Why the unions need to be told to take a hike

Tankist Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:40:41 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Labour seems to face ruin in two ways - either no money or be shackled to the unions. Well, Gordon Brown should take a leaf out of John Smith's book and tell the unions to back off.



Many here may not remember it, but back in 1994 John Smith had to face down unions determined to show they ran the Labour Party show.

The arguments then - over parliamentary selection - are familiar today: "no say, no pay" as Tom Sawyer told the press.

Smith won because the electoral facts were simple - if Labour were seen to be nothing more than the unions' voice then Labour would lose.

Today the unions - or at least some of them (then, as now, the GMB seemed to specialise in crude threats) - are saying Labour will only get their money if they dance to their tune.

But then or now another thing remains the same - unions are not the voice of working people, just some of them and for that reason a party of the people cannot simply be a party of the unions.

It's obviously a hard lesson for the unions to learn, but that doesn't mean they don't have to learn it.

By the way - I've been a trade unionist all my working life.



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Why the unions need to be told to take a hike | 33 comments (33 topical)

Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#1)

by HarryW on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:59:25 PM GMT

As a fellow Trades Unionist, I have been lobbying for my union (Unison) to have looser ties with the Labour Party.

You are right, The Trades Union movement wanted political power, so it formed, supported and nurtured the Labour Party.

Like many children, Labour has grown up disrespectful, nay even contemptuous of, its parents, despising their working class roots.

The unions should let newLabour sink in its own debts, and form a new party that is concerned about meeting the aspirations and rights of British working people from all heritages.

Why should my union dues support a party that wants to tax the poor, to pay for tax breaks for the rich? Why should my union support a political party whose public sector "reforms" will pave the way for the privatisation of whole swathes of the public sector.  Why does newLabour shy away from public sector house building, and then prop up professional landlords? The party that is afraid to ask the richest for a little more expects teachers and nurses, train drivers and fireman, council workers and those on fixed incomes like pensioners to accept a cut in their acutal living standards year on year. More Tory than Labour.

The TU movement has an important decision to make.  If Labour is not meeting the political aspirations of Trades Union members, why should they support it?

Especially with the contempt that MPs, and Ministers continue to show towards it.

Trades Unionists have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Let's take that hike, and our money with us


Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#3)

by Tankist on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:28:20 PM GMT

I pity your children, if you have any: presumably you treat them as chattels?

Your response is mainly a collection of slogans and as you don't support Labour (but probably support some Leninist faction that has never achieved anything) you are on the wrong website.

Labour was actually formed as an alliance between socialists (both of the Fabian and of the marxian/social democratic varieties) and trades unionists (who were, in the main, Liberals by inclination). It was never a wholly owned subsidiary of the TUC and it never will be.

The oft repeated claim that "Labour are just like the Tories" betrays either stupidity, youth or poor memory. The Tories did not double real terms spending on the NHS, they didn't introduce a minimum wage, they didn't bring about devolution or give unions new recognition rights, they opposed workers rights that came through the social chapter, they opposed letting in fellow workers from Eastern Europe, they gave tax breaks to those who used private health insurance.

Please name the bits of the public sector that have been privatised? I can think of air traffic control (where privatisation brought in much needed investment) and defence research (be careful what you wish for comrades - this is what defence conversion, that thing we all voted for in those CND composites all through the 1980s, means). Not the NHS or schools - and you won't have any evidence of that either. What you mean is that all our public services are no longer provided by a single state monopoly - and guess what? It works ... six years ago the average wait for an MRI scan in the NHS in England was 57 weeks, now it is something like six weeks.

 

And, of course when you say " Labour is not meeting the political aspirations of Trades Union members" what you really mean is "Labour is continuing to piss off my mates in the Judean People's Front that go to the union branch meeting and love to pontificate about how they and they alone are the working class".

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#13)

by fluffymike on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:18:30 AM GMT

Please name the bits of the public sector that have been privatised you say?

