The state of the unions

The relationship between Labour and the unions is fractious. But too often so is the relationship between unions and those they should be for. What do we want from 21st century unions?

Buy me a coffee

It is the end of another HeartUnions week. A week where unions celebrate themselves and we celebrate unions as we are all reminded all of the importance of collective organising.

I believe in collectivism above many other things. I think the heart of socialism is the collective good and the understanding of our place within that. I don’t believe in stamping out our individuality or not paying attention to our individual needs. But I do believe that societal good can often triumph over the need of the individual and if you are a believer in state, societal and collective action, it is in balancing those needs and rights that unions have a vital role to play. It is in giving the collective voice of workers a stronger hand than they would have individually that allows socialist action to tame the immoral outcomes of amoral capitalism.

Of course, sadly, my own personal experience of unions has not always been that successful. When a worker in the private sector and facing a redundancy process, I called my then union Unite to ask for help in my un-organised workplace only to be told “we don’t do that”.

A few years later, I went through an exceptionally poor redundancy process at the TUC of all places. There we did have recognised unions. But they were unable or unwilling to do the most basic of negotiations for fear of “embarassing the movement”. Personally, I think behaving like that was more embarrassing for the movement and I am happy to say so.

Howwever, I persevere. I remain a member of a union. Though not one affiliated to the Labour Party (I am a member of the NUJ and they - rightly given their member’s role in reporting on politics - are not affiliated). I still believe in collectivism and I don’t think my individually opting out of the movement is the approach that will help improve it.

But I do think we need to talk about where the union movement is and where it is going. I also think we need to talk about what the relationship is between Labour and the unions and how that can and should mature and change.

Let’s start with the unions themselves. Unionism is not in a good state in this country. That is often denied by those inside the movement out loud, but there are few unwilling to admit it to themselves and others privately.

There has been some good news recently. Membership has risen overall over the last few years, up to 6.6 million or 23.7% of the workforce from a low of 23.3%. This should rightly be celebrated, but this small joy masks a significant amount of problems elsewhere that need to be discussed and addressed.

Firstly, this rise has come completely in the public sector. In fact there was actually a drop in the private sector of 110,000 down from 13.3% to 12.9% (meaning that this was probably in part, but not completely, due to losses of jobs due to Covid). Either way, a saturation of membership in the private sector of fewer than 1:7 is bad for workers - unionised and non-unionised. Strength comes in numbers. And while some of the union tools of negotiation, such as sectoral bargaining may be long since relegated to the ‘public sector only’ toolbox, it is vital that unions work harder to reach more people working in the private sector.

This is not to disparage unions or union activity in the public sector. It is important that we do not, in our belief in public services and sectors, fail to recognise that these workers need representation and these employers can be just as guilty as others of poor practices.

But the majority of us work in the private sector. If unions are going to be bigger than the sum of their parts, they need to have an understanding of the needs of the workforce across the country and an ability to innovate and change with it to suit their bargaining and negotiating needs.

Buy me a coffee

Too often, unions have lived up to very stale and old fashioned stereotypes of what they see their role as being. All too often they act like macho braggarts in the playground (at least in public - I am well aware that their behind the scenes work is often more subtle). That model isn’t that attractive to many people. it isn’t how people themselves want to be seen nor it it how they want to be represented. Unions need a makeover to make themselves vastly more attractive to people who are increasingly less likely to inherit membership from a family working class tradition or to enter an already organised large workplace.

What do modern workers want and need? What does a modern workforce care about and what are they willing to give up a not insignificant chunk of their salary towards? Is it the same thing as the saleried white-collar union staff care about? If not, how can the two be better married?

I don’t claim to have the answers to this. What worries me is I rarely if ever hear these questions asked in public by anyone else. Unions are either dismissed as dinosaurs or lauded as pillars with no introspection from either side as to what they could and should be and how they could and should do better.

