Unite | ukwatch.net

Deep sense of fairness?

tim — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:00:00 +0000

With the Labour Party conference and the Convention of the Left running concurrently, Manchester is going to be a city of contrasts for the next week.

And it started even before either conference had got fully under way, with the colourful and vociferous peace march on Saturday and the Unite rally on Sunday providing an inside and outside contrast which may well, in its own way, provide the pattern for the week.

While new Labour loyalists in the conference were desperately mounting a rearguard action to save the Prime Minister – and new Labour’s – bacon, and Mr Brown himself was doing a mea culpa on TV, admitting that mistakes have been made and pledging, like a naughty schoolboy, to do better next time, thousands of peace activists were on the streets outside the conference campaigning against new Labour’s biggest mistake, the Iraq war.

And as Unite the union joint general secretary Tony Woodley called on marchers to remember the “many thousands of innocent victims of the lunatics that have taken us to war,” one of the chief lunatics was being praised by Cabinet Office Minister Ed Miliband for his “deep sense of fairness.”

On Sunday, this deep sense of fairness was put centre-stage again, with furious public-sector workers demonstrating outside the conference against the below-inflation pay deals that are being thrust on them as a result of government policy, while that same deeply fair government is doing absolutely nothing to curb the swingeing power company price rises that are producing a profits bonanza for the privatised utilities.

Deep fairness again prompted Mr Brown to observe that the City’s bonus culture encouraged “excessive” risk-taking, but that it was difficult to regulate as bonuses were part of a global system.

It’s a bit difficult to work out what the difference is between speculators working for foreign-owned banks and factory workers employed by foreign-owned manufacturers or NHS privateers, but we are sure that deep fairness means there is a reason why one set should have their wages pegged and others not.

But we probably shouldn’t get carried away with blaming it all on poor Mr Brown.
After all, he is only doing what he is told by his masters in the banks, who have made it very clear that, if their mistakes are not covered by taxpayers’ money, then the entire global financial system will collapse.

Does the blame, then, lie with the global capitalists who are holding a financial gun to the otherwise good-hearted Prime Minister’s head?

Or is it that, lacking the courage to face them down, this country’s government is doing its best to preserve and underwrite the system that has brought the world’s most developed countries to the brink of ruin?

Perhaps there is a lesson here for the trade union movement on the exercise of industrial muscle.

But the movement cannot exercise the power that it has without the full-hearted support of the people of those countries who, at the moment, have swallowed the biggest lie in history, that there is no alternative to capitalism, warts and all.

Therein lies the lesson for the Convention of the Left. Unite and refute the big lie that is capitalism.

Or stay divided and stay powerless. The trade union movement needs the left and the left needs the trade unions. And everybody needs a movement united under the banner of defeating the money-men who have made the City their own and who easily control Labour governments that are utterly divorced from their working class.

Left talk but no fight against Labour government

tim — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:45:49 +0000

At the beginning of the week, the reports of what to expect at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) at Brighton were apocalyptic.

Amidst what is almost universally acknowledged as the worst economic situation for decades—and possibly since the 1930s—there was talk in the media of a new “Winter of Discontent”, or the conflict between the trade unions and the Labour government of James Callaghan that ended with the Conservatives coming to power under Margaret Thatcher in 1979.

Ballots are planned for protest strikes in November against the government’s below-inflation 2.45 percent wage ceiling by the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) civil service union, the National Union of Teachers, the local government union UNISON and the UCU college lecturers union, which involve up to one million workers. In addition, the Prison Officers Association (POA) called for a general strike against the government’s failure to rescind the anti-union laws. It also moved an amendment to add the word “strike” to demands for action against the government-imposed wage cap.

Prior to the congress, the TUC issued a series of reports highlighting the bitterness felt by many of its affiliate’s members, and called for the government to change course. A survey found that 13 percent of respondents—equivalent to three million workers—are not confident they will be in their job in a year’s time. Another found growing disenchantment in the workplace, with 42 percent of workers questioned believing their pay has not kept pace with inflation and 46 percent saying the amount of work asked of them has increased.

Another report, “Do the super rich matter?” pointed to the growth of a fabulously wealthy elite under the Labour Party governments. While one needed at least £50 million to be among the UK’s 200 wealthiest people in 1990, one would now need £400 million to be included. The report urged the government to raise taxes on those earning more than £100,000 a year.

The TUC also criticised the “big six” energy firms for making £1.6 billion last year, while raising prices by 42 percent, and called for a windfall tax on power companies to fund a rebate for poor households.

As the congress events unfolded, the unions’ threats were exposed as largely empty bluster, meant to mollify and deceive their own discontented membership.

Delegates backed the idea of some sort of “coordinated action, a national demonstration and joint days of action” against the government’s pay policy, but voted down the strike call demanded by the POA. Its call for a general strike over the anti-union laws was also rejected, supported only by the RMT transport union.

