False Comparisons
Every time a trade union leader gets challenged these days over a strike that is based on a low turnout of members in the pre-strike ballot, they tend to answer along these lines:
"So what, so and so (normally a politician) was elected on less than 50% of the electorate ' so who are they to complain about anyone else?"
But this doesn't make any sense and it really is a very false comparison - because in a political election there is an ongoing opposition which is able to hold the 'winner' of the ballot to account - agreeing and disagreeing, challenging what the winner in using its mandate.
Whereas the same is not true inside trade unions which operate, politically speaking, like a closed shop, a one party state, where the leadership mandate from the ballot is not subject to the same kind of checks and balances.
And the lack of competition in the trade union sector makes this issue all the more acute - because the reality is that trade unions, just like other civic institutions, ought to reflect their members and the wider society in which they operate.
Chum Clubs (14 November 2014)
Here's a post from the blog site archive about the tendency for trade union branches to turn into 'chum clubs' - where the same small handful of people run the show, for years and years - while claiming that they represent and speak on behalf of a much wider group.
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.
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.
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.
