In March 2002, a conference held by the Unions 21 network debated the challenges facing the British trade union movement and asked how unions might act to win support and influence among workers, employers and the government. This feature looks at some of the key issues and debates that emerged during the conference.
On 9 March 2002, a conference organised by the Unions 21 network drew together an audience of trade unionists, policy-makers and researchers to discuss the challenges and opportunities currently facing the British labour movement. Launched in 1993, Unions 21 is associated with the 'modernising Left' and exists to provide a forum for debate on how trade unions can win support and influence in a changing political, economic and social climate. The 2002 conference, on the theme of 'Making unions matter', addressed a range of issues including:
- information and consultation rights;
- developing new union structures;
- building a broader role for unions in the community;
- finding an appropriate balance between 'organising' and 'servicing';
- developing a new generation of officials; and
- union innovations.
Key speakers at the conference included John Monks, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), David Triesman, general secretary of the Labour Party, and Patricia Hewitt, the secretary of state for trade and industry.
Union support for Labour at risk of 'haemorrhaging'
In a keynote speech, John Monks opened by saying that trade unions were benefiting from a period in which both unemployment and inflation were low, and the public sector was receiving increased investment. New union recognition agreements (UK0202101N), large-scale financial support for union learning services, the successes of the TUC's Organising Academy (UK9708155F) and a thriving Partnership Institute, all meant the unions now had 'plenty to celebrate'. While strikes had once again become headline news, most recently in the rail industry (UK0201169F) and the civil service, Mr Monks insisted that there were still 'few strikes by all historical and international standards' (UK0110109F) and it was important, therefore, to 'keep things in proportion'.
Turning to the question of 'differences with Labour', Mr Monks said that there was 'an explosive cocktail of issues around'. He highlighted 'the decline of manufacturing and a sense that the government, with some brave exceptions, is resigned to it', and drew attention to 'the growing involvement of the private sector in the delivery of public services [UK0111107F] and the reluctance, in some areas of government, to tackle the problem of the two-tier workforce'. He said that the government's continued opposition to the European 'social model' and new employment legislation also threatened to strain relations with the unions.
In widely reported remarks, Mr Monks said that the Labour government displayed a 'seeming admiration for business' and was finding it difficult to differentiate critically between 'the good employer and the not so good'. Mr Monks criticised Labour's 'appearance of undue respect for business lobbyists', noting that 'employers, marshalled by the CBI [Confederation of British Industry], are likely to be difficult on the government's review of employment law'.
Recalling former union leader Jack Jones' observation on the Labour Party-union relationship - 'murder yes, divorce never'- Mr. Monks insisted that he wished to avoid a breakdown in relations with the government and did not agree with those who favoured reducing or withholding union financial support for the Labour Party (UK0111106F). However, he warned of the 'risk of haemorrhaging trade union support, especially at the polling booths'. Labour was 'leaving a space to its left for one or other of the mainstream parties to occupy'. The 'real danger', he said, would come from a revitalised, 'one nation' Conservative Party should it acquire the 'wit' to move towards the political centre.
While there had been many advances under Labour - increased spending on public services, more legal rights for working people, an anti-poverty strategy - the unions, Mr Monks warned, 'must not be taken for granted'. The unions were 'up for deals, for social partnership with employers and for a change in public services'. They recognised that 'Labour must govern in the national interest and get on with the best of British employers.' Nevertheless, it was also up to Labour not to 'let us down [in terms of] applying the values of genuine social democracy'.
Unions must respond better to change
Sharing a platform with Mr Monks, David Triesman of the Labour Party stressed that the most difficult challenge facing trade unions, government and Labour was how to respond to a period of 'unprecedented and rapid change'. He pointed out that, 'the average shelf-life of new products was less than two years and production systems were becoming shorter and shorter'. Yet, 'the reality of our history', said Mr Triesman, 'is that we have spent most of our time reacting to change and by the time we react the changes have long gone'. The unions, therefore, had to be 'proactive in helping the workplace to respond to change'.
