Make Believe
The Westminster Government's announcement of an independent inquiry into 'union campaigning' has drawn a predictable response from Britain's union bosses - who don't like other people acting a critical eye over how they run their affairs.
In this opinion piece for the Guardian, Frances O'Grady (a former official with the TGWU - now part of Unite) invokes the spectre of Margaret Thatcher which is rather odd since the trade union reforms of that era, for example the requirement to hold pre-strike ballots, are now an accepted part of industrial relations in the UK.
No one, not even the Labour Party, is suggesting that these reforms should be rolled back - because they are seems as eminently sensible and are widely popular among trade union members, as well as the general public.
My issue with the Government's inquiry is that the remit is far too narrowly drawn - I can't believe that many people beyond a few hotheads in Unite find it acceptable for unions to target the homes of managers and employers caught up in an industrial dispute.
Because what does a workplace dispute have to do with a person's family and/or their children?
The real issue that ought to be put under the public spotlight is the lack of proper regulation amongst the modern 'super-sized' trade unions - and the unrepresentative way that unions behave when it comes to party politics where they 'misrepresent' rather than represent the diverse views of their members.
Now that would be an inquiry well worth having because it would address the balance of power between ordinary union members and leaders like Len McCluskey - who is quite entitled to his views and politics, but not the make-believe claims that he speaks for the majority of Unite members.
Cameron's union-bashing inquiry won't reverse the Tories' slide in the polls
Conservative strategists' bid to return to a Thatcherite agenda shows how little they understand of the lives of ordinary voters
By Frances O'Grady
Margaret Thatcher's anti-union policies are being replayed by the coalition. Photograph: LWT/Rex
Switch on any TV talent show and the chances are someone will be belting out a tune that was a hit decades ago. The problem is that it rarely sounds as good the second time around. But this seems to be the Conservative party's strategy for winning the next election. They think, or perhaps strategist Lynton Crosby thinks, that rerunning the anti-union politics of Margaret Thatcher will deliver votes. This is why the taxpayer is to fund a six month-long inquiry into union campaigning away from the workplace to investigate whether the law needs changing. It is to be chaired by a top QC, Bruce Carr, well-known for representing employers in anti-union court cases. He is unlikely to come cheap.
Yet we already have what is commonly acknowledged as the most restrictive anti-union laws in any democratic country. And there are already tough public order laws to prevent harassment. A peaceful protest may be embarrassing for a powerful elite who seldom have to face the human consequences of their decisions. But people's right to demonstrate is an essential feature of any democracy.
As the Conservatives slip behind in the polls once again despite signs of at least some economic recovery, they are reaching for the old familiar tunes. Rather than engage with union arguments on the cost of living crisis, they think they can undermine Labour's lead by organising a solid year and a half of union bashing up until the next election. Workers under threat of job losses or simply sticking up for a fairer deal are set to be the collateral damage in a partisan proxy war on Red Ed Miliband – and taxpayers are expected to pick up the bill.
The lobbying bill currently going through parliament was an early shot. It is designed to limit union campaigning and open up membership lists to state snooping. But that stirred up a huge campaign involving the charities and campaign groups who would also have been caught up in its chilling restrictions on free speech.
This new inquiry takes us further down the same road. If it ends up with tougher restrictions on the right to protest, it won't just be unions that are hit.
Winning the public relations battle is vital for unions in any dispute. Drawing attention to the hypocrisy of employers trying to blackmail staff and, indeed governments, from the comfort of their tax havens can be a legitimate part of this. British gas boss Cedric Brown, nicknamed Cedric the Pig, did more than any number of press releases to put soaraway executive pay on the political agenda in the 1990s.
A power struggle within the coalition may have led Vince Cable to try to make the inquiry appear more balanced by belatedly including "rogue employers", but Francis Maude's travels through the media studios have made its union target clear.
