comments directly to yourself.
I agree that dividing unions into compromisers and ‘fighting unions’ is unhelpful. There is no such thing as a ‘left wing’ union, only a union that has members who at a particular time will elect left wing leaders. Union leaders who get to far ahead of their members suffer the consequences but union leaders who make unprincipled compromises also suffer.
It is clearly important to maintain the broadest possible unity in the next stages of this struggle but this cannot be on the basis of the lowest common denominator.
The weakness of the trade unions in the current pensions dispute is three fold.
Firstly, the campaign has been conducted rather exclusively as a public sector workers dispute and has failed to raise broader questions related to the failure of the private sector to provide decent pensions, the poor state pension, the chicanery around indexing etc. This has made it easier to present the dispute as narrowly sectional and narrowed the basis of a political campaign.
Secondly, the campaign has been politically hobbled by the covert acceptance by sections of the trade union leadership of Labour’s position on the deficit. This has inevitably meant that a poor compromise like the the LGPS deal would seem attractive to such leaders. Pessimism about the potential win a better compromise is inevitably bred by such attitudes.
Thirdly,there has been, at the level of the TUC and among some union leaderships, a wilful blindness to the depth of the crisis and a refusal to understand that this is no normal dispute that can be resolved by a compromise in which both sides give a bit but rather is approaching a crisis of the system itself.
The consequences of these factors are that the movement may well be hobbled when the next round of attacks come, probably on pay, most certainly around PAYE tax rises, with a merging of the national insurance and income tax, further cuts in benefits.
Nick, I am not sure I agree with you. Firstly when you say the TUC doesn’t realise the scale of the crisis, I am not sure who you mean. Brendan and his staff? Or the General Council? Or the consensus at last years congress? My impression is there is an acute recognition of the crisis, but our response has to recognise the actual capacity of our organisations, and the mechanisms by which we can draw our membership to share our awareness and build their confidence to fight.
You see I don’t agree there is any ‘covert ‘ acceptance of Labours policies on the deficit, but there has developed a culture where the unions are less politically assertive than we need to be. Especially from UNISON.
With regard to impact t of the pensions dispute. It isn’t over, there is a high chance that the government will make further concessions on the TPS, for example
. And what is likely is that the pensions dispute will feed into this years pay, restoring some of the commonality between the unions.
The most important thing is to recognise that our organisations are stronger, and that N30 vastly improved practical relationships on the ground. We are stronger and better prepared for the next round.
That is why I so deplore attempts by some go promote division because some unions have made a different tactical assessment.
This is probably the most conservative article on trade unionism I’ve ever read. And I regularly read the Times.
[...] article originally appeared at Socialist Unity where several relevant comments appear. Bookmarks Hide [...]
Nice to be name-checked on the presumably ironically titled Socialist Unity blog.
I actually agree with much of Andy Newman’s preamble – and little of what he says actually displays much reading of my original article, which can be read in full on the New Left Project site. In some limited ways, I make suggestions for how that sectionalism and gap between members and activists can be closed.
I’d argue that the role of workplace activists has to be more in touch with members – and the lack of regular all members meetings in many unions means many reps with partial or full facilities time can create the impression they’re there to represent either the employer or a remote union leadership.
I don’t argue that people should leave their current union for a more combative one – I say that the question should be raised (to start exactly the debate that Andy is engaged in). In many workplaces that would be impossible anyway – with only one recognised union in place or only one union organising there. However there are workplaces where two unions organise the same grades and are both recognised. Workers make that decision all the time – in parts of the civil service, driver grades on the railways and LU, in some parts of local government – and in most schools that I’ve come across. A close friend of mine is both an NUT and NASUWT member.
Of course this is more than an individual matter, but a case of joining a workplace collective. There have been occasions in which union branches have voted to join en masse another union (I heard of one case last year in local government), though such situations are currently rare – and in themselves pose further questions, including national bargaining weight.
Likewise with the TUC – I don’t advocate unions disaffiliating, but point out the structural weaknesses of the TUC (which I agree are a reflection of their affiliates) and the implications this has for some unions, especially smaller ones. I’m not sure I agree in principle that UK trade unionism is better off for not dividing along political lines – I’d be interested in some European perspective on this.
