Very interesting piece by Jonathan Guthrie in the FT (read it before they slap the curse of subscription view on it), “Unions need to swap the red flag for pastel shades”. He’s drawing together the T&G/Amicus merger with a new paper on unions’ finanical outlook from LSE/PSI (with the snappy title of “Accounting for Collective Action: Resource Acquisition and Mobilisation in British Unions”).
His opinion is that unions need to revise their offer to prospective members to break out of a gradual decline. In many new industries, he believes, people’s view of work has moved on, to the point where there’s no longer a natural understanding of what a union might offer them.
“Unionists should not take Billy Bragg’s rallying call to ‘bring up the banners from the days gone by’ any more literally than modern Christians do biblical prescriptions on camel husbandry. Leave those dusty banners in storage, comrades, they remind nervous punters of Arthur Scargill. Instead, pop on pastel polo shirts, brew some fresh coffee and organise a speed networking event.”
Now, I like the old banners more than most people I think (always look forward to a good march behind them on May Day), but he has a powerful point. Fingers crossed there are signs of a change here, with one of the proposed merger names (OneUnion) sounding very fluffy and aspirational – just right for the large gains the union could make in the union-wastelands of the business services industry.
Funny how some of the unions’ best and fairest coverage (outside the Morning Star) seems to come from the FT. You’d not expect it given their readers, but I guess if there’s one thing a capitalist takes seriously it’s capitalism, so they’d want to hear pretty accurately when unions have something to say which might affect them. Union analysis seems to be taken much more seriously there than at the Times or Torygraph. Not enough to make me read it mind… (except Martin Lukes!)
Ta Paulie – I just checked my own blogroll and found NTaH wasn’t on it, which surprised me as I’d thought you were already! I’ll just blame it on blogger beta or something (still cross at it for losing one of my posts today!). Candid friends are some of the best I reckon and like I said about the FT, it’s hardly like enough people write about unions these days that they can afford to ignore the critical ones is it? Cheers, John
John,
First off, GOOD BLOG! I’ve not been here before.
Consider yourself linked to when I next update the blogroll.
Secondly, I’m inclined to agree with you here. BUT I do think that Unions need a few more candid friends than they have at the moment.
While the case / need for Unions has never diminished, the buraucratisation of Unions is as bad as it ever was.
I’ve a lot of dealings with them, and to say that they are unaware of the needs of their members, unresponsive to them, and largely self-serving as bureaucracies would – I think – be an understatement in a few cases.
I think that we often get hung up on presentational issues. Sadly, it is often possible to succeed in the Union movement simply by invoking a few platitudes without really looking at the strategic long-term interests of organised labour.
I could go on, but I think you’d have to muzzle me after a few hour of “…and another thing…”
Zigzackly Jon – it’s horses for courses, and we need to work on our entire stable.
I was helping to flyer employees at Yahoo last year for my union (NUJ), and they’re all extremely happy and loyal to the company – even though some of them are in a pretty precarious position of employment (no wonder, it’s a very exciting place to work – I was almost jealous myself!).
We needed to talk to these people on an aspirational tack – unions can help stabilise their working arrangements, but their main concerns are things like the ethical workings of their company, and where they can get training and networking for professional development, as well as a voice to represent them as a professional industry. We need to tailor our offer in this case to make ourselves more relevant. Same goes for a very significant chunk of the private sector in new economy organisations.
At the other end of the spectrum as you say are another big chunk of exploited and vulnerable workers, where bosses weasle round employment law or just ignore it. Unions need to change here too, as these people have often fallen through the union net as if they’re in vulnerable positions they’re hard (and expensive) to reach and organise too. Some good gains here in 06 – T&G working well with migrant workers and private sector agency office cleaners is showing the way. Let’s hope it continues much more in 07.
cheers, John
I agree about the FT John, the ruling class might tell lies to everyone else but when it comes to investing their (our) resources they need to know something close to the truth 🙂
I also agree that the unions need to renew but I think we need to bear in mind the enormous diversity of the workforce and therefore the range of different appeals we need.
There are, without doubt, thriving private sector concerns where a traditional approach to class politics would get us nowhere. There are also massively exploited sectors of the workforce (some of them perhaps working for contractors to some of those same concerns) for whom an approach akin to the “New Unions” of the late nineteenth century is precisely what is needed. Then again there is the public sector – a large minority of the workforce and still a relative bastion of trade unionism, where the politics of our relationship with our ultimate employers (the Government) has a particular relevance.