Yet there has been a huge switch in the balance of workplace power since Thatcher's day. And this inquiry will not tackle the cartel of companies that blacklisted trade unionists and denied them a livelihood for years simply for raising health and safety issues. It won't address the rise of casualised work through bogus self-employment and zero-hours contracts. This presumably has nothing to do with John Griffin, who runs taxi firm Addison Lee, where drivers are self-employed and therefore without employment rights, handing over £500,000 to become the Conservative party's biggest donor.
Nor is the inquiry likely to support the IMF call for an extension of collective bargaining to help reduce the inequalities that helped drive the crash. While workers on average are losing £30 a week in real wage cuts, the share of the national pie that is going to profits is growing.
The only comfort to take from this new attack is that crude union bashing will not work. A recent poll found that 78% of Britons support the statement: "Trade unions are essential to protect workers' interests".
The fact that so many Conservatives think that attacking what is Britain's largest voluntary movement will do them good is just further evidence of how little they understand the lives of ordinary voters.
Chum Clubs
Now the normal defence of a 'chum club' faced with such a charge is that their doors are open to everyone - and it's not their fault if people can't be bothered to turn up and take part in their activities.
So, if the bulk of people don't show up - don't stand for election or bother to vote - then why should the 'chum club' be criticised for the apathy or disinterest of the wider membership.
And if that means the same tired old faces get elected to positions of authority - time and again - then so what, at least the process is democratic and within the rules.
I would be the first to admit there's a kernel of truth in the 'so what' argument, but that's about as far as it goes - because the difference between trade unions and other voluntary organisations is that they claim to speak with authority on behalf of their wider membership.
For example, there's no doubt that Len McCluskey was elected by a 'democratic' vote of Unite members, but in reality so few members took part in the leadership election that his claim to have a mandate to speak on behalf of 1.6 million union members looks rather ridiculous - to say the very least.
"Well that's as may be, but don't single us out," says the chum club. "Because politicians get elected on low turnouts as well and no one argues about their legitimacy or ability to represent the wider electorate."
But that's not really true because politicians are always arguing about the fairness of electoral contests - the need to make it easier for people to vote and take part - postal votes spring to mind and the next big step surely ought to be secure voting by email and text.
In addition political elections have other important checks and balances, the obvious example being PR (Proportional Representation) which is designed to ensure that no single party can dominate elections - the safeguard is fair or at least fairer representation.
Whereas trade unions operate like Labour only 'closed shops' which means that a trade union like Unite recruits at a senior level only Labour supporting candidates - and under Len McCluskey's leadership the union appears to be interested only in promoting people who resemble Len McCluskey - broadly and politically speaking, of course.
Chum Clubs and Moribund Branches (28 June 2013)
In an effort to breathe new life into Labour - Ed Miliband - has directed one of his loyal lieutenants to come up with an honest assessment - about the state of the party.
Peter Hain has been charged with the task - and his views make uncomfortable reading for anyone interested in democracy - because he warns that 'many local parties are moribund'.
In some areas of the country - Hain observes - the party 'barely functions'.
Before adding that the number of affiliated union members has fallen significantly - while party structures have hardly changed since the First World War.
Now this strikes me as straight talking - facing up to reality.
The solution - according to Hain - is to open things up and find ways of making Labour more attractive and relevant to people's everyday lives.
And what's true for the Labour party is even more true for the trade unions - which in many areas have become 'chum clubs'.
The truth is that in many local trade union branches the same faces - sharing the same politics - have been running the show for years and years.
Which is a real problem - in the old days they would have been called 'rotten boroughs'.
Because the trade unions like to portray themselves as representative organisations - that accurately reflect the views of a wider membership - yet in reality it's often just a handful of people making vital decisions.
The problem manifests itself in trade union ballots - where tiny numbers take part in official elections - and the majority of members often vote with their feet - by not voting at all in strike ballots.
Now it's not easy to get more people involved - as I know from personal experience - but at least the Labour party is trying to face up to the challenge.
Whereas the trade unions still have their heads - firmly stuck in the sand.
