Mysterious Ballot
Standards are slipping terrible in the trade union movement these days - there seems to be a growing trend for unions to release the result of important membership ballots, but without including the turnout.
In other words, the number of members who took part in the ballot which is a big issue clearly - especially if the participation level is very low because that would tend to suggest that the result should be treated with a degree of caution at the very least.
Now when I was Unison's Head of Local Government in Scotland, some of the hotter and less sensible heads in the union used to take the view that 'a majority is a majority' - even by the narrowest of margins, for example, even a single vote.
But that is a completely crazy position to adopt, of course, particularly in relation to a strike ballot where the result is accompanied by a poor turnout of members - and the lower the turnout of members the bigger the problem, obviously, in the real world at least.
So I was struck by the recent announcement by Unison Scotland that local government workers have voted not to support industrial action in support of an improved pay offer - apparently 50.22% of Unison members in Scotland voted No to strike action while 49.78% voted Yes.
Yet the union hasn't said how many of its members actually voted in this ballot - 10%, 20%, 50% or what exactly - for some reason this vital figure has been withheld, but as I said earlier this now seems to be deliberate policy among the trade unions these days.
Which is very shortsighted, in my view - because it makes the unions look terribly defensive and as if they've got something to hide.
Which is very shortsighted, in my view - because it makes the unions look terribly defensive and as if they've got something to hide.
I suspect the turnout figure was around 25% which would have left Unison with a real dilemma if the result had been the other way round - i.e. a small majority in favour of taking industrial action based on a very low turnout.
If so, the proportion of members supporting industrial action would have been only around 12.5% of the total membership - which is not a very solid platform on which to organise a strike and ask members to lose pay when so few of their number have bothered to take part in the ballot.
Here are two previous posts from the blog site which look at the issue of union democracy - in very different ways.
I've been thinking of late about the similarities and differences between trade unions in the UK - and other parts of Europe.
So in a mad rush of enthusiasm I dashed off an email to IG Metall - one of the biggest trade unions in Germany which has 3.7 million members - and a very user friendly web site.
I asked the IG Metall press office the following 3 questions and to my great delight I received an answer by email - within an astonishing 24 hours.
1 The position of women members in IG Metall
Question There seems to be a provision in your rules that women must be represented on Works Councils in direct proportion to the number of women in the workforce. Is that correct and do you have any figures to show how women are represented in this way?
Answer You are right. This rule is written in our national shop constitution act since 2001 and this will keep the minority of the workforce (in our branch normally women) in the works councils. 20 percent of our workforce (only our branch) are women. The result by the last elections in 2010: 22,8 percent of the members in works councils are women.
2 The political affiliation, if any, of IG Metall
Question Most but not all trade unions in the UK have a political affiliation, but all those that do have a relationship with only one party, the Labour Party. What is the position with IG Metall and other trade unions in Germany?
Answer The German Unions are formally independent. Paragraph 2 of the IG Metall Charter calls for Independency against parties, companies and institutions. Historically, there has been a strong partnership between the unions and the Social Democratic Party SPD.
3 Strike ballots
Question There appears to be a provision in your rules that a stike ballot is only valid if 75% members entitled to vote take part in the ballot. Is that correct and do other trade unions operate similar rules?
Answer Yes, this is correct.
So, there you have some really striking information to wrestle with and consider at your leisure.
In Germany women are represented in proportion to their numbers within the workforce - trade unions are politically independent from all parties - and strikes are sanctioned only if a big majority of union members (75%) have taken part in the pre-strike ballot.
Interesting to say the least - and worthy of inclusion in any serious debate about what makes a successful economy and fair society.
The only other point I would add is that I can't imagine any trade union in the UK being quite so efficient or helpful as IG Metall.
If so, the proportion of members supporting industrial action would have been only around 12.5% of the total membership - which is not a very solid platform on which to organise a strike and ask members to lose pay when so few of their number have bothered to take part in the ballot.
Here are two previous posts from the blog site which look at the issue of union democracy - in very different ways.
Ivory Towers (5 June 2013)
I have seldom read a more feeble opinion piece than the following article by Gregor Gall - which appeared in The Scotsman the other day.
I have read Gregor's ravings on a few occasions recently, but what strikes me is the complete absence of any academic thought or rigour - all I've ever taken away is that Gregor's 'analysis', if that's the correct word, is all about distorting facts and circumstances to suit his own political views.
