The election for General Secretary of UNITE, Britain ’s largest trade union takes place at a vital time.
Obviously the Con-Dem government’s economic vandalism and the scale of the attacks on the public sector, pose immediate challenges. But those challenges also take place in the context of a long term structural crisis of trade unionism.
Frankly, the servicing model where members treat trade unions as akin to an insurance policy, and require support from full time officers to solve their problems is unsustainable; and becomes more unsustainable in a difficult climate, especially if rising unemployment depletes the unions’ revenue flows.
The move towards “professionalism” was explicitly encouraged in many unions during the 1980s and 1990s, for example under John Edmonds in GMB and Bill Jordan and Ken Jackson in AEEU, which entailed the deliberate moving away from lay activist involvement; this coincided with an emphasis on business unionism, and social-partnership.
These developments of course also took place against the background of a wider ideological shift in society towards the right during the 1980s, and the specific defeat of the NUM in the year long miners’ strike. Communities of solidarity were weakened, institutional and ideological underpinnings of class consciousness were undermined, and potential reservoirs of motivated lay activists were diminished.
An alternative model emerged following the relatively successful example of the American SEIU which turned itself around through the so-called “organising strategy”. This sought to incorporate the energy and tactics of social movement and community activism, along with a renewed emphasis of lay activists carrying the daily work of the union. Under the organising strategy the task of Full Time Officers is to encourage capacity building of workplace and branch organisation, and to train and empower lay activists to service members.
In Britain , the TUC inaugurated an Organising Academy in 1998, broadly modelled on the AFL-CIO’s Organising Institute in the USA . Three unions adopted the organising model in the UK : GMB, TGWU and USDAW.
USDAW’s inclusion in this list is interesting, as it shows that the organising model, while it could be sympathetic to a break from a social partnership, does not necessarily require it. USDAW has shown considerable success in expanding its membership, and its concentration in large supermarkets and close collaboration with management has allowed it to negotiate six month releases for lay reps for training. As a result of which much of the member servicing, grievances and disciplinaries, can be handled by lay reps. Looked at in terms of an institutional business model, USDAW’s approach is superficially attractive, but there is a high risk that the union is insufficiently independent from the bosses, and could not sustain an industrial dispute, and is therefore hostage to management good will. GMB’s more traditional approach in ASDA, in the face of fiercely anti-union management from Walmart (who own ASDA), suggests that the supermarket sector can be organised without the risks that USDAW’s social-partnership approach entails.
GMB have sought to mainstream the organising agenda into every aspect of the union’s work, through the GMB@work strategy. Under Paul Kenny there has been a deliberate push towards empowering lay representatives. However, there is an inherent difficulty which has no easy resolution, that the officers will often be swamped with servicing responsibilities, and will have insufficient time for the organising agenda; and it is beyond the power of GMB to create the wider culture of class consciousness in society which motivates people to be lay activists. The fact that progress is difficult does not mean that no progress is being made, and in a number of sections of GMB there are success stories to build upon.
The question of the organising agenda is of particular relevance to the UNITE general secretary election. The TGWU part of UNITE includes specialist organising officers, who have a separate function from servicing officers; what is more, UNITE/TGWU has put more financial resources into the organising model than GMB or USDAW.
It would be pernicious if the UNITE election became divided between TGWU and Amicus heritages. However, of the four remaining candidates in the General secretary race, two of those who come from the Amicus side, Gail Cartmail and Les Bayliss have not addressed the issue of whether the organising agenda is an improvement on the servicing model. Jerry Hicks has recently entered the debate supporting an Organising Strategy, see here, and Jerry Hicks does understand the need to allow branches to operate effectively, as we can see here.
Len McCluskey promises to deliver an organising model, such as has been successful in turning GMB around under Paul Kenny’s leadership. In his favour, McCluskey has the relevant experience from the TGWU, and has the acumen to negotiate it through the bureaucratic politics of the UNITE structures. In contrast, Les Bayliss specifically offers an improved service model, seemingly suggesting a call centre for giving advice to members.
Jerry Hick’s slogan is “The members decide, the union provides”. But does the union have the capacity to provide? And if not, how can the capacity be improved? Jerry puts great store on the election of officials, but I struggle to see what substantive difference this would make, even were such a rule change within the competence of the General Secretary.
