Since the General Election New Labour has treated trade unions with contempt. Honeyed words for the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, and the poisoned chalice for the TUC. The Bernie Ecclestones and Lord Symons of this world were ushered in the front door of 10 Downing Street while union representatives were smuggled in the back door and told ''no favours'', shorthand for ''the jackboot
pressing on your throat will not be lifted''. Or, ''the laws passed by the previous administration which made British unions the least free in the Western world will remain in place''. Who says New Labour doesn't keep its promises?
The real power of trade unionism rests on workplace organisation. Without that, nothing else matters. Without that, trade unions are hollow bureaucratic superstructures that will slowly sink into the sands. The unions needed Labour to deliver (God forgive me for this cliche) a level playing field, which means the legal right to organise in the workplace. To organise the unorganised is always a process, often a very slow process. It never happens overnight. To impose a 40% threshold of support as a starter is to erect a barrier for trade unions that is virtually insurmountable. It is a formula for continued non-unionism.
This is what the Government is offering the unions. There was no threshold mentioned in the General Election manifesto, but months ago it was known that Blair wanted 40%. The strategy was to get the TUC to suggest 30%. Meanwhile, Millbank Tower was encouraging the CBI to press for 50%. Blair would then split the difference. This he has done. The trade unions are knackered yet again. Why did the TUC approach these negotiations volunteering concessions? It was stupid. Even the rawest shop steward knows that. And one presumes the General Council of the TUC isn't stupid.
I think too many trade union leaders have lost the will to fight. Some never had it and assumed positions of power through union in-fighting rather than fighting for the members.
In the beginning trade unions were illegal. Leaders fought to organise workers and were hounded for doing so. They were hanged, jailed, deported to places like Botany Bay. They didn't beg for rights but demanded them. Their struggles and sacrifices helped the cause of political reform that gave workers a legal right to organise. This was an important part of the democratic revolution in this country. The right of workers to organise is a fundamental democratic principle. The right of organised workers to withdraw their labour is a fundamental democratic principle. There
were no strikes in Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain, Stalin's Russia, or Zalazar's Portugal. Total industrial tranquillity is possible only in a totalitarian state. As is total political tranquillity. Such tranquillity is really servility.
Put in context, the occasional nuisances of a free society can be most alluring.
There were great difficulties for trade unions during the Thatcher years. They were un-free. What was not forgivable was the way they threw in the towel. They had mass memberships, money, and organisation. They could have campaigned above and beyond party politics, putting the rights of workers in a civil libertarian context. Instead, they put all their eggs in the Labour basket.
Everything will be okay when there is a Labour Government. Even when there was a Labour Party that might undo the damage of the Tories this was always a feeble response. The unions had to re-assert their rights irrespective of governments. This they failed to do. Then when Blair was elected leader of the Labour Party the whole thing fell apart. He made it clear that his strategy was to continue with the main tenets of Thatcherism and all that meant for trade unionism.
Even then the TUC pandered to, instead of pressurising, the Blairite leadership. They were told not to rock the boat before the election and therefore didn't punch their weight at Labour conferences. After the
election they were told to stay on message or else certain manifesto promises deemed to benefit the unions would not be honoured. Instead of fighting back they once again kow-towed. Now they've been humiliated. Whatever else is in the package, the 40% precondition is intolerable and has to be fought. Trade unionists are not social workers. Trade unions exist to maximise the wages and salaries of their members, to obtain the best possible working conditions, and safety at work. They also want to negotiate what were once called fringe benefits.
The function of company boards and managements is to maximise profits and dividends for shareholders. This function is considered legitimate and even commendable by this Government and the last one. On the other hand, any wage increase for workers beyond something like 3% is considered regrettable and condemned as inflationary.
n Please, dear readers, allow me a postscript. I read somewhere that
the over-publicised, laddish, lager
louts, men behaving mental, football fans, had responded to the question
- if offered sex with the female of
your dreams would you prefer instead to watch the World Cup. They
responded in favour of watching
the footy.
I reckon they could have done both, as sex for them, one presumes, usually lasts about a minute, and even then they could always watch the play on television out of the corner of their eyes as the lady examined the ceiling while thinking of the joys of toothache.
I'm getting a bit fed up with the moronic macho male image of football fans as portrayed on television and radio. Particularly those bellowing, wind-breaking, belching, shower of foul-mouthed crap merchants who masquerade as wits on football panels. They laugh like hell at each other's contrived one-liners. Why is the beautiful game so despoiled by such cretins?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article