Trade union freedom - 4 comments
I notice that many of the posts recently recommended at B4L have hailed Wednesday's strike by the Prison Officers' Association. Though I can't think of any reasons to be positive about it, I'm still interested by the (often vague) calls for "trade union freedom", especially given that strikes can still be illegal depending on what job you do.
Unions should be free to organise, campaign, and to act collectively, and all workers should be free to join and act within those unions, provided they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. However, I'm not sure I trust those whose vision of trade union freedom is simply to restore all post-1979 legislation deemed to be anti-union - including as it would, the restoration of relics like the closed shop - not to be motivated by a desire to go further, to wrest control over public sector wages, and secure greater political bargaining power for the union movement as a bloc in its own right, rather than greater protection against the abuse of the employment rights of members, or, say, exposing rogue employers.
The 'negative' freedom from government restrictions does not, nor should it, necessarily give the 'positive capacity' to bestride British politics, and to have a major economic impact (e.g. 'standing up to fat cat bosses' and altering the distribution of wealth), that a lot of trade unionists would like to see (and I'm not going to argue that case here), so oughtn't we to separate the union-freedom argument from the union-power one? Doing so might be the only way the former can realistically be achieved.
Consider the following question: would trade unionists support a wide-scale repeal of laws that restrict the freedom of unions, on the proviso that these were only used in a competitive economic environment: in the private sector, for example, where the public, or indeed companies, aren't forced to live with the consequences, and can adapt accordingly? If not, why not?
Labels: freedom, trade unions
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
4 comments so far...
Let's talk about what the Prison Officers strike is actually about: a staged 2.5% pay rise. This against the background of the highest prison population on record.
Gordon Brown responded:
"We have succeeded in tackling inflation and having a stable economy because of discipline in pay over the last 10 years," said Mr Brown. "That discipline will have to continue."
However, real inflation for ordinary folk is a lot higher than the headline rate, and they have to factor that into their cost of living. Secondly, when Brown when talks about the need for "discipline" in the wider economy, he's not talking about bosses awarding themselves increases, nor the "non-dom" super-rich he's so chummy with.
We are now entering a situation where the gap between the rich and poor is at historically high levels, and the UK could rapidly find itself with inequality that rivals the USA and Hong Kong. Is that really necessary? So its against that backdrop too that this strikes takes place.
My vision of trade union freedom is definitely not to return to the 1970s, but trying to increase wages when offered a real terms pay cut is a core issue for any trade union.
Personally, I'd like to see trade union membership being 'opt out' rather than 'opt in' (i.e. when you start working somewhere, you automatically become a member of the recognised union unless you sign a form to say that you don't want to be). Working somewhere with a high union membership leads to better wages and better working conditions, and the main reason why people don't join a union is because no one asks them to. My suspicion is that this would lead to less time being spent on things like trying to organise academic boycotts of Israel, and more effective and productive working as workplace conditions improve across the board, and low paid workers get a fairer share of the national income.
First up, Benjamin, (one of?) the downside(s) of working in the public sector is that your pay becomes a national political issue, and is dependent upon what the Chancellor will allow/the relevant Minister can secure/the level of popular approval for your work (to some extent), rather than the profitability of your business. You have to step pretty far out of the mainstream nowadays to find people who don't believe inflation should be controlled, but this is a requirement that really doesn't have anything to do with the distribution of income. For starters, a boss earning £10m isn't going to affect inflation a jot, while 25,000 workers getting 2.5% will.
It's one reason for the question(s) in my last paragraph: would unions give up their powerful position within the public sector in order to lift those pay constraints, and for a partial repeal of some legislation that they feel impinges on their freedom. I fear the desire is in fact for more power - more likelihood of success in their actions - than more freedom as such, but let's see what people say...
Considering your last post this somewhat, though not totally. reassures that you are not, at least, a natural Tory.
Indeed on the role of Unions in the Public sector I think you are right to ask 'Why?'
Unions, in my view, are only much real good if they work in the private sector. The irony is that their public sector fortress is, in the greater scheme of things, a fetter and one which makes them unpopular if they do strike, as they obviously hit universal services funded by the taxpayer, and impotent as they are attacking areas of the economy already in public hands - rather than the private sector, where the workers need unions more and could play a role agitating for public ownership.
However, one must always remember that this does not mean that they are wrong to organise, and indeed to strike, if the Govt is genuinely and needlessly either screwing them or reducing the services themsleves to a pitiful state. It would doubtless thus be wrong to seek to remove the unions from the public sector.
Post a Comment
<< Home