Trade unions in Labour's third term:

Growing class struggles will increase tensions

DURING THE recent general election, the leaders of some of Britain's biggest trade unions desperately tried to mobilise their members to back Labour. But as Derek Simpson, leader of Britain's biggest union Amicus, told his conference after the election, it was increasingly difficult to get them "to keep faith with the Labour government." Many Amicus members, he added, voted Labour against their better judgement.

Ken Smith

The union leaders had little positive on offer to convince their members to vote Labour. Instead they tried to frighten their members with the prospect of 'Hatchet Howard' as the sole reason to vote Labour.

Simpson also argued at the Amicus conference that it was "a mighty relief having a Labour government" and that union members could now see the delivery of Warwick "because Warwick delivered a Labour government". This referred to last year's agreement on 57 issues between the government and the unions, made at Warwick university.

However, the union leaders have had no post-election euphoria about Labour's "historic third term". Instead, they raised concerns about New Labour needing to listen to its supporters rather than saying it will pursue an "unremittingly New Labour agenda".

But, the union leaders are like a gullible friend who gives a thief one last chance without feeling the hand in their inside pocket.

Naively, the union leaders believe that - with Blair's reduced majority and their 'negotiating' skills - they can force a third-term Labour government to drop its neo-liberal privatisation mania. Instead they hope they'll adopt a more traditional social democratic programme.

Their additional hope that Brown will soon replace Blair reinforces a state of denial about the major struggles likely between the Labour government and the unions in the years ahead.

Intensified exploitation

GORDON BROWN'S recent speech to the CBI showed what direction this third-term Labour government is heading, whoever's at the helm. Every significant post-election statement from Labour ministers shows they intend to continue with a neo-liberal programme of privatisation and attacks on working-class living standards.

They aim for further privatisation of the NHS and education; privatisation of the post office and they are battling to keep the 'opt-out' that makes many workers work over 48 hours a week.

Last year the government spent £1.4 billion on consultants for 'advice' on these projects - 42% more than the year before.

On pensions, the unions forced a temporary retreat on the government with the threat of co-ordinated strike action this March. But the new minister responsible, David Blunkett, says nothing is ruled out after the Turner Commission reports this autumn.

Brown's speech to the CBI, echoing one at the Amicus union conference days earlier, was the clearest sign yet that the government intends to let labour flexibility and deregulation rip. The consequence of this agenda is that big business will massively increase working people's exploitation and aim to massively boost their already bloated profits.

Big business and the government are not just laying down a gauntlet for the unions to pick up, they have laid down the whole suit of armour and slapped them in the face at the same time.

Anger at fat cat bosses

THE UNION leaders face a huge challenge under a third-term Labour government. Any notion that they can rely on Labour's reduced majority to force government ministers to honour the Warwick agreements, without mobilising the latent strength of the organised working class, is the most negligent short-sightedness.

The potential for massive, explosive struggles between capital and labour, with the government taking the bosses' side, is there in the immediate years ahead. Although the Labour government took fright at the prospect of co-ordinated action over pensions, they have, as the socialist warned at the time, retreated, taken stock of the situation and prepared for a new offensive against the working class.

By contrast, the trade union leaders, with some notable exceptions, have learned nothing and naively believe they can change the direction of government policy through 'influence'.

Both industrially and politically, the union leaders are leaving themselves in a very vulnerable position. Most union leaders lack confidence that they can win any struggle with the bosses or the government. Equally importantly, as the Rover debacle showed, their lack of an industrial strategy is combined with having no ideological alternative to free market capitalism's destruction.

The exceptions have been unions like the PCS civil servants union and RMT railworkers union - both led by militant left-wing leaders - who have conducted successful strikes and consequently increased their membership by tens of thousands.

The unions involved in the BBC strikes also saw a big upsurge in new members after they took the first steps to defending their members' jobs and conditions.

In the workplace, both in the private and public sector, there is growing anger at everything from fat-cat pay to pensions through changes in working practises, lengthening working hours and worsening working conditions.