But the fact is that an 87% vote in a Political Fund Ballot is not a victory for union democracy - especially when the turnout figures are being withheld until another, more convenient time - perhaps because these will reveal that relatively few union members voted.
Nor is it a victory for democracy if union votes are given no choice of which party - if any - their political fund contributions should go to support.
Why, for example, do trade unions not ask their members in Scotland whether they would like to donate part of their union contributions to the SNP, the Scottish Green Party or even the Lib Dems?
So if you ask me, the Political Fund Ballot is not remotely fair or democratic when it comes to representing the opinions of ordinary union members - who come from all political 'faiths' and none at all, of course.
And I would have thought that a serious academic would be asking a few intelligent questions on the subject - forcefully probing the issues here and there - instead of acting like some kind of cheerleader for the 'left wing' views of Len McCluskey which Gregor seems to admire so much.
Note, if you will, Gregor's comment in the penultimate paragraph that Ed Miliband - is Unite's "problem" which is absurd and insulting in equal measure since it was Britain's union bosses (the Bubs) who ensured that Ed was elected Labour leader in the first place.
How people have the nerve or 'gall' to write such drivel in the first place - is a mystery to me.
Gregor Gall: Left rebirth takes more than United front
Members of the Unite union, the biggest in Britain, have voted by an 87 per cent majority to renew its political fund.
By law, a ballot must be held every ten years to decide upon whether a union can maintain its fund. Political funds allow unions to lawfully spend money on campaigning on political matters to support their unions’ policies. This can be for or against government policy or those of any other political party.
Of the 50-odd main unions, 16 are affiliated to the Labour party. As with all of them (including Unite), substantial portions of these funds are spent supporting Labour.
Since Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in September 2010, Unite has donated £8.5 million to the party, making it by far the biggest donor. The other two big unions, Unison and the GMB, together gave less than this sum.
But what is causing political tremors is that Unite, more than any other affiliated union, is implementing a strategy to get value for the money it gives Labour. Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson have been among the most vocal of those warning Miliband to resist Unite’s pressure. Blair argued that Labour risked turning into a “repository of people’s anger” rather than a viable party of government if it succumbed.
Unite wants to see Labour policies reflect its own policies. Just as importantly, it believes that unless Miliband and Labour move to the Left, they will neither offer a convincing alternative to the Tories nor will they make a sufficiently positive difference to the majority of citizens’ lives when in office.
Previously, affiliated unions would seek to influence Labour by getting their motions passed at party conferences. Of late, these are less policy-deciding forums and more media-friendly events. Affiliated unions would also seek to influence Labour’s general elections manifestos. Unions also sponsor MPs and have parliamentary groups.
But what Unite is doing beyond this is to get its members selected as prospective Labour parliamentary candidates for the 2015 general election. The more candidates it has, the more members will be elected. The means of getting its candidates selected is to get its members to join Labour and vote for them in the selection meetings.
So by late April this year, more than half the candidates already selected were from unions. Of those most came from Unite, leading one Labour insider to comment “Unite [is] marching all over the selection process”. The backlash against Unite’s strategy is the dynamic behind the recent suspension of the selection process in the Falkirk West constituency.
But even if Unite is successful, the issue of whether this most sustained, well-resourced and strategic “reclaim Labour” project will deliver a more left-wing Labour Party and a left-wing Labour government is open to doubt. For example, Miliband has maintained commitment to the outline of the coalition government’s spending cuts and its pay freezes for public sector workers.
This doubt arises because of four factors. First, there is the opposition to what Unite is doing from the Blairites inside and outside the shadow cabinet. This cannot so easily be swept aside when it buttresses Miliband’s position. So although the Blairites have criticised Miliband for what he has done of his own volition, Miliband and the Blairites are making common cause in standing against Unite.
Second, Miliband has only formally repudiated “new” Labour. His advocacy in January 2012 of “responsible capitalism” is troubling because it is still very much “new” Labour precisely because he is unwilling to use state intervention to curb the excesses of private capital. Rather, he wishes to implore companies to be nicer and wiser. Then he turned to Disraeli’s “one-nation” Toryism last October.
Neither idea has had any flesh put on its bones – the on-going party policy review is hardly a reason for Miliband not to do so. This gives Miliband maximum political flexibility in responding to the coalition government. But that flexibility is grounded within the parameters of accepting neo-liberalism and the age of austerity.
The absence of progressive, coherent “big picture” ideas means Unite faces a huge struggle because the door to progressive Labour policies is hardly even ajar.