Well let's start with great chunks of civil service work that has gone out to private contractors and charities - who then provide a poorer ervice at considerably more expense,

or how about the furnishings and computers that have been sold off to contractors who then charge us a fortune to move our furniture and computers around and also charge £500 a year for each and every PC in every building, plus about £200+ a throw to move the things from one area to another - things that civil servants themselves used to do!



[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#14)

by e10rifles on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:53:48 AM GMT

How about the outsourcing of everything that moves across the public sector buildings: security, facilities, catering? Or city academies - outside public control but with plenty of our millions being thrown at them under the control of the private sector. Or ask most civil servants how many poxy management consultants are swarming all over their offices knowing nothing about the area but getting several times a civil servant's wage to criticise them? Or the private sector in the NHS - look at the Camden situation for a start. How many more examples do you want? Or paying private hospitals to do operations - or even if they don't do operations? Or PFI leading to private sector ownership of public sector assets which we have to rent back off them?


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#18)

by lulu on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:12:42 PM GMT

City acadamies aren't privatised.

And are you really saying that the key test for socialists is whether the computers used by public servants are bought from the private sector or leased from them?


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#20)

by e10rifles on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM GMT

I wasn't referring to the computers but the whole infrastructure of public buildings.

Look at the make-up of an academy's board of governors. Where is the democratic local accountability? If the school is built under BSF there is no public sector involvement at any stage except we're paying for it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions should take that hike (#33)

by fluffymike on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM GMT

are you really saying that the key test for progressive new labour policies is that it doesn't matter how much extra it costs to run a public service as long as it is in private hands then its a good thing?


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#2)

by jkitleft on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:05 PM GMT

I would agree with state funding. I argue that the trade unions with their £8 million should then lobby Labour through advertising. The Trade Unions have now been largely detoxified, and are far more principled than in the '70's. Why should, as John Monks put it, donate all their dosh to Labour, to be treated like "an embaressing old aunt"?


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#4)

by AngryVoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:07:43 AM GMT

Well, couple of things really.

1) Labour should have been more careful with it's finances when it had 'em.

2)  Countries that rely on state funding for political parties tend to be more corrupt and murky and harder to follow than the public funding we have today.

Might be a dirty biz, funding political parties from private donations, but you can make it work. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#6)

by ppbarrett on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:22:03 AM GMT

"2)  Countries that rely on state funding for political parties tend to be more corrupt and murky and harder to follow than the public funding we have today."

 

I know this can be true of certain countries who practice this, but Germany, for one, is a country who offers state funding for parties and seems free, or more free, from the fundraising-sleaze that plagues us, a country that doesn't.

 

In Germany they receive funding dependant on acheiving a threshold number of votes (To prevent the state funding BNP equivalents) and then on a two-tiered per vote basis.

 

Parties are banned from receiving private donations over a certain amount, and make their accounts auditable like any government department.

 

Whilst there are obvious problems in that the party-hierarchy is never likely to be broken because of the funding-per-vote basis, but doesn't FPTP do pretty much the equivalent job here?

 

The problem with an initiative in that vein over here would be the raucous caused by the apathetic and cynical tax-payers (which appear to outnumber the more optimistic ones!) who are paying taxes to fund parties they do not support to win an election they do not care about.

 

It is unlikely to win support over here, I agree, but implemented properly I believe it could improve our current situation drastically. It would solve most of the "Lord Cashpoint"-esque scandals and rid the parties whose policies and outlook are affected by vested interests.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#10)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:49:47 AM GMT

Some countries. I've always supported the system used in Maine and Arizona. This led to far more transparency amongst politicians, as they were no longer in the hold of corporate lobbyists.

We could have a coherent Corporate Manslaughter Act. Imagine if there was a chemical weapon that detonated at a work site. 400 people are dead. Now remove the fact there's a weapon, and spread the statistic out to a whole year. If there is going to be one health and safety measure (by the by, there are less health and safety inspectors than in the Tory years, and it is a culture in which the myth of 'elf and safety is created, that makes worried businesses enforce rediculous rules, not the government), then this should be it. But it will only be properly beefed up when there are public, not private funds.

