The trade union-Labour relationship appears to be in harmony. After two decades of internal change and policy reform Labour ministers are sitting at the top table and union leaders are working alongside them. There are still differing opinions and priorities but things are very different to the barnstorming conference speeches and denunciations of party leaders that were common during the last Labour government.
And there is good cause for cheer as the balance sheet for this parliament clearly shows some substantial gains for working people. The minimum wage, the Employment Relations Act, adoption of the social chapter, union recognition rules and the statutory right to join a union. If this is what Tony Blair meant by fairness not favours it might not be so bad after all.
The trouble is the link does not sit comfortably in the agenda of modernisation. The liberal belief in individual rights finds itself an uneasy fellow traveller with the collectivist approach to political organisation. It just whiffs a little of ‘old Labour’ and that is enough to fuel suspicion of the union agenda. In reality the unions have proved themselves among New Labour’s most durable friends. Witness the support of the Transport and General Workers Union and John Monks, General Secretary of the TUC, in coming to the government’s aid in challenging the fuel protestors.
Labour and the union movement have much in common that extends beyond the traditional political desire to see the values of social inclusion and equality put into practice. Recruitment and membership, promotion of women and ethnic minorities within the leadership ranks, and understanding the new economy are three clear tasks. Those individuals in New Labour who think that the party has nothing left to learn from its industrial colleagues really ought to look again. With a century’s history now under our belt Labour and the unions still need each other. In short, it is time for modernisers to start embracing the link.
The union-Labour relationship has proved itself tremendously flexible in the face of a rapidly changing industrial landscape and the emergence of the knowledge economy. Under the helm of John Monks the union movement has started to address the hard realities of the modern workplace. New unionism and the organising agenda have stimulated growth and presented a forum for unions to debate modernisation. Similarly the TUC’s ‘millennial challenge’ and the influence of the European social partnership have reinvigorated discussions on the future of workplace relations.
After a generation of decline the TUC now contains fewer unions than at any point during the last 100 years. Mergers and federations have created a new super breed of general union that can compete in the contemporary world of work due to economies of scale. Opposition doesn’t just come from hostile employers but also the myriad accident insurance agents and legal services that now advertise daily to thousands of working people on the television and radio.
The danger is that smaller non-affiliated unions could well lose out to the bigger voices that echo in the corridors of Congress House as well as the Labour Party. Alternatively, recognition by the government of the importance of workplace representation and partnership could well be increased by the effective use of the link to conduct views and opinions. There are benefits to be gained by large and small unions.
Industrial demands have become increasing politicised by the collapse of the post-war economic settlement. In contrast to much of the mythology and folklore built up around the foundation of the party, the relationship between the industrial and political wings of labour has always been pragmatic.
That isn’t to underestimate or devalue the shared political scars or aspirations of a century of struggle. Labourism triumphed over the ideological traditions of socialism or Marxism many generations past. There have been arguments on the extent and nature of the trade union link with political parties since before the Labour Party was founded. Early trade union leaders entered into discussion with the Liberal Party and there was speculation about whether the existing political structure could accommodate the expectations of the newly enfranchised working class.
The first term of the Blair administration has been the government of statutory legislation. Eighteen years of Conservative attacks on employment rights convinced many unions to put their hope into the return of a Labour government and the use of statutory measures to defend workplace rights. In industrial policy, the minimum wage, statutory holiday entitlement and the working time directive are all products of this new legislative environment. Indeed, many unions had previously been hostile to measures such as the national minimum wage and sought to maintain their own competitive advantages. In consequence the division between political and industrial objectives has become inextricably linked.
At the 1993 Labour Party conference a momentous decision was taken to implement one member one vote for the internal selection of election candidates. Carried by a small majority of conference, including some last minute support from trade unions, the impact of that measure was crucial in redefining the role of the link.
The OMOV vote was a key staging point in the long haul back to reconnecting with the electorate. Following the disappointing defeat for Labour in 1992 it was clear that the process of modernisation was incomplete. Even in the run up to the general election in 1997 internal party focus groups uncovered voter concerns about the influence of union power. It is quite mind stretching to consider that after all the reforms heralded by New Labour and the disintegration of John Major’s administration, parts of the electorate were still be worried by the intentions of robust general secretaries.