Third, Unite has not been able to make its own common cause with Unison and the GMB unions in order to exert a greater pull towards its ideas. Although the three unions worked closely together over influencing Labour’s manifestos in the past decade, Unite is now far to the Left of the other two unions and works more closely with the non-Labour affiliated union, the PCS.
Fourth, Unite has in itself been inconsistent. It was the key union that secured Miliband’s victory over his brother, David, in the Labour leadership contest. Within 18 months, it attacked him for the vacuity of his “responsible capitalism”, then lauded his “one-nation” speech as “the best speech from a Labour leader”. A couple of months ago, Unite launched a broadside by saying Miliband was in danger of being seduced by the Blairites.
Unite was hitting the wrong target here because it was saying the “king is fine, but his advisers aren’t”. While the Blairites are not unimportant, Miliband has followed his own path by his own volition so that he is Unite’s problem.
The political fund’s renewal and its primary expenditure on Labour present Unite with a dilemma. There are no credible alternatives to the Left of Labour but that does not make the task of reclaiming Labour any easier.
Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Bradford
I have seldom read a more feeble opinion piece than the following article by Gregor Gall - which appeared in The Scotsman the other day.
I have read Gregor's ravings on a few occasions recently, but what strikes me is the complete absence of any academic thought or rigour - all I've ever taken away is that Gregor's 'analysis', if that's the correct word, is all about distorting facts and circumstances to suit his own political views.
But the fact is that an 87% vote in a Political Fund Ballot is not a victory for union democracy - especially when the turnout figures are being withheld until another, more convenient time - perhaps because these will reveal that relatively few union members voted.
Nor is it a victory for democracy if union votes are given no choice of which party - if any - their political fund contributions should go to support.
Why, for example, do trade unions not ask their members in Scotland whether they would like to donate part of their union contributions to the SNP, the Scottish Green Party or even the Lib Dems?
So if you ask me, the Political Fund Ballot is not remotely fair or democratic when it comes to representing the opinions of ordinary union members - who come from all political 'faiths' and none at all, of course.
And I would have thought that a serious academic would be asking a few intelligent questions on the subject - forcefully probing the issues here and there - instead of acting like some kind of cheerleader for the 'left wing' views of Len McCluskey which Gregor seems to admire so much.
Note, if you will, Gregor's comment in the penultimate paragraph that Ed Miliband - is Unite's "problem" which is absurd and insulting in equal measure since it was Britain's union bosses (the Bubs) who ensured that Ed was elected Labour leader in the first place.
How people have the nerve or 'gall' to write such drivel in the first place - is a mystery to me.
Gregor Gall: Left rebirth takes more than United front
Members of the Unite union, the biggest in Britain, have voted by an 87 per cent majority to renew its political fund.
By law, a ballot must be held every ten years to decide upon whether a union can maintain its fund. Political funds allow unions to lawfully spend money on campaigning on political matters to support their unions’ policies. This can be for or against government policy or those of any other political party.
Of the 50-odd main unions, 16 are affiliated to the Labour party. As with all of them (including Unite), substantial portions of these funds are spent supporting Labour.
Since Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in September 2010, Unite has donated £8.5 million to the party, making it by far the biggest donor. The other two big unions, Unison and the GMB, together gave less than this sum.
But what is causing political tremors is that Unite, more than any other affiliated union, is implementing a strategy to get value for the money it gives Labour. Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson have been among the most vocal of those warning Miliband to resist Unite’s pressure. Blair argued that Labour risked turning into a “repository of people’s anger” rather than a viable party of government if it succumbed.
Unite wants to see Labour policies reflect its own policies. Just as importantly, it believes that unless Miliband and Labour move to the Left, they will neither offer a convincing alternative to the Tories nor will they make a sufficiently positive difference to the majority of citizens’ lives when in office.
Previously, affiliated unions would seek to influence Labour by getting their motions passed at party conferences. Of late, these are less policy-deciding forums and more media-friendly events. Affiliated unions would also seek to influence Labour’s general elections manifestos. Unions also sponsor MPs and have parliamentary groups.
But what Unite is doing beyond this is to get its members selected as prospective Labour parliamentary candidates for the 2015 general election. The more candidates it has, the more members will be elected. The means of getting its candidates selected is to get its members to join Labour and vote for them in the selection meetings.
So by late April this year, more than half the candidates already selected were from unions. Of those most came from Unite, leading one Labour insider to comment “Unite [is] marching all over the selection process”. The backlash against Unite’s strategy is the dynamic behind the recent suspension of the selection process in the Falkirk West constituency.