Some ask, "why should I pay for political parties?", you might as well ask why you should pay for ballot boxes or ballot papers. Helena Kennedy recommended that everyone should pay between £2.08 and £3 to the political party of their choice every year. I know you would prefer to fund the Tories, so you would be free to.

Yes there are still Hermut Kohl type scandals. But you're wrong. Corruption becomes a sometimes-anomaly in other countries with state funding. Here, it is a structural requirement.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#15)

by serenitynow on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:55:19 AM GMT

"2)  Countries that rely on state funding for political parties tend to be more corrupt and murky and harder to follow than the public funding we have today."

Not sure this is entirely true.

Australia has a system of publicly funded parties; a threshold number of first preference votes is required 4%, which if exceeded the party then receives approximately $2per first preference vote.

In addition private donations from individuals, companies and trade unions are also permitted, with parties having to submit audits and declare amounts over certain thresholds. 

What protects against too much cynicism is the compulsory voting though given voting is secret no one knows what you do with your ballot.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#5)

by Free Radical on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:14:55 AM GMT

You say you have been a trade unionist all your life. Trade unionsts have often been a very conservative force within the party - and you seem no exception. But why should unions not have a political arm, which is what the Labour Party was at its inception, and many, like me, hope it will remain?

The problem Labour is having with the unions is that Labour's record is mixed and many working people feel disappointed that Labour has not done more (and I don't wish to minimise Labour's genuine achievements like the minimum wage and increased public spending on things like health). The threats to privatise the postal services are merely the latest example of "New Labour" looking for ways to increase the role of the market.

However, it looks as though the millionnaires (including the likes of Robert Maxwell in the past) have begun to desert Labour, but it is the Unions who have remained loyal - surely that is a virtue, not something to carp about?

It seems to me that your policy would leave us with no finance at all.

And, Jkitleft, I think you are mistaken about public funding. Our political class would love it, but it would weaken the organic connection between the party and the unions - which is why the Blairite right would love it to happen. But the public won't wear it thank goodness.


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#11)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:56:52 AM GMT

I think the political class would love it- that's my point. I don't think many of the Blairites are that Blairite for inherent reasons. I think they do it because they think it will open up a big electoral fund, and they can therefore win elections. I think Labour would love to introduce taxes on the super-rich, or a beefed up corporate manslaughter act, but they rely on private donors too much. Politics, as seen with the systems in Maine and Arizona, would shift to the left. I don't support it for that reason, this is merely because an ordinary citizen is worth just as much as a CEO in these funding structures.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#7)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 03:46:18 AM GMT

I agree Tankist.

We should always work with trade unions precisely because we should have much in common with them. We'll always be more supportive of trade union rights than the Tories, that's how it should be.

But we must not be held to ransom by the unions - the party has to be free to shape its own policies without being threatened by donations withdrawels. Time for state funding instead.

A breaking of the cash link between party and unions will be beneficial to both. It will end the continual mutual mistrust between Labour and the unions over how big the donations should be. Both parties would be free to speak their own minds and I think they'll be all the better because of it.


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#12)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM GMT

I actually think both organisations are too good for each other. If Labour knows that every person has to donate £3, then the Trade unions can say that they have £21 million up for grabs, if Labour decides to introduce worker friendly policies.

This is most certainly not a right-wing policy, this is a policy that would beat at our red bleeding heart. A CEO's influence, would be just as great as that of a single mum struggling on the minimum wage. That is socialism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#16)

by serenitynow on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM GMT

"But we must not be held to ransom by the unions - the party has to be free to shape its own policies without being threatened by donations withdrawels. Time for state funding instead."

This notion of 'ransom' and threats by trade unions is getting pretty tiresome.

The Government (as opposed to the Party) has been very free and easy with the policies it has and hasn't adopted to date.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#8)

by Wiseman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:26:34 AM GMT

You know I worry if some people on labour home forget their labour history, the fact is that the elabour party was started by unions as the labour representation committee, representing all societies and unions at the time.  I will say this once, the Labour party is the party of the massess, so please kill this argument.