Writing in the pro-Labour New Statesman, Jeremy Dear, the nominally “left” national secretary of the National Union of Journalists, commented cynically, “So we’re ready to threaten the government with a series of leaflets and angry newspaper articles—but no TUC-led industrial action.”

The TUC, far from seeking a confrontation with the government, is doing everything possible to avoid one. Labour is heading towards electoral disaster, with the Independent newspaper’s “poll of polls” showing its support “flatlining” while the Conservatives are set for “an overall majority of 174 seats”.

Without the support of the trade unions, Labour would be finished. They provide fully £9 out of every £10 received by the party. Yet far from mobilising against Labour, the TUC’s most strenuous efforts were made to oppose any leadership challenge to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. TUC President Dave Prentis said of Brown, “I believe he will continue to be [prime minister] until the next election. Of course we want him to. He is the leader of the Labour Party and he is Prime Minister of this country.”

The most likely leadership challenge to Brown is from the Blairite Foreign Secretary David Miliband. This prompted one of the few genuinely angry reactions from a leading union bureaucrat. Interviewed by the Observer on the eve of the TUC congress, Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of UNITE, “accused Miliband, in a stream of swearwords, of being ‘smug’ and ‘arrogant’,” the paper reports.

“In terms that caused fury on the right of the party, he also said Miliband would take the country back to the ‘failings of Blairism’ and could be a worse choice as Prime Minister than the Tory leader David Cameron.”

Simpson may as well have saved his breath, as Miliband and the rest of Labour’s cabinet took part in a series of high-profile media events to make clear their support for Brown. The foreign secretary said Brown would “prove people wrong” by winning the next general election.

At a private dinner with the TUC leaders Wednesday, Brown was able to give what was reported as “relaxed, 20-minute speech” during which he “cracked jokes” and was “was warmly received”. More than a dozen cabinet members joined him, including Miliband.

Brown did not deign to address the TUC conference, left instead to Chancellor Alistair Darling. Before this appearance, the TUC had officially backed calls for a rather paltry £1 billion windfall tax on the energy companies. To put this tax in perspective, Blair and Brown levied a much larger £4.5 billion surcharge on the privatized utilities in 1997.

Again conflict was predicted as Brown had already rejected the windfall tax in favour of a scheme to provide some aid for loft insulation. Gerry Doherty, general secretary of transport union TSSA, said, “Darling will get a tough time from the public sector unions. There is bound to be some sort of demonstration.”

At the event, only a small number of UCU college lecturers held up banners saying that food, housing and education were “not an additional extra”.

Darling took the occasion to call for pay restraint and to reject calls for a windfall tax on the energy companies. Michael White of the Guardian summed up the response of delegates as, “They didn’t dance in the aisles, but they didn’t riot either”.

To complete this somewhat pathetic picture, Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman’s speech was supposed to be a sop to workers’ anger at growing social inequality, and provide something the trade unions could cite approvingly.

Though she stated that the inequality of opportunity between “the rich and poor” and “the north and the south” must be overcome, she dropped references to “socioeconomic class” in her published speech.

The TUC bureaucrats gathered at Brighton are fully aware that they are sitting on a powderkeg of social and political discontent. The rhetoric of the lefts and the call for protest strikes are an attempt to provide a safety valve through which to release these tensions, but nothing more. That is why, even now, the only discussion of a break with the Labour Party at the congress was confined to a fringe meeting hosted by the Morning Star, the daily paper of the ever-declining Stalinist Communist Party of Britain. PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka vaguely called for a new party and Bob Crow of the RMT argued that there would be a need for a new party at some point, while UNITE General Secretary Derek Simpson reportedly argued for changing the Labour Party from within.

The entire union bureaucracy is opposed to any struggle that might threaten the fundamental interests of the major corporations or the Labour government. They are not the representatives of the working class, but social policemen who owe their privileged status to their intimate relations with big business and the state apparatus at municipal and national levels.

Control of union assets is one source of their privileges, but it does not translate into a desire to defend their members. As a definite social layer, their existence is bound up with maintaining a position as valued “social partners” of industry and government.

It was possible for the unions to secure certain gains and social reforms from the employers as long as economic life was largely organised on the basis of national production. But with the development of globalised production, the defence of jobs and living standards now demands a coordinated international struggle of the working class led on the basis of irreconcilable opposition to the profit system. The union bureaucracy has developed in the opposite direction. It has abandoned the struggle for reforms and integrated itself ever more closely into the apparatus of corporate management and the state.

As a result of their repeated betrayals, the unions have lost over half their membership from their post-war peak in the 1970s. The number of employed union members fell to just 28 percent in 2007. But even this is a distorted figure, since union density in the public sector is 59 percent, compared with just 16.1 percent in the private sector.

