Labour’s link with the trade unions is important. That is why it must be made to work
Labour’s relationship with the trade unions in Britain is unique. No other centre-left party in the world has unions formally affiliated to it, with the rights, power and responsibilities this entails. This link has been a source of great strength to the party over the years. Having been present at its birth, the unions played a crucial role in the 1980s in helping rid Labour of Militant and the far-left, thus bringing it back from the brink of near-destruction.
As with any relationship, there have also been moments of tension and anger. The unions’ determination to prevent Barbara Castle’s industrial relations reforms in 1969 ultimately proved to be damaging and counterproductive. Ten years later, the actions of some trade unions during the ‘winter of discontent’ undoubtedly helped bring about the defeat of the Labour government.
But set against that must be the organisational muscle and financial clout that the unions have deployed in every election to help ensure the return of a Labour government. Even at times when Labour is heading for defeat, the role of the unions on the ground has been key in helping stem the losses. In 2010 union money and activists helped to blunt the effect of Michael Ashcroft’s millions in scores of marginal seats that might otherwise have fallen to the Conservatives.
As international evidence shows, trade union activity also plays a wider part in maintaining the health of democracy: it is, for instance, closely linked to ensuring higher voter turnout, particularly among working-class voters who might otherwise not go to the polls. At their best, unions also ensure that the voices of some of the more marginalised members of society are heard in the corridors of power. And, of course, it goes without saying that unions have been at the forefront of all the great struggles of the last 113 years, whether it be against poverty, racism and discrimination, or economic exploitation. Britain has also been lucky that its unions have long had a distinctly internationalist outlook, opposing protectionism and supporting the country’s role in the European Union, for instance.
For all of those reasons, we firmly support Labour’s link with the trade unions. But if the link is important, Labour and the unions must now look at how it needs to evolve to ensure that it delivers the aspirations of both.
A healthy relationship relies on a healthy and strong trade union movement. That health and strength is not, however, measured in industrial militancy or overblown rhetoric. The key measure is the number of people who choose to join a union. On this score, the unions have their work cut out: today, barely one in four of those employed are in a union, a figure which falls to just 14 per cent in the private sector. There is nothing inevitable about this trend: where unions feel relevant to those whom they seek to represent, they prosper – just look at the success of Usdaw in growing its membership among private sector shopworkers.
A healthy relationship also relies on openness, transparency and democracy. We would prefer that all those who join an affiliated trade union, and indicate their support for Labour, automatically become individual party members, with all the rights such membership bestows. This goal may, though, currently be unrealisable.
However, there are a number of steps which could be taken now by the unions and the party which would improve and strengthen the link.
First, too many union members are unaware that some of their dues end up in an affiliated political fund which supports the Labour party. Unison’s model, whereby members choose to pay into either an affiliated or non-affiliated political fund, or Community’s Labour Campaign Network, where dues are explicitly divided equally between union membership and an affiliated political fund, are examples which other unions should consider.
Second, the unions hold one-third of the votes in the electoral college which elects the leader and deputy leader of the party. While this proportion is a fair one, it is not right that candidates do not have the ability to canvass or communicate with the individual union members who wield this power. The leadership of the unions should be free to endorse whoever they choose. But this should not preclude other candidates from making their case directly to union members.
Turnout in the affiliated section of the electoral college was poor in the 2010 leadership election (less than nine per cent as against 72 per cent among constituency party members). But those who did tick the box to say they supported Labour and cast their ballot remain a great source of untapped strength for the party. If each of them was invited to attend their local constituency party meeting, most CLPs would find themselves doubling in size.
Third, we support the right of unions to play a role in parliamentary selection contests. But with rights go responsibilities: the unions should publish the decision-making process by which they decide which candidates to nominate and support and that process should include a consultation with their members in that seat.
We believe Labour should seek to strengthen the link with the unions. Mending it, not ending it, should be our goal.