John Wiseman
Director
Unite the Union Trustee Company


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#25)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:34:55 PM GMT

We all know what the history of the party is John, but some believe it should be just that - HISTORY, not the present.

I'm just not that conservative (small 'c') and I'm all for change where it will make things better.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#9)

by e10rifles on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:47:08 AM GMT

At least the original poster has the nerve to brazenly come out with the nonsense that many other supposedly Labour people secretly wish for.


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#17)

by CitizenAndreas on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM GMT

I don't like the wording of this post, the main body is about a specific dispute with the GMB, but this "the unions should take a hike" rhetoric is not constructive at all.

The trade unions have had vary little say in recent policy, so the idea that Labour could become just a mouthpiece for the trade unions is absurd. There is a legitimate case  for criticising the GMB (although I happen to think they have a point), but I disagree with this kind of knee jerk union bashing. Isolating a core plank of Labour's support just isn't smart.


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#19)

by lulu on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM GMT

Every word of the 2005 manifesto was agreed with the unions.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#28)

by CitizenAndreas on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:21 PM GMT

Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the level of input the unions had in the manifesto.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#21)

by snowflake5 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:27:50 PM GMT

This is a very good article. I was watching Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain and groaned when I saw the bits on the 1970's. Particularly the way Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle were fought and resisted on In Place of Strife, and the way the Unions then turned on Jim Callahgan when he was enacting some sensible spending reforms.

Some unionists have come on this thread to say "it's our money, why shouldn't we dictate the policies of the labour party". The reposte to that is what they hope to gain by doing so. If they think dictating policy will get their policies onto the legislative books, think again!!!

Voters in Britain go for only two options - moderate Labour or Conservative. They don't go for extreme Labour nor unionist Labour. Therefore all the GMB and co will achieve is a Tory government which will roll back the Social Chapter (they've already pledged this) and make sure the minimum wage doesn't get increased (in the way George Dubya Bush froze the minimum wage in the USA) and roll back such things as rights for temporary workers.  Is this what the GMB really really wants?

Those unionists thought they were being so clever in opposing the Wilson, Castle and Callaghan reforms and flexing their money and will - but all they actually achieved was to bring in Thatcher and draconian penalties to people in manufacturing and indeed any industry that was unionised. Thatcher is the legacy of union activisim. You'd think people would learn from history.

Labour has always been removed from power due to the Labour left deciding to attack the Labour party, and have a civil war. All our defeats have been self-defeats rather than anything else. 

Labour united shall never be defeated, Labour divided shall always be defeated - haven't the last fifty years proved this?


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#22)

by e10rifles on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:47:00 PM GMT

What another load of utter rubbish. Illiterate, historically inaccurate and unnecessarily divisive.

I don't believe for a minute you've read what you claim, or anything else for that matter. The unions have traditionally been on the right of the Labour Party.

Here are the worst bits:

"the way the Unions then turned on Jim Callahgan when he was enacting some sensible spending reforms."

Shocking isn't it? Workers get antsy when given pay rises well below inflation. Terrible behaviour from "the unions" (i.e. the working class) not to swallow all the crap shovelled down their neck to keep an incompetent Labour government in power.

"If they think dictating policy will get their policies onto the legislative books, think again!!!"

No idea what this even means.

"Voters in Britain go for only two options - moderate Labour or Conservative. They don't go for extreme Labour nor unionist Labour."

Eh? What is "extreme Labour"? Unionist Labour is the party which won those elections between the 1920s and the 1970s, extreme or not.

"Thatcher is the legacy of union activisim."

Thatcher is the legacy of Callaghan's idiocy, nothing more.

"Labour has always been removed from power due to the Labour left deciding to attack the Labour party"

Again, what do the Labour left have to do with the unions?

"Labour divided shall always be defeated"

So why the attack on a significant part of Labour? Without the unions, there would be no Labour Party. Remove them now and the Party will cease to exist inside two years.