The full extent of the political decay of the trade unions found its most finished expression in a call meant to coincide with the congress issued by Rory Murphy, the former head of the Amicus union, now part of UNITE.

Writing for Personnel Today, Murphy recommended the TUC change its “outdated” name to something like the “Organisation for Workers’ Rights or The Centre for Improvement” and then seek a merger with the main employers’ organisation, the Confederation of British Industry.

He urged, “If the TUC is unsure of its role, and can’t change, might the unthinkable need contemplating? If we are truly to make progress as a society, should the TUC consider amalgamating with the CBI to fight for fairness and justice for all workers and employers? Are the aims of both organisations so widely apart that such an idea is a non-starter? After all, what is the real difference in seeking ‘to improve the economic or social conditions of workers’ and helping ‘create and sustain conditions for business to compete and prosper for all’.”

There is no way that the unions, organising millions of workers as they still do, will not experience an eruption of opposition to the government within their ranks. The TUC congress confirms, however, that workers within the unions, as well as those who are un-organised, are faced with mounting a combined offensive against the union bureaucracy that is just as fundamental as that they must wage against the government and the employers. This requires the construction of independent rank-and-file workplace organisations to take the struggle out of the hands of the union leaders, as part of a broad political movement for the construction of a genuinely socialist and internationalist leadership.

Support and strength

tim — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:10:09 +0000

Unite general secretary Derek Simpson hit the nail on the head in arguing: “If people feel that they can get the kind of support and strength that they need from a union, I don’t think they mind what you call it.”

Trade unions exist to do a basic job – to defend workers’ pay and conditions.

They can and do take on other responsibilities and fringe benefits – everything from credit cards to concessionary insurance rates; but securing the best price for members’ labour power and safeguarding their health, safety and workplace respect is always the priority.

If Unite members are convinced that merging with the large north American union USW will assist them in that task, they will jump at the opportunity.

And, certainly, at a time when a relatively small number of transnational corporations are dominating global production, anything that minimises the prospect of national trade unions accepting the “reality” of a race to the bottom to price members into a job is welcome.

These corporations must be laughing all the way to the bank to see unions in one country after another agreeing to cut corporate costs; basic pay, fringe benefits, overtime rates etc – in a bid to persuade them not to relocate overseas.

If international union mergers can ensure a co-ordinated principled approach, they can only be positive.

However, there are two major phenomena that will work to undermine the principles of internationalism and working class solidarity.

One is the existence of stultifying anti-trade union legislation, especially in Britain and the US, and the other is trade unions’ poverty of ambition.

Solidarity action is specifically outlawed in the US and Britain, forcing workers in struggle to fight employers with one hand behind their backs.

Employers can ship in scabs from elsewhere in the country or from overseas. They can act in concert to undermine industrial action.

But woe betide any set of workers who act out of natural decency to try to tilt the balance of power in favour of members of their own union who are out on strike.

Think back to the efforts by workers at Heathrow airport who showed solidarity with the Gate Gourmet strikers and the storm of rage generated by employers, the media and the Labour government.

New Labour is now on the bones of its backside, abandoned by increasing numbers of its once generous boardroom donors and sinking into debt-laden oblivion.

Unions are ready and willing to bail Labour out, but they still seem to accept that Labour is only electable if it pursues Tory-style policies and gives up on any demands for real justice.

And previous union leaders who have copped the ermine, such as Baroness Prosser, are the most strident in rejecting the case for trade union freedom and for close Labour-union links.

The ability of a merged Unite-USW international union to punch its weight and to affect salaries, conditions and investment policies on a global basis will be enhanced by the capacity of its constituent parts to operate freely and effectively on their home turf.

A trade union freedom Bill in Britain is not only a prerequisite for effective international trade union solidarity but for domestic social justice too.

Global Unions get Organised Worldwide

Ellie Keen — Sun, 04 May 2008 12:17:15 +0000

In recent weeks there have been demonstrations outside numerous Marks & Spencer stores, demanding that the supermarket giant stop the discrimination against (mostly migrant) agency workers in it British food supply chains. The demonstrations were organised by Unite as part of its campaign for minimum standards in the meat industry. We are challenging M&S to live up to its promise of “all products being sourced and manufactured to our high quality and ethical standards”.

There was something spectacularly different, however, about these demonstrations. In addition to stores in this country, solidarity demonstrations were also staged outside M&S stores in Manila, Hong Kong, Moscow, Zagreb, Cebu, Geneva, Phuket, Seoul, Budapest, Warsaw, Bucharest and Istanbul.

The action was organised in support of the Unite campaign by the International Union of Foodworkers and its affiliated unions around the world. The IUF is one of 10 global union federations – internationals of unions representing workers in different sectors – which are gaining importance as unions struggle to respond to the challenges of the global economy.