One amazing example of Britain's growing wealth gap is that nurses, teachers and other key workers cannot afford housing in 93% of towns, that's up from 5% in 2001. In 1999, the average property price was three times a nurse's average annual salary. Last year it was 4.9 times the annual pay.

Union leaders are aware of this incredible anger and feel under pressure from the shopfloor to do something about these attacks. But, most union leaders are like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights. So far there appears little, if any movement, to build and prepare their membership for action.

Some significant strikes are taking place. HSBC workers' strike for better pay highlighted the increasing pay gulf between management and workers and the super-profits - £9.6 billion in HSBC's case - that some private-sector corporations are raking in.

Tesco's decision to offer its workers a bonus of over £4,000 comes complete with many strings attached. Nevertheless it shows that Tesco bosses feel they have to offer their workers something from their company's super-profits to hold off a revolt from below.

Unfortunately, the Tesco workers' union, Usdaw, is a very right-wing union advocating partnership with the bosses and meekly accepts their handouts. A union leadership worth its salt would be demanding that - rather than bonuses with strings - Tesco workers should have an annual pay increase of at least £4,000 a year consolidated into their pay packets, along with the introduction of at least a 35-hour working week for Tesco staff.

Mergers alone not the answer

TRADE UNION leaders have woken up to the weakness of union organisation in the private sector after three decades of Thatcherite attacks under both Tory and Labour governments. But, at this stage, their answer to the relative weakness is to argue for mergers into super-unions of two million or more members and to take on teams of union organisers - many on temporary contracts with little say in how the union develops - to sign up more members.

In principle, socialists would not oppose such measures - although we would argue for democratic safeguards to be maintained in any union merger and for better contracts with more democratic involvement for new union organisers.

However, they are not in themselves sufficient to rebuild the trade unions in the private sector, or strengthen them in the public sector.

For the unions to take strides forward and re-establish their authority in the eyes of working-class people they will have to do two fundamental things simultaneously. They have to conduct struggles which win improvements for their members in the concrete terms of pay, conditions and reducing their members' working hours.

To achieve and consolidate this they need to build a widespread, cohesive, democratic and powerful shop stewards or reps movement as the backbone of the unions which can challenge the bosses and government at every turn.

An ideological alternative

THERE ARE other crucial issues that union leaders and activists will have to address under this third-term Labour government. In particular, many of the social gains - known as the social wage - won by working-class struggle in the past, such as health, education, pensions and the welfare state, have been or are being dismantled by New Labour.

Blair, Brown and every cabinet minister chant the mantra that we live in a 'new era' where the market must provide in every sphere of life. No matter how much they repeat this, however, most workers' experience is that the market doesn't provide the quality services, free at the point of use, they need in health, education and welfare.

Also, the services privatised under Labour and Tories such as rail and the utilities are clearly expensive, inefficient and out of control of either the government or users of the services.

The private sector has also shown in the cases of Rover and Marconi that it can ruthlessly shut factories and industries at will - despite the effects of large job losses and the loss of vitally useful skills which could be utilised in other fields - without an alternative being put by government or union leaders.

Ideologically, trade union leaders need to develop and argue a programme that does not accept the market's dictates on workers' lives. Instead it should argue the case for public ownership and working-class control of industry and services.

But so far the main union leaders' horizons are heavily blinkered against arguing for such an alternative. TGWU union leader Tony Woodley argued in The Guardian, two weeks after Longbridge's closure, that a case should have been made for partial nationalisation of Rover and other industries. But, shamefully neither Woodley nor any other major union leader argued for this during the election so as not to embarrass the Labour leadership.

It was only Socialist Party councillor Dave Nellist who managed to get on national media to argue for public ownership and workers' control of the Longbridge plant.

Political alternative

A HUGE factor behind the union leadership's unwillingness to struggle at present is that the leaders insistently cling to the wreckage of their link with the Labour Party. They refuse to acknowledge that this party can no longer advance working-class people's interests.

So far only two unions have made the break from Labour - the RMT railworkers and Fire Brigades Union (FBU). The RMT was expelled from Labour after deciding it would also support other political parties, such as the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). The FBU decided to disaffiliate from Labour after the experience of their strike and the bitter anger it provoked amongst FBU members towards the Labour government.