The difference I suppose between ‘fighting’ and unions with a more ‘partnerhsip’ approach is that the former seek to raise the consciousness of the memberships and activists whereas the latter do not (I’d judge this on industrial matters and the economic policies that dictate those relations – not on rhetoric about Palestine or bashing the Labour Party, of which I’m a member).
Of course, combativity is not an either/or distinction but a spectrum throughout the union movement. However, I don’t actually use the term outside of its context in this dispute – which is not just any dispute, as Nick Wright says above. It is and was the largest dispute for a generation and against a government waging an unprecedented attack on the public sector. A point seemingly recognised by all unions at TUC in September.
Andy specifically refers to my apparent misrepresentation of the FBU’s actions, so I’ll respond to that. As I understand it, the FBU did counsel against foregoing central talks on the unifying issues (pension age, contributions, indexation) without having gained anything first. They then, like all other unions, participated in their scheme specific talks, which have very different considerations (given that current retirement age is 50 for some firefighters and they have much higher contributions). Unlike the other unions, the FBU had no cost ceiling imposed prior to the strike, and have only in the last week or two been given a ‘heads of agreement’ style ultimatum. It looks from their current members bulletin (http://www.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/7970-FBU-Pension-Bulletin-No-4-LOW-RES.pdf) like they will reject this and are preparing their members for action. I have no idea whether Matt Wrack is a ‘Trotskyist’. I’m not, so it wouldn’t move me or mean much to me if he was.
#11 AN “a “rank and file movement ” cannot leap fully formed from nowhere.
Rebuilding grass roots confidence can only be forged through practical experience”
Coming after the biggest mass mobilisation of union members since the war, this is like a huge wet blanket.
What was N30 if not a practical experience?
More than 2 million union members took part in coordinated strike action, organised thousands of pickets and hundreds of local rallies themselves. In most cases there wasn’t a full-time official within miles.
Instead of policing their memberships, the unions and Labour Party should be building on the practical experiences learned from N30.
More self-organisation in the localities, more coordination at the top, until the Coalition are forced to back down on Pensions.
The comment about rank and file movements in the unions are just ignorant.
Just what have you been doing in unions for the past 25 years?
There are many existing R&F groups that organise at the grass roots and challenge for leadership positions.
The whole tenor of the article and many of the contributions, is that union members are apathetic and they don’t want to fight.
But they did and with the right leadership, they will.
Given that many unions in private companies are queuing up with their own disputes, this could be a prelude to the Coalition being forced to resign. If a General election were held in such circumstances, it would be the ideal opportunity to put forward a Socialist plan for rescuing the economy.
http://www.socialismtoday.org/155/britain.html
An analysis from the Socialist Party as part of the debate. The problem I have with negative contributions on this website is that when I am campaigning out in the street and discussing with both public sector and private sector trade unionists they are up for the battle against the government. November 30 public sector strike gave confidence to working people to struggle against the austerity programme. It is a certain section of right-wing trade union leaders that are selling them down the river at the moment. Anyway read the article.
#21
I am not sure why you choose to start your comment with this unoriginal observation, I took your article seriously enough to make a substantive rebutttal of it, which is showing you respect.
You see this point is something that does endlessly get debated within the unions, but it doesn’t address issues like geographical distance, the already existing paucity of reps, and for the general unions the fact that members are dispersed over many differnt workplaces. Equally to the point, the majority of members – and even workplace reps – only want to go to meetings when there is an issue that affects them personally.
Most unions want to promote participation, but there are no easy answers, and these are not questions that are related to whether they are “fighting unions” or “capitulators” in Fischer’s distinctive way of categorising us.
How are the smaller unions disadvantaged? There are reserved elections for seats on the General Council, which is – for example, how NSGU, Accord, RMT, FDA, Community, Nautilus and others have seats.
The TUC is essentially a commitee of its affiliaties, with a full time apparatus; if anything it is weighted to ensure that the smaller unions (the majority of smaller unions tend to be more moderate, I would argue) get a say.
As such, the TUC can only play a role supportive of the actions of affiliate unions.
It has been an historical weakness in many countries in Europe that the unions are split on political lines, rather than industrial logic, which has only benefitted the bosses.