Public opinion, however, has increasingly turned in favour of unions in recent years. Insecurity in the workplace and the blooming fixed-term contract generation has helped focus individual attention on the merits of fairness at work. Whereas in the early 1990s unions were considered to be holding the party back the reverse could now be the case. Public cynicism and dissatisfaction with Westminster-based politics may well be harming union efforts to portray a modern image.
The internal democratic reforms of the early 1990s succeeded in diffusing the greatest fear of the misuse of trade union power. The block vote, union sponsorship of MPs and the composition of the National Executive Committee have all been reformed to reflect a modern working relationship. While some unions fought bitterly against any reforms or required political sweeteners from party leaders, the new link owes its origins to many progressive and decent trade union members. It is unfortunate that too often in the past union leaders have been caught defending privilege rather than leading the debate on modernising the link.
Media controversy about individual large donations illustrates the difficulty of how public organisations raise money in an ethical manner. It is unthinkable to suggest the Labour Party could survive without the extensive support of the unions. The failure of state funding to attract enough cross party support and unease about millionaire donors suggests that union funding will continue to be essential to Labour, especially in an election year.
An attempt to cut back financial support to the Labour Party by the Thatcher government failed when compulsory balloting for political funds produced strong support among union members. As a result the relationship is much more open and transparent than the discreet payments from rich donors that seem to characterise Conservative fundraising strategy. The cheque book culture will always haunt the relationship, however, unless unions can succeed in demonstrating active support from individual members and an involvement at all levels of the party from local branch through to national campaigns.
Traditional policy structures in the party focused almost entirely on the resolution culture and conference sovereignty. Even though the 21st Century Party proposals and introduction of policy forums has started to challenge that premise it is depressing just how many local parties and union branches have been resistant to basic change.
The 21st Century Party is important to trade unionists for two reasons. First, it forces union members to re-examine how they engage with local Labour Party structures. Mandating delegates to the local general committee to vote for the union line doesn’t really fit in with the discussion-based function of policy forums. The rolling programme of debate means that unions need to develop an opinion that extends beyond ‘for’ and ‘against’. And, second, the new approach to policy making provides union activists with the opportunity to reflect on their own internal culture. How do the new policy forums measure against union branch meetings? What role do members have in determining policy?
We still do not know what the final impact of the new policy structures will be but it is certain that unions and party can learn from an exchange of ideas. The era of mass membership appears to be under threat and organisations have to work harder to appeal and retain support. The link needs to examine renewing the movement as much as individual policy decisions. There are examples of good practice, for example, in Hazel Blears’ Salford constituency where open policy forums have involved new members and local community groups in discussing policy. In my own constituency in North London a recent meeting with Lord Winston was extended to include local healthcare workers and professionals. Union branches themselves can use policy forum discussions to extend an invitation to non-union members in the workplace.
Devolution in Scotland and Wales as well as an emerging political identity in London opens further opportunities for unions to redefine the link. English regionalism in the second term will accentuate this situation. And the legitimate involvement of union members in shaping party policy locally and regionally is the most effective antidote to negative media stereotypes about union barons making arbitrary political demands. In return unions have to engage with the new structures and ensure any previous abuses of power are avoided.
Common sense offers a good guide to the state of the link. From a low point in the early 1980s the Labour Party and unions have shifted political mountains to reassess and construct a modern pragmatic relationship. Perhaps the greatest reform has been the realignment of the link towards a non-exclusive position that recognises other political traditions. Working in Europe unions have learnt to respect and engage with a whole host of organisations only some of whom share similar ideological roots. John Monks became the first TUC general secretary to address the Liberal Democrat conference in autumn 2000 ensuring that links were kept with allies on issues like European policy and equality measures.
The true test for the link will come in the second term. Unions now have to take up the new rights protected through legislation and prove that they can attract new members, especially young workers. The Labour Party has to maintain the confidence of the British electorate and begin to erode the undercurrent of disengagement and cynicism with politics. Like all good double acts, the Labour Party and unions still need each other.