The conventional wisdom in trade unions is that there are two ways they get onto the front pages of the newspapers one is through strikes and the other through rows with the Labour leadership. However, it seems there is only one trade union-related headline that the subeditors of the nation s newspapers are interested in writing it involves the current season and the words of discontent .
As this summer of discontent (if you can t beat them& ) draws to a close, perhaps we should place the events of recent months in context. First, apologies for failing to join in the hysteria, but strikes remain at a comparatively low level in Britain. The second critical point to be considered is that the Labour Party is in government, running a strong economy, and remains well clear of the Tories in opinion polls. Labour is now the natural party of government. This is an unprecedented moment in the history of the Labour and trade union movement.
What is more, employment is rising along with national insurance and the revenue raised is being pumped into public services. There are new recognition rights for trade unions, a minimum wage and some outstanding work has been undertaken by unions and the government in partnership in the field of workplace training.
And yet, there is a strong feeling of unease among union members, expressed in some surprising union election results, even if the supposedly revolutionary politics of some winners has been grossly exaggerated by the media. One of the factors behind this unease is the significant difference between the Labour government and the trade unions over the issue of precisely how to deliver public sector reform. PFI is generally unpopular among trade unionists. Furthermore, low-paid workers in the public sector may share the government s vision of excellent public services, but they feel they deserve a fair share of the new investment. There are other specific areas of concern too, on manufacturing and the railways.
The unease that exists may also be borne out of something more than specific questions over policy. Some trade unionists express unease at the tone of government. There is a belief that the government s promise of fairness not favours for unions has been translated to mean that the business lobby receives a bit more fairness than the unions. True or not, it is certainly a widely-held perception.
So, on balance, unions recognise that progress has been made but there are still significant areas of disagreement with the government. The knock-on effect of this mood of unease is that many unions, disappointed at aspects of the government s programme, have reduced their contributions to Labour Party funds.
Trade unions do not, of course, fund the Labour government, they fund the Labour Party. So if this is the case, why are unions offering fewer funds to the party? Perhaps the union conferences that voted through these decisions felt it was a way of expressing unease. The last century suggests that it may be simpler for unions to get along with Labour when it is not in power, rather than working with a Labour government which is (naturally) not doing everything that each union may want or expect.
So with union funding falling and large donors demonised, it is perhaps easy to understand why some in the Labour movement are now advocating a form of state funding for political parties. Yet, depending on how such a system were introduced, the impact on the union-Labour link could be profound. However, trade unions are not hugely involved in this debate at the moment neither those affiliated to the Labour Party, nor those not affiliated. Perhaps the most intriguing models of state funding will offer political parties a degree of state funding, while still allowing contributions from trade unions and others.
In the debate on how trade unions work with the party, it is very easy to lose sight of those trade unions that are not affiliated to Labour. In fact, the majority of trade unions in the TUC are small, sector-based unions representing people as diverse as physiotherapists, airline pilots and footballers. These unions are not affiliated to Labour, nor are the teaching, banking or civil service unions. They have also gained much from the Labour government, but they too have their own sets of frustrations and their voices need to be heard.
Many of the difficulties that exist across affiliated and non-affiliated unions come down to a question of dialogue. It is incontestable that trade unions are consulted more by government now than they ever were during the 1980s but there is no systematic process for such a dialogue. The social partnership model that exists across much of Europe tying in unions and employers to the policy-making processes is lacking on any formal level in the UK. This model offers fairness not favours in action and has been successfully piloted through the Low Pay Commission, which offers employers and unions a voice over the national minimum wage.
A more systematic dialogue between unions and the government should be matched by a commitment to reinvigorate the union-Labour Party link. Those unions that choose to affiliate to the Labour Party should be fully engaged in party policy-making, throughout the policy forum process. There is scope here for the involvement of non-affiliated unions, too. The union-Labour link needs to be about much more than finances and block votes for it to be seen as relevant and important to trade unionists and party members alike.
There is another key reason why it is imperative that unions get their links with Labour right and that is that they have a whole series of other challenges to be addressing. Union membership is (slightly) declining and members are predominantly older than the average worker. These are not healthy indicators for a movement that has ambitions to reach way beyond the current seven million members to the twenty million or so working people not currently enjoying the benefits of trade union membership.
On balance, it is likely that the union-Labour link is here to stay, although it will, of course, continue to evolve. Relations may be fractious but this is assuredly not an historic low. That is not to say that the unions or the government should carry on as previous and all will be okay in the end. It is in the interests of both that there is a process, a system, a strategy, to allow proper dialogue and debate.