However, despite these important developments, neither union has taken the next step and looked at how a new party, based on the unions, representing their members and working-class people generally could be established.

Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, correctly argues that "the Labour Party can't be changed. We need a new party to represent working men and women... the sooner we all realise this, the sooner we can pick up the pieces and move on". However, he does not then draw the conclusion that he and his union have a critical role to play in establishing such a working-class party that can represent trade unions and challenge Labour at local and national elections.

Taking the next step towards forming a new workers' party is something that union leaders like Bob Crow and Matt Wrack, the FBU's newly elected general secretary, have to concretely link to the programme of their unions and to defending their members against the Labour government's attacks. These could include issues such as the closing of regional fire control centres or the renationalisation of rail and the London Underground.

At the recent FBU conference a motion to allow regions of the union to support other political groups, like the SSP, Socialist Party in England and Wales or Respect, was defeated.

Those opposing the motion argued that none of the smaller parties on the Left, including the SSP after the election, was capable of replacing the Labour Party and instead the union would be more effective in supporting the work of groups like the Labour Representation Committee - which hopes to reclaim the Labour Party for the Left - and left-wing Labour MPs, such as John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn.

Similarly, the RMT decided at the general election to support left Labour MPs and not to support any other left groupings more in tune with their policies. The only exception was their support for the SSP.

A new workers' party - the next steps

THE SOCIALIST Party has argued for the establishment of a new mass party of the working class based on the trade unions for over ten years now. The objective need for such a party, as the election results showed, is more necessary than ever.

But, key figures in the trade unions - even where they draw the conclusion that their unions should disaffiliate from Labour - and the thin layer of activists who attend conferences and union branches, are lagging behind their members' mood on developing a political alternative for working-class people.

An initial step they should take is to agree to stand their members as candidates in local, regional and other national elections in the run-up to the next general election to establish the idea of an independent working-class electoral alternative being available to workers.

This should link up with those organisations like the Socialist Party, SSP and Respect who also already have councillors to mount a coherent and credible electoral alternative.

Leaders of Left unions also need to consider calling a conference of union members - going beyond the current narrow layer of activists - to discuss a programme to defend working-class people, strengthen the unions and link their struggles together more effectively.

There should be a commitment at such a conference to common action industrially to defeat the bosses' and Labour government's plans and regenerate the trade unions in all sectors and workplaces.

Such a conference would also have to address how such an agreed programme could be achieved and would unavoidably lead to the discussion of political representation.

Some union leaders argue that achieving such a programme requires the reclamation of the Labour Party to socialist principles.

Socialist Party members and others like Bob Crow, Mark Serwotka and Matt Wrack would not agree that such a perspective is possible, given that there is no sign that a mass influx of workers to transform the Labour party is likely. Indeed, remaining affiliated to the Labour Party is more likely to hinder the unions in campaigning for such a programme and cause more members to question their union's link with Labour.

But, those who argue for a break with Labour, like Bob Crow and Matt Wrack should nevertheless say to pro-Labour union leaders like Woodley, Simpson, Hayes and Prentis that if they think it's possible to transform the Labour Party, then they must launch a serious battle to do so.

This would have to be around a definite agreed programme, such as the repeal of anti-union laws and the re-admittance of socialists into the party and within a definite time scale before the general election.

It will be the re-entry of the working class in Britain on a mass scale into industrial struggle that will pose the question of a new party more urgently. A move into mass struggle will force those union leaders and activists who are currently frozen in the headlights to either begin to lead workers' struggles or they will be moved aside.

Those who don't face up to the challenges of a third-term Labour government will, in turn, be replaced by a new generation of trade union fighters. This generation will begin the task of regenerating trade unions as bodies of workers' struggle and establishing a mass political party that can advance and consolidate working-class interests.

UNISON elections: Socialist Party gains

GMB conference: Unions must fight

NATFHE conference: Members prepare...

Growing class struggles will increase tensions

Home | The Socialist 9 - 15 June 2005 | Join the Socialist Party

Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop