Trade Unions and Self-Harm
Duncan Hamilton has an interesting article in today's Scotland on Sunday - in which he argues that the trade unions are only harming themselves - by their stubborn refusal to accept certain realities.
Duncan is a former MSP and supporter of the SNP - but his views are all the more relevant for that - because there are lots of SNP trade unionists in Scotland - and, of course, many ordinary trade union members actively support the SNP - in both local and national elections.
Go out and buy the paper to read the article in full - meantime here's an extract of what Duncan has to say.
"To be taken seriously, and to harness the public support they crave, the sine qua non for the unions is the acceptance that we do need to cut spending, that jobs will go and that more of their members will be unemployed. From that acceptance of reality, the unions could champion the argument that the coalition is going too fast and cutting too deeply. On that, there is a genuine argument to be had between those who think cutting fast and very fast is the right approach. By contrast, almost no-one supports the view that no change is an option.
But rather than join that mature discussion, we got the clash and clamour of union sabre-rattling and promises of strike action. Even Vince Cable had his invitation to address Congress rescinded, which just about says it all.
The truth is that the public sector cannot hide from necessary reforms - and, yes, that includes short-term wage restraint and longer-term reform to pensions. Is that unfair given that these folks didn't cause the crisis? Yes it is. Is there an alternative? No there isn't. Moreover, leadership from the unions is about setting the unfairness of short term unemployment against the greater national interest of recovery from the train wreck of the banking crisis. Ultimately, their members depend on that recovery more than most.
Of course it sticks in the craw of every citizen who watched helplessly as the banks and others took us to the brink of disaster, but dying in a ditch over every last public sector job will alienate the public inside two minutes.
Looking to the future, there remains a big political question. While I disagree with the union position, I embrace the fact that it puts into play a clear left wing alternative. The problem is that no party - including the Labour Party - will advance that position in the House of Commons.
Sole reliance on the historic ties between the Labour Party and trade unionism simply cannot in the 21st century continue to justify millions of pounds of investment in a political party which takes the union money and then refuses to reflect mainstream trade unionism. With the eventual advent of PR, will the Unions seek direct election to parliament through a new party and leave New Labour to its own devices? Ending the union contributions to the Labour Party might just be the best spending cut they ever make."
Duncan is a former MSP and supporter of the SNP - but his views are all the more relevant for that - because there are lots of SNP trade unionists in Scotland - and, of course, many ordinary trade union members actively support the SNP - in both local and national elections.
Go out and buy the paper to read the article in full - meantime here's an extract of what Duncan has to say.
"To be taken seriously, and to harness the public support they crave, the sine qua non for the unions is the acceptance that we do need to cut spending, that jobs will go and that more of their members will be unemployed. From that acceptance of reality, the unions could champion the argument that the coalition is going too fast and cutting too deeply. On that, there is a genuine argument to be had between those who think cutting fast and very fast is the right approach. By contrast, almost no-one supports the view that no change is an option.
But rather than join that mature discussion, we got the clash and clamour of union sabre-rattling and promises of strike action. Even Vince Cable had his invitation to address Congress rescinded, which just about says it all.
The truth is that the public sector cannot hide from necessary reforms - and, yes, that includes short-term wage restraint and longer-term reform to pensions. Is that unfair given that these folks didn't cause the crisis? Yes it is. Is there an alternative? No there isn't. Moreover, leadership from the unions is about setting the unfairness of short term unemployment against the greater national interest of recovery from the train wreck of the banking crisis. Ultimately, their members depend on that recovery more than most.
Of course it sticks in the craw of every citizen who watched helplessly as the banks and others took us to the brink of disaster, but dying in a ditch over every last public sector job will alienate the public inside two minutes.
Looking to the future, there remains a big political question. While I disagree with the union position, I embrace the fact that it puts into play a clear left wing alternative. The problem is that no party - including the Labour Party - will advance that position in the House of Commons.
Sole reliance on the historic ties between the Labour Party and trade unionism simply cannot in the 21st century continue to justify millions of pounds of investment in a political party which takes the union money and then refuses to reflect mainstream trade unionism. With the eventual advent of PR, will the Unions seek direct election to parliament through a new party and leave New Labour to its own devices? Ending the union contributions to the Labour Party might just be the best spending cut they ever make."