This is nonsense:
If you want to make such a contentious claim, then you need to back it up with evidence. This goes right to the heart of your view that there are two types of unions, fighting ones, and non-fighting ones.
Life is much more complex than this, and none of the big unions currently endorse a “partnership” approach, although we all have legacy agreements, and in some cases experienced reps who have grown up in that culture.
But while there are some unions like USDAW who are stil committed to partnership, paradoxically USDAW are also comitted to an organising not a servicing model; and from what i have seen of USDAW from the outside actually have a good education programme.
GMB@Work, the official strategy of GMB for example explicitly rejects partnership and requires every workplace to be prepared for a strike ballot due to the irreconcileable difference of interests between workers and bosses. But you categorise GMB. As a non fighting union! !
I don’t think there is a hugely meaningful difference between most unions at a philosphical level with reagrd to their attemts to educate the general membership; but there are very great differences about how receptive the membership is, and how relevent trade unions are to their lives, which have little to do with “left” and “right” and have a lot to do with industrial sector, and history.
You are desperate to maintain the fiction of the FBU’s left credentials, which is not shared by many grassroots militants in the union.
Let’s be clear, the FBU were really offered nothing substamntially different prior to N30, certainly much less that UNISON and GMB had been offered in Scotland.
I understand that the indicative ballot was 86% in favour, and a shrewd (and in your words “combative”) leasdership would have balloted then, so they had the ballot result in the bank to use as the dispute moved forward. Instead they didn’t ballot, and are now facing a problem if they ballot now, that the government has since then offered penion protection to firefighters within 10 years of retirement, which is about 30% of the membership (given their age profile).
That is up to the FBU, but it is odd to praise the FBU for their combative leadership.
You see Andrew, at the heart of your contribution to this debate is an attempt to make a tendentious division between unions, while the most important task is to maniatin unity in the bigger batles against the Tory-led coalition, despite tactical differences.
Of course this thread is rightly focused around the pensions issue. However my own experience in Dundee(per capita,one of the largest in the UK) on N30 was that people were not only striking/protesting over this issue ,but also a host of others.I am sure this was mirrored elsewhere.The strikes,demos and protests were a lightning rod to anger over the banksters,unemployment,attacks on disability benefits etc.etc.I know because i spoke to many scores of people on various picket lines,before,during and after the march and rally.Some were not even in unions,there were unemployed,school students,single parents looking after children at home and so on.And of course,many people fall into several categories with compound grievances.So you have,especially on N30 a majority of women trades union strikers,with child and homecare responsibilities,facing rising cost of living,pay freezes/cuts for example.Even were the pensions issues totally won,there is a lorryload of other attacks concurrent and pending.Obviously,a major victory would put the government and employers on the backfoot,whilst emboldening and strenghtening our willingness and capacity to fight on these other fronts.The neoliberal onslaught is not going away,rather intensifying both domestically and elsewhere.N30 showed anger and militancy,as i said over many issues apart from pensions itself.But there is a vast amount of latent anger and discontent which can erupt amongst students.the occupy movement as illustrations.Socialists need to fight over “bread and butter”issues in their workplaces/unions but seek to unite these struggles with the wider ones some of which i have earlier touched on.
IAIN but it is precisely because the fight with the government is about more than pensions that we should avoid fetishising tactical differences in the pensions dispute. Yet Andrew Fisher wishes to generalise from immediate tactical differences to schematic ally divide the movement into fighters and capitulators.
And how fast this could change, presumably NASUWT were ‘capitulators’ in june but are now fighters. They would have been thrown out of Andrew Fishers coalition of fighters six months ago, and now they are the vanguard!
Surely Andy you can see how demoralising it is to the whole movement generally for one union to acquiesce over the pensions issue when others still have serious concerns? You are arguing about divisiveness when those compliant unions are in fact dividing the movement,and in the case of UNISON, when many of their members are still up for action. Things like that don’t set a good precedent for future struggles, and don’t build long-term confidence amongst even the least active union members for any other attacks on our terms and conditions in the future.
Omar
The strike turnouts across UNISON were often unconvincing, I suggest you do some FOI requests to see how many came out if you wish to judge for yourself. So I think you need to look at the capability of the minority arguing to continue to actually deliver. Remember it was a lay member committee who voted to support the decision to sign the Heads of Agreement.
