trade unions and the political fund
WORKERS, SEPT 2004 ISSUE
In July this year, just in time for the TUC conference and the impending general election, the government and larger trade unions closed a deal which the government hopes will buy them industrial peace and vital funding —party membership is in steep decline — to secure a third term.
Blair had adopted his usual "Mr Sincerity-trust me-I'm an honest politician" act, pleading with union leaders to continue bankrolling Labour and to present a united front going into the election. It will not be lost on workers that this money is ours, and why should we go on subsidising a government that continues to kick us in the teeth? The de-industrialisation of Britain proceeds unchecked — workers in unions have not fought for jobs — and we have a series of open-ended wars abroad we don't want.
Tony Woodley, TGWU general secretary, is apparently delighted with the deal: "This is a fantastic achievement," he said. "Finally the Labour manifesto is treating the unions seriously...Labour have listened to the grassroots and conceded sizeable ground. This is an agenda we can campaign on...We will be helpful to Labour for the election."
TGWU decision
The TGWU decides in September whether to give Labour cash for its election campaign — and so, too, does the GMB, whose deputy general secretary, Jack Dromey, is Labour's next treasurer at its September conference. Some leaders of larger unions, and indeed too many workers, have exceedingly short and selective memories. Recent labour movement history, as well as the struggle over the past hundred years or so, has provided us with numerous examples of why we should not trust any species of social democratic government.
Trade unions brought the Labour Party into being, sponsoring working men to become MPs. It seemed a logical development for some unions to establish a political fund, paying for MPs to bring about legislation for the needs of the working class, but the Labour Party has never done anything politically but betray its class origins.
Tail wagging dog
Apart from a few positive outcomes, such as enabling trade unions legally to carry on representing workers the relationship between Labour and trade unions has always been a very unequal one — the Labour tail wagging the working class dog. From an early stage, party functionaries sought to create a division between the "political" Labour Party and the unions, with the unions seen merely as an economic adjunct. Workers in unions were expected to concentrate on pay and conditions and leave the "politics" to the Labour Party. But while we do not seem to be doing the former very well, we are only too keen to get involved with the Labour party, though it is not our politics.
It was mainly craft and general unions that created political funds, subsidising elections and lobbying MPs. But what actually happened was that the Labour Party began telling unions what to do, which often meant "do nothing ....we know best....leave it to us....don't rock the boat" — hence so many attempts at incomes policies by successive governments.
The more recent white-collar unions have, in many cases, never considered a political fund, because they are not affiliated to the Labour Party — some not even to the TUC. It is already apparent to many both inside and outside the unions that the Labour Party does not represent their interests.
The Tories realised that trade unions acting independently, defending their members' interests, were a powerful force. So they constructed employment legislation to curb that power in the 1980s. The only loophole was for unions to create their own political funds, which had to be a set amount for each member, and from which any worker could opt out. NALGO, one of the founding unions of Unison, set up a political fund but a resolution to commit it to the Labour Party was defeated.
Loyalty
There has always been a struggle about Labour Party loyalty versus political independence. In the years leading up to the 1980s some unions had achieved a closed shop in their industries, which should have been a position of strength. Instead, they laid themselves open to attacks of corruption. If workers had used the closed shop wisely then this would have been an important development in the taking of political control of their working lives.
Under Thatcher, unions campaigned to get Labour elected when they should have been using their industrial strength to fight the government. If the miners and the rest of our class had won that struggle then Thatcherism would have come to an abrupt end and workers would have been in a better position to take advantage of enemy disarray and go on the attack. In the event, Thatcherism is both embedded and being further developed in Blair's Labour, so what is the point of a political fund to get Labour re-elected?
The supporters of the political fund display one of two characteristics: either they belong to one of a variety of ultra-leftist groups and wish to use the union's political fund for their own purposes , or they have adopted the "lesser of two evils" notion because of some perceived benefits.
Lack of vision
What we have is a lack of vision —worse, manifest cowardice —in unions beset with destructive factions. Clarity and unity of purpose are missing from our union work. It cannot be right to let others (politicians) campaign and work for us.
There is a massive growth in PR organisations and consultants who will take over campaigns on our behalf — for a fee. We must do the job ourselves. Unison has 1.3 million members; if they were united how powerful would that be? Professional politicians survive on our laziness and reluctance to take responsibility. Specialist advisers should be there to assist us to make a case, not take charge of the project themselves.
Politicians can come to us, not us to them. Those who would have us choose between evils are deceiving themselves as well as us. If we confine ourselves to constantly backing one parliamentary party against others then we condemn ourselves to perpetual servitude.
Why limit oneself to choosing one evil or another, when one could choose the good? We do not have the choice of living with capitalism because it is destroying us. We cannot afford to shirk the responsibility of running things for ourselves — our unions and ultimately our nation.