At the end of March, Connect balloted its members on whether to retain the union’s political fund. Eighty-one percent voted in favour. A membership-wide ballot established our fund in 1983 – just before the introduction of the law compelling trade unions to ballot members every ten years on whether or not they have a political fund. This latest vote was the third time many of our members had indicated their preference on this issue.
As the newly elected general secretary of Connect, I was understandably delighted at the result, and certainly proud of my union – the first to hold the ballot in the current ten-year round. But, throughout the campaign, we asked the government whether this was really how trade unions should be spending their time and money.
Connect is not affiliated to the Labour party, or any political party. But our members are concerned about many issues that affect their working lives, and they expect their union to campaign for improvements. Connect members want to raise issues around the pensions green paper directly with government. Likewise,
as the communications bill goes through parliament, our members want to have a say on a bill that will affect the future policy of the industry in which they work.
Connect should have a voice on these issues, but without a political fund our ability to do so would be severely restricted and open to challenge. The work of our union illustrates how out of touch this legislation is. The political fund is business
as usual in the modern world of work. Almost every company or organisation has a government affairs or regulation policy team and the idea of existing outside of this arena is no longer an option.
The argument put by supporters of political fund ballots is that they provide increased awareness of a union’s political work, yet members already hold the political work of the union to account at our conferences and through branch meetings. And it doesn’t stop there. We’re beginning to introduce wider means of participation. In February this year, we set up a chatroom on our website to hold live web chat between members and the three Connect members who are also MPs.
We encourage open interaction through meetings and receptions and value dialogue between the union and its parliamentary members. There is nothing secret about the political work of our union, and we would be in trouble if we waited another ten years before reporting to members any other political work. We help support an all-party parliamentary group that looks at the issues facing our industry and we campaign to ensure that the communications industry is on the agenda in Westminster. All of these activities would be impossible without a political fund.
Perhaps there is an assumption that unions don’t engage with members on these issues and that the political fund ballot is a good discipline to do so. If that’s the view, it’s misinformed. Members want unions to be making legal and political cases to the government. From the two-tier workforce to age discrimination, unions cannot represent workers effectively if they do
not engage with the political agenda.
Re-balloting on the political fund is bureaucratic, out of date, and any justification for it lives in another era. Alan Johnson, the minister for employment relations, regularly jokes about not wanting to return to the days of tank tops and flares, but Dynasty-style shoulder pads and New Romantic hairstyles are no better. It’s time the law around political fund re-ballots was dismissed as the unnecessary 1980s red tape it is. Connect spent a huge amount of time and resources winning the ballot this year – other unions should not have to do so.