The deal over LGPS showed sufficient movement from the government, we bank what we have, and live to fight another day.
It should not be demoralising as in many ways it puts the teachers especially in a stronger position.
Andy#26,if you read my post#3 properly,i am broadly in agreement with you on these points you raise here.Andrew Fisher is not WRONG,WRONG,WRONG on everything as you headed your riposte to his article.I repeat i am generally more attuned to the thrust of his contribution,as opposed to yours,but he is absolutely wrong on his analysis of fighting/non fighting unions,his position vis. a vis Left/Right officials(again read my comments in#3).and of course i utterly reject union hopping as any strategy. Fisher has since responded by saying he does not neccessarily advocate this, but socialists should be(at the forefront–MY EMPHASIS) of raising this debate inside the movement. No they bloody well shouldnt. If this arises,then of course we respond.I think i have clearly outlined my attitude and responses on the matter.
#18
Andy, perhaps I was being too elliptical in my criticisms of the institutional response of the TUC.
Firstly, at the level of Congress meeting annually there is a very good analysis of the current crisis, mostly expressed as sharp criticism of the particular effects on services and industries.
This reflects the generally progressive make up of delegations and, interestingly, an increasing role for delegation meetings during congress. It is not so easy for general secretaries to stitch up an unprincipled compromise or construct a contradictory and impotent composite containing incompatible views, as was usual in the past.
Until relatively recently a combination of right wing (social democratic?) trade union leaders and the mostly malign influence of “the Office”, combined with arm twisting by Labour politicians and a more or less willing embrace of social democratic illusions (the efficacy of legal remedies, the EU ‘social chapter’, the potential for susbtantial advance under a Labour government) meant that progressive policies and action agreed by Congress could be negated by careful reference to other composite motions, kicked into the high grass, simply ignored or implemented in a purely formal way.
Ther has been the eclipse of the Atlanticist right wing. With mergers the role of the general council has declined somewhat but the demobilising power of the TUC back office machine is still considerable.
All of this is amenable to change when there is agreement and unity. And the November 30 action revealed the enormous potemtial that exists. This is not just present in the willingness of millions of members to take action but in the potentially decisve role of regional TUCs, trades councils and other local collectives of unions to organise mass action.
This is why I agree that partisan attacks on this or that union leadership, or the division of unions in ‘fighting’ and other wise is counterproductive. We should leave this to the Tories, their witch hunting press and their camp followers like Luke Akehurst.
IAIN thanks for your clarification.
Nick
Thanks that is clearer. The decisive issue will be carried at regional TUCs and welsh & scottish Tugs and at local trades councils to maintain unity where practical support is offered by the unions not still engaged with those still fighting .
We did this in June and the efforts by some on the left to create division potentially undermine that
Prianikoff
I honestly don’t know what you are referring to with your claim there are several currently existing R&F movements in the unions.
Yes N30 was a big step forward, and constructive relationships were built across the unions at the base, sometimes through trades councils, sometimes directly. But equally constructive relationships were strengthened betwnn full time officials and lay activists in many unions.
If we are to understand a R&F strategy to mean increasing the capacity of grass roots activists to act independent of the official union structures then that first requires that there is a layer of activists who see the need to do that, and also that the actually have the capability to deliver industrial action. Neither of those conditions currently obtains,
I agree with this. The argument that the memberships are not ready to fight is an old one, and, as any activist will know, it is 100% a self-serving, self-fulfilling prophecy of an argument, normally used by right-wing officials who are keen themselves to trample down any signs of militancy, lest their own jobs be threatened. Those who think this government can be defeated on any substantial issue using the tactics and strategy that we’ve seen from most of the main union leaders thus far are kidding themselves on.
Andy Newman’s initial piece reminds me strongly of Eric Hobsbawm’s contortions on the record of Stalinism – however eloquent, thought provoking and informed it was (and it was) it was still essentially intellectual cover for political cowardice.