Although the link between Party and unions was 'indelible', it was vital to avoid 'caricaturing each other' and thus contributing to 'a climate where many people will push us apart'. The alternative to a Labour government, Mr Triesman warned, was a Conservative Party that saw public services as beyond reform no matter how much additional investment they received, and which still believed that 'Mrs Thatcher's project had not been taken to its logical conclusion.'
Challenges of the knowledge-driven economy
Speaking later in the day, the trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, began by insisting that 'former public service workers will have their pension rights protected when they move over into the private sector.' There was, she said, 'no question of going back on our commitment to deal with the two-tier workforce and to protect the employment rights and standards of public sector workers'. Echoing Mr Triesman's remarks, she also warned that it would never do to 'be complacent about threats from the Conservative Party'. However, while the Conservatives continued to mount only a weak opposition, the media had taken to the offensive, such that it was 'not in the interest of either the unions or the government to enter into a hostile debate'.
Both unions and the government, argued Ms Hewitt, were 'grappling with one of the biggest issues of our time - how do we achieve prosperity and opportunity for all ... at a time of economic, social, technological and demographic change that is unprecedented in our history'. 'Equality of opportunity and diversity' were, she insisted, 'vital in a knowledge-driven economy' which depended on 'using the skills of all our people'. This meant tackling the 'gender pay gap' (UK0104126F) by strengthening equal pay legislation (UK0106134N) through the Employment Bill currently before parliament (UK0112104N). While new legislation had led to 'an increase in the number of workplaces where unions are recognised', there was still more to be done on the issue of long working hours (UK0202102F). The Employment Bill would, she said, establish 'new legal standards for family-friendly working hours to help women with children and people with disabilities' (UK0112105N).
The government's aim, argued Ms Hewitt, was 'to spread best practice in the private sector and push for reform in the public sector ... working with unions and employers to build a successful economy'. She added: 'I am in no doubt that manufacturing matters. A high-skill, knowledge-driven economy depends on having a competitive high value-added manufacturing sector' made up of 'good competitive companies offering good employment'. She particularly welcomed the recent joint CBI-TUC submission to the government on productivity (UK0111104N). In her view, this was not a case of the TUC 'capitulating to bosses' but an example of 'social partnership in action'.
It was in no-one's interest, argued Ms Hewitt, to 'revert to the old politics where Labour was seen as pro-union and anti-business'. The reality was that 'all of us want businesses that are good and offer good employment'. While there were still bad employers who flouted health and safety regulations and the minimum wage, the challenge, she insisted, was to deal with the problems and help businesses 'move up the value chain'. In the end, she agreed with Mr Monks' observation that Labour must 'govern in the national interest', and that the unions should 'embrace social partnership'.
Commentary
The conference provoked a good deal of lively debate and discussion, particularly with regard to Labour's attitude towards the unions. Robert Taylor of the Financial Times referred to a recent 160-page document on economic reform in Europe, issued by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which contained only 'two references to social partnership'. It would, he suggested, be interesting to consider whether the government would be willing to produce a similar statement of their belief in 'the value and importance of trade unions'. The new EU Directive on information and consultation rights (adopted in February 2002) and, in particular, its incorporation into UK law will be a key indicator of what the Labour government thinks the role of trade unions and social partnership is (UK0201116N). As one speaker from the floor remarked, if those rights are delayed for some sections of the workforce or 'watered down', it will be very difficult for unions to assist workers in responding to change at the workplace in the way Mr Triesman suggested.
Mr Monks responded by saying that the 'ghosts of the 1970s and the breakdown over income policies walk with us. The fear is still there that this kind of crisis is round the corner.' The unions, he suggested, by 'embracing the partnership agenda' and adopting a new role as a 'problem-solver', were doing their best to lay those ghosts. Nevertheless, there were 'elements at the heart of government who are not so sure we are successful'. With a series of tough tests coming up, most notably in relation to information and consultation legislation and the 'two-tier' workforce, it will be interesting to see whether the government is able to maintain its pro-business credentials without further alienating its traditional trade union supporters. (Jonathan Payne, SKOPE)