[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#23)

by snowflake5 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:26:54 PM GMT

"Shocking isn't it? Workers get antsy when given pay rises well below inflation. Terrible behaviour from "the unions" (i.e. the working class) not to swallow all the crap shovelled down their neck to keep an incompetent Labour government in power.""

Inflation in the '70's was a product of secondary effects - i.e. wage inflation. That's why Callaghan was trying to keep a lid on things, and he was right to.

And you admit that you were deliberately trying to bring down the Callaghan government!  Unbelievable - you were Manchurian agents of Thatcher!


As for your claim that "Unionist Labour won elections in the 1920's and 70's",  I'm sorry, but Labour in the 70's came to power on the tails of moderates like Wilson, Castle and Callaghan - and unionists did their best to bring them down and usher in a Tory government! 


And now you are trying to do it again! Why?

As for the unions being the biggest part of the labour party - nonsense - there has always been Fabians and others in the party from the beginning.

Look, the Labour government will always try to do it's best for Labour people while also keeping in mind that it needs to be elected to enact things. If they don't do something, it's because they've judged they can't bring it off, not because they hate workers or other such nonsense. But Labour can't help anyone if they arn't in office. And they certainly can't help anyone if so-called friends of Labour are busily poncing around trying to bring Labour governments down!

Loads of people have benefitted these last eleven years from a Labour government. Loads of people were hurt by the eighteen Tory years. And I'm sorry to say that the unions played a HUGE part in keeping Thatcher in power - maybe this was their secret intention, judging from your post. Or maybe the unions were dolts. You tell me.

If we shift towards the affiliates dictating things and the ordinary membership (which is more middle-class/aspirant working class) being sidelined, then we will have a Tory government again. If this is what you really want, then be honest and go join the Conservatives instead of troublemaking in Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#29)

by e10rifles on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM GMT

Maybe you can't read so I will spell it out for you again.

You're admitting that Callaghan was deliberately cutting people's wages (i.e. giving them rises below inflation). Inflation then was not caused by wage inflation. That was a consequence. It was caused by global factors and the stupidity of Callaghan doing what the IMF told him to. And nowhere did I or anyone else say the unions were deliberately trying to bring down Callaghan. He would still have won if he'd called the election at the right time anyway.


As for your claim that "Unionist Labour won elections in the 1920's and 70's",  I'm sorry, but Labour in the 70's came to power on the tails of moderates like Wilson, Castle and Callaghan - and unionists did their best to bring them down and usher in a Tory government! 

Those moderates WERE unionist Labour. You can't get that into your head, can you? The unions were the right wing moderates who block-voted against the left repeatedly. It was those moderates who brought themselves down without any help from anyone else.

As for the unions being the biggest part of the labour party - nonsense - there has always been Fabians and others in the party from the beginning.

Great, cut union funding and see how you get on. You'll not only lose all the money but campaigning help and several thousand party members including me.


Several things kept Thatcher in power but the unions weren't one of them. The SDP, the Falklands War, north sea oil, the shadow cabinet going round telling the people in 1983 that they didn't like the manifesto and wouldn't implement it, and so on.

The "ordinary membership" of Labour these days is utterly removed from the reality of day-to-day life. No wonder we're screwed in the polls and looking like being in opposition for a generation. If that happens, it will New Labour's fault and nobody else's.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#30)

by snowflake5 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:09:20 PM GMT

"Inflation then was not caused by wage inflation"

I'm obviously talking to someone economically illiterate. Wage inflation is the most dangerous type as it makes inflationary effects permanent. Say you have basic commodity inflation (oil prices etc), but wages do not respond, supply and demand re-balancing of the commodity (including subsitution effects) will bring those prices down, and that is the end of the problem.

But suppose wages do respond - then a whole host of industries face higher costs which they then pass on in the price of goods. So suddenly, instead of just petrol being expensive, everything in the shops is expensive. People then demand even higher wages, which kicks off another spiral.

Once the inflation spiral gets going the only way to sort it out is to raise interest rates which causes a recession and people lose their jobs. This has the effect of people not asking for a payrise because the choice is between a job with no payrise and no job at all. This essentially is what happened when Thatcher took over.