Andrew Fisher’s article speaks for itself and doesn’t need me to defend it. It did what Newman’s response doesn’t even aspire to –clearly identify an historic betrayal of public sector union members and suggest what equally significant responses are in order. In that sense, Newman’s first few paragraphs are a deliberate distraction – uncontentious points about trade unions and industrial relations and the different levels of political awareness amongst a mass membership, that are reasonable but add nothing to the current debate around the TUC’s/UNISON’s/GMB’s utter inability to mount a defence of its members’ living standards, pensions and retirement age. They are there to make Newman sound like the voice of the common man, the realist, not the ivory tower theorist. But they clearly and not very cleverly disguise a political agenda – a tired defence of the likes of Barber, Prentis, Kenny and the Labour Party.
Newman makes play with references to old right-wing union leaders and asserts that in comparison Prentis in particular is “left”. This is just sophistry. Prentis is as dull, cowardly and unimaginative as the old TU Barons Newman mentions. This not a debating point, it is simply a fact – he must be defined by his stance on protecting his members from attacks by a vicious reactionary government that is making them work longer, pay more, and get less in their pensions, as well as freezing their pay and threatening them with job losses. His response is to collude with Barber and Labour to undermine those union leaders who wish to put up a fight and defend their members.
This is not the action or strategy of a “left” union leader. Newman can defend him if he wants, but he does so as one who (for personal and political reasons of his own) wishes to exculpate and whitewash a right-wing union leader who seeks a quiet life and political timidity over fighting for his members, with all the immense effort, stress and unpopularity (with the media and Westminster world) that would imply.
Newman studiously avoids the main thrust of Fisher’s criticisms, and slides away from his most damning points, such as the massive tactical error of allowing negotiations to be split up into scheme specify talks. Of course this was only an “error” if the intention was to preserve unity and solidarity and actually achieve something substantive for members. From Barber’s and Prentis’s point of view – i.e. these who did not wish to do these things – it was a cynical, deliberate and effective tactic. It was not at all impossible to maintain the strategy and imperative of unity and solidarity – at least, not if trade unions stood together and sought to lay down rules and procedures that benefited that strategy, instead of supinely accepting the rules of the other side.
After that Newman fizzles out, as well he might. Unbelievably he has the temerity to say at the end that the pensions is fight is only one part of a wider onslaught of the government on working people, citing jobs and pay. What he leaves well alone is how the trade unions and TU leaders he defends intend to carry on a fight on those fronts when they have signalled to the government a massive retreat and defeat on one key front, from the others will follow.
Fisher nails the key issue. If your generals, their staff and the organisations they represent have led you up the hill and then left you exposed, beaten and defenceless, do you simply shrug and trust them the next time? Or do you conclude they are intellectually, politically, and organisationally bankrupt, a shadow of what they could be, a hollowed out shell of comfortable suits who no longer remember why they went into trade unionism in the first place.
As for Newman’s catch-all get out – the sadly undeveloped state of working class political consciousness. So we shouldn’t start from here, thus not starting at all? At a time when working people took action in unprecedented numbers in November, against a tide of media misinformation and hostility, how does he expect the spirit of resistance and sharper political awareness to emerge and develop? Through the example of the “fighting” unions and those in other campaigning bodies such as UK Uncut, or through the dullness, inertia and defeatism of Barber, Prentis etc?
Of course there are “fighting” unions and non-fighting ones. The fighting unions are epitomised by PCS, the non-fighting by Unison. Anyone who has been a member of either – looking for assistance and energy in defence of their workplace interests – has experienced what the difference feels like. In that respect, I would not count on Prentis being “popular” with his members much longer.
We could argue this all day. But for all its aspirations to wide-ranging analysis, Newman’s article stands back from real engagement with political debate. What Barber, Prentis (and now Miliband and Balls) have done is signal an historic surrender on issues that are central to the quality of life, well being and happiness of ordinary working people. Others (such as Mark Serwotka, John MacDonnell, the student and Occupy movements, the Socialist and Green Party’s etc) have not. Hope lies with them, if at all. Of course we should support them , join them, make then grow. We do not really need to do anything to the TUC and its ilk. They are in terminal decline.
#35
High praise indeed.
Guilty as charged
“If we are to understand a R&F strategy to mean increasing the capacity of grass roots activists to act independent of the official union structures”
Not really, no. That would be a rather syndicalist view of the role of rank and file trade union groups. After all, even the NMM in the 20′s operated with a perspective of winning over the existing unions to a left-wing policy.