I really want to see a modern approach to collectivism worked out that broke free of the 20th century model far too rooted in an old and long gone economic model. Nostalgia is not the friend of the unions. It is the Japanese bindweed killing and choking any and all chance at innovating a system to match those that Capitalism is imposing on their workforces with too little resistance or input from the workers themselves.

Unions have the tools to innovate. But to do so, they have to break out of the defensive stance they take whenever someone dares to question them at all. I am sure I will get pushback on this piece from people I love who have the best of intentions but a vlind spot that hears not “unions could be better” but “you are not good enough”. Innovation never comes from such a defensive place.

But if the trade union movement could grasp the confidence to be self reflective and innovative they will also be better able to reflect those needs in their role representing workers when lobbying the government and in their relationship with the Labour Party and its policy making.

But the link between the unions and labour is looking shakier than it has in a long time. And not all for the reasons that factional partisans on both sides like to think. Some will tell you that Keir Starmer has betrayed everything that Corbyn stood for and as such has equally betrayed the unions. Other will tell you that the militant union bosses are exactly the problem and that is why membership is so low and the relationship so fractious.

that was definitely the narrative that played out among commentators and politicos during the recent fight to lead Unite after the long reign of Len McCluskey. This was seen as a fight between the Left candidate Steve Turner and the Centrist Gerard Coyne. All the coverage framed it as such. The question of whether Howard Beckett would run too (thus potentially splitting left vote and spoiling Turner’s chances) was frequently discussed.

What was not discussed much was the quiet but efficient organising strategy of the actual winner Sharon Graham. Graham’s pitch seemed quite simple - less caring about the internal politics of the Labour Party and more focus on the needs of her membership. No wonder the battered union voted for her. And since taking on that leadership she has lived up to that notion - moving away from being a power player in and financial backer to Labour and looking more internally. Other unions too have or are considering their relationship with the party.

The reaction to this has been tempered by the current financial status of the party which is pretty bloody dire. There are a number of reasons for this and twice as many arguments about who’s to blame. I am not going to go into that here.

The truth is, Labour should not be overly reliant on the unions for money, but should diversify into different funding streams. That doesn’t mean following the Tories into dodgy Russian oligarch money either though.

But were Labour to ever become so successful in other fundraising streams and sources it could afford to shrug off losing money from the unions it should not shrug off the union link.

Just as unions need to reaquaint themselves with working people, their needs and wants so too does Labour. Given the historic relationship between the two, it baffles me why they aren’t exploring this more together. Why Labour’s outreach is siloed from labour’s as it were?

The Labour Link is a vital part of making sure the workforce is represented in the policies of the party set up to represent them. But that link is only a strength as long as that movement is representative. It currently isn’t.

That doesn’t mean abandoning the link, the movement or the party. It means all sides taking an honest and strong inventory of what they need to do to change and grow into the strong movement and politics that will bring the workforce together to face the challenges of our modern era.

That should be a positive and exciting statement and challenge. I hope - for the sake of Labour, for the sake of the unions and most of all for the sake of those who should be well represented by both that it is. I fear though that short term defensiveness will remain the deadly order of the day.

Buy me a coffee

---

I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for political or media consultancy advice, strategic communication and campaign planning, ghostwriting, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.

You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.

I am also a playwright and director. My debut piece No Cure For Love can be seen here.

Work on my next piece Triggered is continuing apace with a view to staging it next summer. I have set up a Go Fund Me with details and would be delighted to receive donations to help pay my actors (I don’t believe in asking for free labour).

---

What I’ve been up to

Just the one review this fortnight! The wonderfully fun Viper Squad at Colab Tavern. I went looking like this!

We also put out the 50th episode of The Zeitgeist Tapes where we discussed the Manchurian Candidate which we agreed was superb.

---

Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform that no longer hosts Donald Trump. I’m at emmaburnell@gmail.com or on Twitter (far too often) at @EmmaBurnell_.