So - Callaghan was trying to hold down wage inflation - if he'd succeeded you would have had high employment plus low general inflation. The unions thought otherwise and brought down the government, making room for Thatcher, who promptly caused a recession

I expect union members like yourself patted each other on the back and said, "see we've caused ourselves to lose our jobs, that'll teach Callaghan". Dolts!


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#31)

by e10rifles on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM GMT

Economically illiterate? How ironic!

Go and read a decent book on the 70s. I know of none which will tell you that the initial problems of the Callaghan government were caused by wage inflation. Wage inflation may have played a part a a later stage, but by then Callaghan already had his trousers down and the IMF were behind him unzipping their flies.

Dolts, indeed. Nobody did more to stop or remove Thatcher than the trade unions. Nobody did more to keep her in power than the right wing of the Labour Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#32)

by jkitleft on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM GMT

For once, I'm partially agre with e10. People like Helaey, Hattersley, and others on the right of the party didn't leave beacuse of the unions. In the eighties, they were far less powerful. It was a general concencus that whoever won the 1979 election would win the next. Either Labour would use the oil for social spending, or Thatcher would use it for tax cuts. If only Callaghan had hel the election in the autumn....


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#24)

by jkitleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:17:45 PM GMT

I think that getting rid of the unions as affiliates would be a mistake now. In the seventies, had I been alive, I would have told them to piss off. Thatcher proposed reasonable legislation to detoxify the unions.

1) Having a ballot before a strike- it seems democratic
2) Abolishing the closed shop- again, democratic
3) Stopping secondary strikes- the status quo was then generally having the government held to ransom

etc. etc.

Before the seventies, the best leader that we never had, Barbara Castle, was thrice struck by the unions. On all three occasions, the trade union were never worried about the workers, they were worried about their power.

1) In Place of Strife- it could have been negotiated differently; Castle should have added on conditions about industrial democracy, or commissions to help unions unite, or to be set up in workplaces abusing workers' rights. But the first proposals were not unreasonable.

2) The Equal Pay act- if it had been better enforced, discussions about poverty would be limited. 70% of poorly paid jobs are conducted by women. Cleaners, Caterers, Carers; these industries, then as now, are largely made up of women. Then, they were far more vunerable if they demanded rights. So if there were women in male dominated industries, the unions were worried that it would hinder their negotiations.

3) National minimum wage- yes, Castle proposed this. But who opposed this....yep, that's right, the unions.


But they are genuinally concerned about workers' rights now, fighting to remind us of the inequality in today's society. They have nobly fought for action on the waiters' tips scandal, and agency workers' rights. I do believe that we should have state funding. Ironically, this could make Labour listen to the unions more. Currently the government assumes that the unions would never withdraw funding. They can submit any policy, and the unions will grit their teeth at election time, but not abandon Labour.

The unions could use their £8 million submited to Labour on advertising. The government would know that if the unions do indeed have 7 million members, and every citizen has to submit £3 a year, that union friendly policies, would guarantee at most with current funding structures £8 million, but with new funding structures, £21 million at most. Of course not all union members support Labour. But if just under half of union members are Labour supporters, Labour might get more money from the unions with state funding.


Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#26)

by amcmenamin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:17:13 PM GMT

You don't have to go back to Barbara Castle to see the unions opposing a minimum wage, they were doing it in the 1980s too.

 

The issue isn't unions-good versus unions-bad, but whether the fact that the unions have money means they should dictate terms. Plainly they shouldn't and not just because it's electoral poison, but also because the Labour Party should never be for sale.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why the unions need to be told to take a hike (#27)

by Free Radical on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:58:55 PM GMT

Come, come. There's a difference between democratic mass organisations of working people using money contributed in small amounts by people who voluntarily pay the political levy (and who have regularly been required to vote to retain the political levy) - and large donations by small numbers of millionnaires... isn't there?


[ Parent ]

Why the unions need to be told to take a hike | 33 comments (33 topical)