Drawing a balance sheet of the strikes is an important part of the preparation for developments in the next period.
We agreed with Mick Lynch, RMT general secretary, declaring that ‘the working class is back’ at the start of the strike wave.
Maybe now the level of strikes has subsided, some may think that we were wrong to do so, but in our view, we were correct to say that the working class has re-entered the scene of history.
The level of strike action has been higher than at any time since the collapse of Stalinism.
More than 2.4 million days were lost to strike action between June and December 2022.
Inevitably, given the very low level of strikes in the preceding period, most of those who took action had never been on strike before.
In the aftermath of many of the strikes, with most pay deals still being below inflation, there are bound to be varying outlooks among different sections of those who participated.
Some will be despondent, and many will lapse into inactivity until the next wave of action.
Nonetheless, it is clear that a new generation of trade union activists and reps began to be forged in the course of the strikes.
This is the first time that this has taken place on a general scale in many decades.
Previous big national strikes, like the public sector general strike in 2011, tended to be symbolic one-day affairs rather than the more sustained action of the recent period.
And while there was huge enthusiasm during the 2011 movement, there was no increase in participation in the structures of the trade unions.
This time was different.
In addition, there is a widespread feeling among broad sections of the working class that striking works.
After all the overwhelming majority of the strikes managed to wrest some concessions from the employers and the government, no matter how limited.
The strike weapon will therefore be picked up much more easily in the next period than was the case in recent decades.
This could happen on a big scale in the short term, if the new Minimum Service Levels legislation is used against a significant group of workers before the next election.
For the Tory government the legislation is primarily theatre, aiming to signal to their shrunken electoral base that they are ‘tough on the unions’, just as the ‘small boats legislation’ is to show their voters they are tough on refugees and migrants.
Most more serious strategists of capitalism consider it rash – given the opposition that could erupt against its use – and generally ill-thought through.
It was a ‘skeleton bill’, with no detail given on what it will mean in practice.
From Johnson onwards, such bills have become common, reflecting the unserious character of the Tory government, but even Jacob Rees Mogg said of this one that it is “almost so skeletal that we wonder if bits of the bones were stolen away by wild animals and buried somewhere.” Crucially there is no obligation on employers to make use of the legislation.
The SNP government in Scotland has already said they will not do so (unlike any Labour authority).
Given that this government and the minimum service act are on their way out, employers may not rush to use it.
Nonetheless, it is clearly possible it could be used, and that will be more likely if the trade union tops do not prepare seriously to mobilise in support of any union that faces fines or groups of workers that are sacked.
And the very fact that this legislation is seen as temporary, introduced by a government in its death throes, will give more confidence to workers to defy it, and to come to the support of others who do so.
Nonetheless, we recognise that the important steps forward in industrial militancy so far have been from a very low base.
In absolute terms trade union density was higher in 1997 than it is today.
It was around 32% then compared to 22% in 2022.
Then, however, the direction of travel was down whereas now it is resurging.
Absolute levels of trade union membership are certainly not going to return to the unique period of the post-war upswing and its immediate aftermath.
In 1980, for example, around 70% of employees’ wages were set by collective bargaining.
This was an exceptional situation, only possible because of a combination of factors, including the world balance of forces in the Cold War era and the rapid economic growth of the post-war upswing, which created a situation where the capitalist class was forced to make significant concessions to the working class.
Today is far more typical in the history of capitalism.
Trotsky, writing in the Transitional Programme in 1938, made the point that, “Trade unions, even the most powerful, embrace no more than 20 to 25 percent of the working class, and, at that, predominantly the more skilled and better-paid layers.”
Nonetheless, we are at the beginning of a period of more intense class struggle which will lead to leaps forward in the understanding of significant sections of the working class.
Look at the way that, during the recent strike waves, trade union members have renewed their strike mandates again and again (four times in the case of the RMT in the different TOCs) often despite the lack of a lead from the top.
Nonetheless, we are at the beginning, and at this stage national union leaders were able to use their authority – apart from the RCN – to get majority support for often quite limited deals.
At the same time, the development of new broad lefts in the unions is, at best, at a very early stage.
Without question, most of the trade union leaders will attempt to use their authority to prevent strikes against a Starmer-led government.
For a limited period, this could have some effect.
This may mean that other forms of struggle – such as community campaigns, youth movements, or new anti-war movements – could erupt prior to new major strikes, at least in the public sector.
If inflation does continue to fall it will make it a little easier for the union leaders to temporarily avoid strikes over pay.
However, the average worker is £125 a week worse off than if pay increased since 2010 at the same pace as between 1997 and 2010.
Most public sector workers have suffered real-terms pay cuts of 10% or more over the last decade, so the pressure will still be on to start making up lost ground.
And particularly given the scale of crisis facing local government, there could be major battles over job losses and cuts to terms and conditions.
Local authority workers, who may have felt nothing could be done to stop local authority cuts under a Tory government, will feel very differently under Starmer.
One indication of how difficult it will be for union leaders to prevent strikes against a Starmer-led government is that it has been impossible for the majority of them to campaign positively for him before the election, due to the widespread scepticism or even hostility of trade union members.
Instead, most have had to focus solely on Labour being the only means by which the Tories can be ejected from office.
It is already clear that fighting for trade unionists’ interests versus trying to act as a cover for pro-capitalist New Labour will be the central battle line in the trade union movement beyond the general election.
In Unite, general secretary Sharon Graham has defended the union’s affiliation to Labour, but her record of being prepared to authorise strike action against Labour authorities, and to publicly attack them, means she still faces opposition within the union officialdom and, behind them, from the Labour leadership and the capitalist class.
Unless she completely abandons the militant industrial programme on which she was elected, a ferocious campaign to remove her will develop in the run-up to the next general secretary election in April 2026.
An important part of our role in the post-election period will be to campaign for all the trade unions to adopt a militant fighting strategy against the government’s attacks, and for the development of broad lefts in order to organise for that policy.
We can play a vital role in acting as a lever to help galvanise a fight in the unions on this issue.