—————————————————————————————
I’m pleasantly surprised by this – a great deal of Progress members (and some Labour councillors, it has to be said) have shown the sort of antipathy towards trade unions that only a Liberal Democrat or Tory could bring to bear, and this editorial, at least, recognises that negotiation and reform is the way forward, not furthering the party’s likeness to the Social Democrats but cutting the links altogether. Progress, and other centre-right ginger groups, display this antipathy, because the unions are seen as a bulwark of the centre-left, and therefore an obstacle in the way of making the party more (cough) ‘business friendly’. Unions should certainly publish the decision-making process by which they decide which candidates to nominate and support for a variety of posts and that process should include an ELECTION of the members in that seat – not just a “consultation” that union rightwingers can ignore if the candidate comes from a different party tendency. Lest we forget, one reason Frank Dobson ‘won’ the selection for London Mayor were large rightwing trade unions throwing their considerable weight behind him. Those that did ballot found that overwhelming majority of members supported Ken.
If politicians are to also accept the importance of the electorate, surely any form of funding relationships that political parties have will always be questioned for their influence too.
There are so many ‘conflicts of interests’ that exists between central and local government, and MPs and centralised political party interests. When is someone going to stop and think, and start asking whether this simply detriments the quality of public services, and the questionable quality of representation that MPs provide to constituents?
Finally, MPs having No Statutory or Legal Obligation to Represent anybody, does not help the political journey. Such ‘conflicts of interests’ highlight the extent at which MPs place loyalty on protecting their party, but very little to actually ‘fight’ for constituents and turnaround the wrongdoings created by failings of political policies.
So, with regards to ‘mend it, don’t end it,’ I strongly advice that the political/Parliamentary system needs to be mended, and, as part of this restructuring, a debate should be encouraged about the alleged ‘buying of influence’ known as political party funding.
Let’s at least start by ‘getting it right’, as oppose to getting it ‘half right.’
You are calling for greater transparency in the relations between unions plus their members on the one hand and the party plus its members on the other. I agree: who can disagree?
But the root of the problem of improving union-party relations is achieving general recognition of the different roles that the two organisations play in the economic and political life of the nation.
The party has one role in two guises – either as the party of government or a government in waiting. The unions’ main role is to defend the lot of people who work against employers (including government) who are less concerned with the lot of people who work.
So we have two main roles – to rule and to defend. This can mean the roles are sometimes in conflict. But, more often, they are in harmony: what is good for our nation is usually good for people at work.
The problem has been that we have not always been very grown up in accepting these different roles. It can be especially hard when one of us fails to accept the legitimacy of the role of the other. This needs to be addressed by both the party and the unions continuously discussing what our different roles are and coming to accept this is part of a mature democracy. None of us do nearly enough of that.
“No other centre-left party in the world has unions formally affiliated to it” Wrong. Off the top of my head the Irish Labour Party and Australian Labor have union affiliates. As to the rest of your points, maybe if Labour committed to repealing anti-trade union laws they would be able to be more effective and more people would join them, and as far as I’m aware leader/deputy leader candidates can and did attend union conferences and hustings, it seems a bit of a non-point.
Ah, but why bring up point if it disproves your thesis?
what disproves what about whose thesis?
The Labour Party was founded by the trade unions for working people. We need this link now more than ever, with low-paid workers on short hours and employers reducing working conditions. I joined a union before I joined the Labour party, and represented female employees working at computer workstations whose health and safety needed to be protected. Without the continuing relationship between the Labour party and the unions, we might as well be Lib Dems. I did find my union leadership swaggering and macho and not supportive of the work we were doing, but that was an internal problem for the membership to resolve. The monolithic merged unions are probably the reason for this. I would have liked my union to consult me before voting for the Labour leader, and not send my ballot paper with a covering leaflet promoting just one candidate. But we must not allow our historic link to be undermined. Unions represent all working people, not just the low-paid, and any future Labour government should take advice from unions who know the problems faced by ordinary working class and middle class employees, and their aspirations.
Trade Unions -have approx 6.7 million members (about half of which are affiliated to the Labour Party) The Labour Party has approx 150,000 members. In both cases there is a membership crisis as people no longer see the benefits of such. Trade unions remain the most popular democratic organisations in Britain. A new relationship is needed – one where union members become members of the Party, organise other members into the Party and win the Party for ordinary working and non-working people.