Although it is commonplace to refer to Les Bayliss as the right wing candidate, this needs to be put into perspective. Compared to the era of Bill Jordan and Ken Jackson, ALL the current candidates are on the political left. Bayliss has been criticised for his association with Derek Simpson, and particularly Simpson’s public statements critical of a 12 day strike called by BA cabin crew in the lead up to Christmas, which has been rightly condemned as undermining his own members’ action; and which is widely assumed to have been motivated by electioneering.
Quite so, but equally Len McCluskey’s involvement in the dispute, which is not in a sector for which he has previously held responsibility, also smacks of electioneering. Simpson was definitely out of order criticising the length of the proposed pre-Christmas strike; but quietly and behind closed doors, many in the movement did think that there was an element of hubris behind the 12 day strike call.
The BA strike illustrates the broader difficulties of the movement. Despite BASSA being one of the best organised and independent minded sections of UNITE; even though the strike ballots have been extremely solid, and the strike action well supported; yet the union has still encountered legal difficulties and the BA management are still intransigent.
Undoubtedly, the anti-trade union laws have encumbered UNITE’s prosecution of the dispute. But in reality these legal difficulties are secondary. Even at the height of trade union strength in the 1960s it was still possible for management to win a dispute if they were prepared to weather the immediate financial losses, and wait for militancy to burn itself out. The balancing act for UNITE has been to sustain momentum and commitment from their cabin crew members over the course of a protracted dispute, and to continue to pressurise BA management without stretching their members too far. The leadership of the dispute involves the lay activists of BASSA who are able to judge the mood, and so far UNITE officials seem to have shown good tactical judgement. UNITE can still go on and win this dispute, which is hitting BA both financially and through weakening the value of their brand.
For the left challenger, Jerry Hicks, the BA dispute is an example of the union failing to leverage its full strength. But it is questionable whether UNITE could really deliver any solidarity action, even if the law permitted it.
I know Jerry personally, and I have a lot of respect for his integrity, and his principles. There is a whispering campaign against him from some in the union that he is a hot head: this is completely untrue. As a former convenor in an engineering factory Jerry knows that you have to be able to take the membership with you in order to deliver action; and he also knows that disobeying the law is a gamble you can only take if you have the industrial strength to be confident that management will not invoke legal sanctions against you. Jerry knows that you can’t bet the farm on a single dispute, you can’t deliver a strike if the members won’t follow you, and you can’t run a union if your funds have been sequestrated by the courts.
Despite some scare mongering about Jerry bankrupting the union were he elected as General Secretary, the same fears accompanied the election of Mark Serwotka in the PCS, and were proven unfounded. Bob Crow, the most militant trade union General Secretary in Britain today has shown that militancy can be accompanied by due caution in following the letter of the law. Jerry Hicks would not jeopardise the union any more than Mark Serwotka or Bob Crow.
As an individual, Jerry Hicks would be a fine General Secretary, the question is whether he is the General Secretary UNITE needs right now, in the current political and industrial climate. Equally, UNITE members may question whether Len McCluskey would simply represent continuity with the current policies of UNITE. Members need to decide which of the two candidates will best rebuild a connection with the grassroots of the union.
Militancy, personal integrity and bravery need to be tempered by a strategic recognition of the current state of the union, and the working class movement, and UNITE needs an organisational strategy for improving its capacity to act as an effective trade union. But equally, a bold break from the current muddle in UNITE is necessary.
The scale of the assault on the public sector, and the government’s wider anti-trade union agenda need to be opposed. But we need to recognise that large numbers of our members voted for the government, and that the proposed cuts do have widespread support among the general public, and even among public sector workers themselves. What we cannot afford is an industrial strategy of opposition that isolates the most militant minority and leads them into a glorious charge straight into the path of the enemy machine guns. The Tories are waiting for that, and relish the prospect.
But neither can we afford to stay in the trenches for ever. The unions need to wage an ideological and political war against the necessity for cuts, because we cannot assume that our own members yet agree with us; and we also need to immediately resist specific cuts where we can deliver a fight, including working with community and service user groups, and leveraging political as well as industrial pressure
These will be tough times ahead, and UNITE cannot prevail if it is at war with itself. UNITE cannot represent its members if it is reluctant to grasp the nettle of industrial action, but neither will it succeed if it thinks industrial action is the answer to all problems. Therefore electing a General Secretary who can unite the union, improve its capacity, and negotiate a careful path through the minefield is essential. UNITE members have an important choice to make.