But even if Unite is successful, the issue of whether this most sustained, well-resourced and strategic “reclaim Labour” project will deliver a more left-wing Labour Party and a left-wing Labour government is open to doubt. For example, Miliband has maintained commitment to the outline of the coalition government’s spending cuts and its pay freezes for public sector workers.
This doubt arises because of four factors. First, there is the opposition to what Unite is doing from the Blairites inside and outside the shadow cabinet. This cannot so easily be swept aside when it buttresses Miliband’s position. So although the Blairites have criticised Miliband for what he has done of his own volition, Miliband and the Blairites are making common cause in standing against Unite.
Second, Miliband has only formally repudiated “new” Labour. His advocacy in January 2012 of “responsible capitalism” is troubling because it is still very much “new” Labour precisely because he is unwilling to use state intervention to curb the excesses of private capital. Rather, he wishes to implore companies to be nicer and wiser. Then he turned to Disraeli’s “one-nation” Toryism last October.
Neither idea has had any flesh put on its bones – the on-going party policy review is hardly a reason for Miliband not to do so. This gives Miliband maximum political flexibility in responding to the coalition government. But that flexibility is grounded within the parameters of accepting neo-liberalism and the age of austerity.
The absence of progressive, coherent “big picture” ideas means Unite faces a huge struggle because the door to progressive Labour policies is hardly even ajar.
Third, Unite has not been able to make its own common cause with Unison and the GMB unions in order to exert a greater pull towards its ideas. Although the three unions worked closely together over influencing Labour’s manifestos in the past decade, Unite is now far to the Left of the other two unions and works more closely with the non-Labour affiliated union, the PCS.
Fourth, Unite has in itself been inconsistent. It was the key union that secured Miliband’s victory over his brother, David, in the Labour leadership contest. Within 18 months, it attacked him for the vacuity of his “responsible capitalism”, then lauded his “one-nation” speech as “the best speech from a Labour leader”. A couple of months ago, Unite launched a broadside by saying Miliband was in danger of being seduced by the Blairites.
Unite was hitting the wrong target here because it was saying the “king is fine, but his advisers aren’t”. While the Blairites are not unimportant, Miliband has followed his own path by his own volition so that he is Unite’s problem.
The political fund’s renewal and its primary expenditure on Labour present Unite with a dilemma. There are no credible alternatives to the Left of Labour but that does not make the task of reclaiming Labour any easier.
Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Bradford
German Success (11 June 2013)
I've been thinking of late about the similarities and differences between trade unions in the UK - and other parts of Europe.
So in a mad rush of enthusiasm I dashed off an email to IG Metall - one of the biggest trade unions in Germany which has 3.7 million members - and a very user friendly web site.
I asked the IG Metall press office the following 3 questions and to my great delight I received an answer by email - within an astonishing 24 hours.
1 The position of women members in IG Metall
Question There seems to be a provision in your rules that women must be represented on Works Councils in direct proportion to the number of women in the workforce. Is that correct and do you have any figures to show how women are represented in this way?
Answer You are right. This rule is written in our national shop constitution act since 2001 and this will keep the minority of the workforce (in our branch normally women) in the works councils. 20 percent of our workforce (only our branch) are women. The result by the last elections in 2010: 22,8 percent of the members in works councils are women.
2 The political affiliation, if any, of IG Metall
Question Most but not all trade unions in the UK have a political affiliation, but all those that do have a relationship with only one party, the Labour Party. What is the position with IG Metall and other trade unions in Germany?
Answer The German Unions are formally independent. Paragraph 2 of the IG Metall Charter calls for Independency against parties, companies and institutions. Historically, there has been a strong partnership between the unions and the Social Democratic Party SPD.
3 Strike ballots
Question There appears to be a provision in your rules that a stike ballot is only valid if 75% members entitled to vote take part in the ballot. Is that correct and do other trade unions operate similar rules?
Answer Yes, this is correct.
So, there you have some really striking information to wrestle with and consider at your leisure.
In Germany women are represented in proportion to their numbers within the workforce - trade unions are politically independent from all parties - and strikes are sanctioned only if a big majority of union members (75%) have taken part in the pre-strike ballot.
Interesting to say the least - and worthy of inclusion in any serious debate about what makes a successful economy and fair society.
The only other point I would add is that I can't imagine any trade union in the UK being quite so efficient or helpful as IG Metall.