Why would a Russian or Filipino trade unionist be prepared to protest outside a store in their own country – and risk arrest or harassment from security goons – in support of agency workers in the British meat industry?

Apart from the pleasing post-globalisation twist in the tale, involving workers in “developing countries” to take solidarity action in support of workers in the North, the worldwide action over M&S illustrates some important new trends in the international trade union movement.

The nature of work is changing throughout the world, with the growth of part-time, temporary, vulnerable and insecure employment. The scale of international labour migration is unprecedented. The majority of workers in the world are without properly protected and decently paid work. Unions throughout the world increasingly recognise the acute need to tackle the problem. In particular, they are targeting the increase of agency and contract labour used to create an unjust, divisive and discriminatory two-tier workforce in many industries.

Unions – along with many others – recognise that global retail corporations are the most important factor driving down standards and livelihoods. In effect, these companies control the working lives of millions of people throughout their supply chains.

Yet the giant corporations running the retail sector are vulnerable. Like other transnational companies, they are increasingly dependent on long supply lines and cheap transport costs, driven by “just-in-time” tight schedules, with little or no slack in the system. As demonstrated by the dock workers’ dispute along the west coast of the United Sates in 2002, it is no exaggeration to suggest that a strategically-placed picket line in the transport system can bring large parts of the world economy to a grinding halt within a matter of days.

Moreover, companies such as M&S are vulnerable to their own marketing pitch. When targeted by Unite, M&S managers ask why and complain bitterly that their competitors are guilty of far worse practices. M&S has introduced its “Plan A”. This is “our five-year, 100-point ‘eco’ plan to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our business and our world”. Plan A includes this commitment: “By being a fair partner, we’ll help to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in our worldwide supply chain and local communities.”

Unite deputy general secretary Jack Dromey’s response is: “Prove it. Sign an agreement to ensure that there is no discrimination against agency workers or a divisive two-tier workforce in your supply chains. It is wrong to exploit newly-arrived migrant agency workers and wrong to undercut the workers who have been here for generations.”

Unions throughout the world recognise the importance of this campaign, not just for British workers, but for workers throughout the global supply chains of the big retail companies. They must be forced to take a real responsibility for advancing and safeguarding the rights and conditions of their employees.

The international action over M&S illustrates important shifts in strategy by the international trade union movement. Unions have had a rough time over the past two or three decades and there are few in the world which have not experienced a dramatic loss of membership and power. Debates continue nationally and internationally on how to reverse the trend. There are still fierce disagreements, but at least everyone is agreed on one simple over-riding principle: unions must invest in basic organising.

There is a new organising agenda, which is not simply about the recruitment of new members, but building sufficient organisational strength to challenge corporate power. Some describe this new emphasis as an “organising model” versus a “servicing model” for trade union growth. In other words, there is a rejection of membership growth based on union services and marketing (union credit cards, discounts on products) in favour of a more aggressive, targeted and well-resourced drive for better conditions for workers in specific sectors and companies.

For some unions, including the T&G section of Unite, the organising model was adapted from American experience, in particular the experience of the Service Employees’ International Union, led by the charismatic but controversial Andy Stern. The United Sates has one of the toughest environments for trade unionism in the world and union membership has suffered badly in recent years. The SEIU has bucked the trend and managed to increase membership dramatically over the past decade. It has been particularly successful in organising what some had considered “unorganisable”: low-paid, often isolated cleaners, caretakers (janitors) and care-home workers. The SEIU’s “Justice for Janitors” campaign in Los Angeles inspired Ken Loach’s film Bread and Roses.

This new approach, now adapted and adopted by other unions around the world, is characterised by major financial investment in highly professional organisation departments involving detailed planning and research, along with tightly-monitored membership targets and campaign priorities. Organising drives are backed up by new corporate campaign methods, borrowing much from techniques developed by campaign and lobbying groups outside the labour movement.

More national unions are investing and reorganising themselves around a new organising agenda, but in the modern global economy, organisation cannot be restricted by national borders. The SEIU has its own global organising programme and is co-operating with others, such as Unite, to form the Global Organising Alliance to strengthen transnational organising campaigns.

Inevitably, such initiatives make new demands on the organisational capacity of the international trade union organisations – most notably on the global union federations. To a greater or lesser extent, these are grasping the organising agenda and responding to the challenge of developing truly global union organisation with strategic organising objectives and a new relationship between themselves and individual unions – and between those unions themselves.

The workers outside M&S stores in Thailand, Croatia, Hungary and elsewhere were not just demonstrating in solidarity with meat workers in Britain. They were demonstrating that they are members of a global union federation beginning to build an organising capacity across the world.

Dave Spooner is the international programmes co-ordinator at the organising department of Unite.