Are ‘super unions’ the solution?


DURING THE course of 2005, talks took place between the TGWU, Amicus
and the GMB trade unions on the proposal to create a new merged ‘super
union’.
This is the biggest trade union merger being proposed so far. Jim
Horton, a member of TGWU branch 1/785 opens up the discussion on trade
union mergers and what attitude trade union members should take to them.

EXPLORATORY DISCUSSIONS between the tops of the TGWU, Amicus and GMB
were due to have been completed by the end of 2005, but have stalled
because of the hesitancy of the GMB. It is not certain that the merger
will proceed. At the very least the creation of the new union planned
for January 2007 could be set back.

If the merger goes ahead it will be the biggest union in Britain,
with 2.5 million members, making it overwhelmingly the largest trade
union in the private sector and a powerful force within public services.

The leaders of the TGWU and Amicus have been particularly
enthusiastic about the proposed merger. TGWU general secretary Tony
Woodley has talked about creating "a progressive giant that could
dominate the 21st century". Amicus general secretary Derek Simpson has
warned employers that they will be: "confronted by a more powerful body
in terms of negotiation, and if push comes to shove in terms of
disputes."

There is no doubt the merger could create a formidable union. But the
old adage ‘never mind the quality, feel the width’ comes to mind. Big
may be beautiful in terms of the latent strength and power of any new
merged union, but many members in all three unions will want to know
whether this will translate into improved representation and more
effective trade unionism.

The need for the maximum unity of the working class forms the very
bedrock of our movement, but unity by itself offers no guarantee that
the bosses’ offensive against our pay and conditions and the
government’s assault on our public services can be repelled. What is key
is the correct programme, polices and a determined leadership willing to
fight with and on behalf of its members. At the heart of this lies lay
democracy.

In December, the college and university lecturers’ union NATFHE and
the Association of University Teachers (AUT) amalgamated to form the new
University and College Union (UCU), representing 118,000 teaching,
research and admin staff.

This will be seen as a sensible move in the universities, where staff
were previously represented by the two old unions who did not always
coordinate action. But both NATFHE and the AUT failed to stop, for
example, New Labour’s marketisation of further and higher education,
with the resultant deterioration in staff working conditions. Without a
change in policy and leadership it is difficult to see how the new UCU
will turn things around.

In the public sector, where currently members are divided into many
unions, a new merged union could make a big difference, cutting across
inter-union barriers and rivalries. In the private sector, such as the
car industry, aerospace, civil aviation and retail, more than one union
representing the workforce has complicated bringing workers together in
struggle.

In general though this is not due to a lack of desire for unity by
union members but, unfortunately, many national and local officers
lacking the ability or willingness to properly represent them.

However, the two retreats by the government last year on public
sector pension cuts, when faced with the threat of united industrial
action, shows what can be achieved even when workers remain in separate
unions but work closely together. Key in this was the left leadership of
the civil servants’ union PCS, in which Socialist Party members play a
prominent role.

Gate Gourmet

The converse experience of the Gate Gourmet workers who, along with
the baggage handlers who instinctively struck in solidarity with them,
are all TGWU members, is also instructive. It is difficult to see how a
new merged union, under current policies, would have made any difference
to the outcome of that dispute.

More important was the need for the TGWU leaders to show the same
determination defending their members as the Gate Gourmet management
revealed in their ruthless pursuit to increase profits. For members of
all three unions this is the nub of the question.

The aim this year is to open up democratic debate within the three
unions on the merger proposals. As socialists we do not have a fixed
position on mergers. We judge each proposal by its merits, taking
account of issues such as democracy, accountability and whether the
merger has the potential to advance the union members’ interests. We
would not generally endorse a merger that retreats on the democratic
gains won by members in any of the unions seeking to merge.

In Amicus, members are still fighting for the right to elect full
time officials. Yet, while Simpson hopes that this important question
does not prevent a merger, it is undoubtedly a factor with the other
unions.

The TGWU has come out clearly in favour of lay democracy and
correctly agreed at its last biennial delegate conference (BDC) that
there would be a recall BDC to consider any merger proposals before
there is a ballot of the full membership. At any recall BDC members will
want to consider detailed merger proposals, including a suggested
constitution and rule book. Members in Amicus and the GMB will expect
the same thing.

Socialists will also take the opportunity to discuss what type of
union we need. Without a correct policy to confront New Labour’s big
business agenda and a leadership able to inspire the confidence and
match the combativity of its members, any new merged union will falter
at its first big challenge.

Woodley says the new merged union will be about better pay, safe
workplaces, secure pensions and resisting job losses. Most members of
our union will not doubt Woodley’s sincerity but this involves not just
the flexing of industrial muscle against the bosses, but going head to
head with a government that backs big business to the hilt.

Unfortunately, Woodley, Simpson and Paul Kenny, acting GMB general
secretary, are still very much wedded to the Labour Party. This
fundamental flaw, if carried over to the new merged union, would
severely hamper effective representation. Last year this meant, for
example, Woodley putting the re-election of New Labour before the task
of resisting job losses of TGWU members at Rover.

Woodley once remarked that some trade union leaders were perceived as
being: "too close to the gaffer". The election of leaders like Bob Crow
(RMT), Mark Serwotka (PCS) and others termed the awkward squad,
including Woodley himself, represented a desire by ordinary trade
unionists to break class collaboration in the workplace.

Many trade unionists now perceive the trade union leaders, with the
notable exception of Serwotka, Crow and Matt Wrack (FBU), as being too
close to the gaffer’s mate, in the guise of New Labour.

A new merged union has an opportunity to break the tie and head a new
initiative, along with other unions, to set up a new party to represent
the political interests of trade unionists.

During the course of the merger debate, Socialist Party members will
be campaigning for any new union to commit itself to: An annual lay
member conference, regular election and accountability of all officials,
who should have a salary no higher than the skilled members of the
union, the retention of all industrial trade groups, lay member control
at all levels, the democratic right to organise within the union, except
for fascists. And a political fund – members to decide where the money
should go, to use the union as a fighting body on behalf of the members.


If you would like to write a contribution to this discussion, please
ring 020 8988 8782 or send your article to: [email protected].