In the current circumstances, when a whole swathe of unions have won ballots for action and managed to implement it, it would be inappropriate to consider unofficial action outside the union structures.
As I said at #2, such groups need to use “branch resolutions, conference motions, internal ballots and special conferences” to challenge the signing of the Heads of Agreement document.
Of course if the membership felt they’d been sold a pig in a poke on pensions due to a sellout at the top of the unions, then the tactics of Saltley Gate might re-emerge once again.
There are also lots of people who simply aren’t organised by unions who are on the receiving end of savage cuts, who are quite volatile in their methods of protest. The TUC ignore these people at their peril, as we seen during the Student protests last winter, when Brendan Barber and Sally Hunt were left isolated, speaking to no one on the Embankment, while thousands of students were being kettled in Parliament Square.
Post 36 ~ I am trying desperately not to make any observations made by Mr Newman and his sectarian remarks on the various debates and analysis for activists, trade unionists and socialists on his website. But sometimes his comments are so blundering that I HAVE to break my new year’s resolution.
Here is the full quote from post 35: “Andy Newman’s initial piece reminds me strongly of Eric Hobsbawm’s contortions on the record of Stalinism – however eloquent, thought provoking and informed it was (and it was) it was still essentially intellectual cover for political cowardice.” As usual the selective way that Mr Newman portrays ideas of others is obnoxious. While Mr Newman considers it as “High praise” the reality is that John M was articulating the opposite, it is the politics of effluence.
The reality is the battle of the hearts and minds of ordinary working people and trade unionists have not been fully played out yet. But if Prentis and Barber and Miliband and the rest of the betrayers succeed in derailing the pensions struggle it will be a bitter defeat for the working people of Britain; and what will Mr Newman and the rest of the sectarian right on this website be doing, but blame the ordinary trade unionists for accepting the ConDems deal. But we are not at that stage yet……
I’m no fan of Andy’s politics, but I thought it was pretty obvious what he was doing there.
Post 39 ~ Yes, denigration by sarcasm and he calls himself a responsible trade union leader. Unfortunately, it is the right-wing method of attempting to smear political opponents by creating falsehoods and distortions. Something I learned to my cost as a member of the Labour Party during the 1980s
Taking the piss, is what he was doing. There’s no attempt at distortion or falsehood there. And you make yourself look a bit daft claiming there is.
#37
Which groups??? And if you mean the Broad Lefts which exist on some unions, why do you call them R&F groups? There is usually understood to be a political distinction.
#41
It would have been pretty ineffective “distortion” as the original comment criticisg me was still there immediately above for people to read for themselves.
Interestingly, Sally Hunt’s most recent missive uses slightly different rhetoric. “On 19 December the government put forward what it described as final Heads of Agreement”. Whereas previously this was unambiguously the ‘final offer’, now it isn’t. So, at least SH is now distancing herself from the government’s position.
She continues: “Let no one be in any doubt that under the government’s proposals, even with the improvements won by UCU and our fellow unions, all members will pay more; and many would need to work longer to receive a pension equivalent to their entitlement today”.
You don’t say! With minor variations, this is exactly how it is across the public sector. This deal would be a serious defeat.
#37
Incidently, even if we view “acting independently” in the permissive sense to mean not only industrial action, but also acting as a lay member pressure group seeking to influence official union policy, then there is still a difference between a broad left and a R&F group.
i.e. a R&F organisation would normally include only lay activists, and Broad Left would include both lay activists and officers.
Don’t leave Unison: stay and fight to get the action put back on (SW article)
…It’s not true that there are simply “left” and “right” unions.
The ATL, a union that boasted it had never struck before, led the strikes on 30 June last year—while Unite didn’t strike. The left‑led FBU has still not taken action on pensions.
Of course there can be circumstances when it is necessary to choose between unions. But in most cases breaking away merely weakens our side.
There is a long tradition, going back to the early 20th century and beyond, of workers impatient with right wing leaders creating militant “red unions”.
But there is a big problem in a union movement being divided in this way. It can isolate the most militant workers, helping the bosses….
Kris Thanks for that. Good to see SW arguing such a sensible position.
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture