NO RETURN TO THE 1970s
The Confederation of British Industry's Digby Jones warns that unions are undermining the country's labour-market 'advantage' over its European rivals, and threatening success. In a surprise move, the Tony Blair's government accepted a proposal from the Trade Union Congress that unions should be part of an official 'public service forum' - prompting accusations that this was a return to the days of beer and sandwiches at Downing Street, when union barons were supposed to have dictated public policy.
Evidence of a return to the union militancy of the 1970s seems to be supported by the rise in the number of days lost to strikes - 1.3 million last year, a thirteen-year high. High profile conflicts like last years' Fire-fighters' stoppages and the British Airways dispute seem to confirm the picture. On the eve of the annual TUC meeting at Brighton, the 'awkward squad' of union leaders like engineering union Amicus' leader Derek Simpson and the RMT's Bob Crowe threaten to tackle the Labour government, as do more mainstream leaders like the new Transport and General Workers' leader Tony Woodley and General Secretary Brendan Barber.
Trade unions are sounding more confident than they have throughout many years of humiliation at the hands of bullish employers and hostile governments. They put up with Labour's endorsement of Tory legislation limiting their power, but now are balking at the 'Private Finance Initiative' and NHS reform. But the appearance of newfound union power is deceptive.
It is true that with employment rising labour markets are tighter, giving greater opportunities to workplace militancy - especially where strategic situations enhance bargaining power, as with the rail unions in the overstretched South-East transport network. But overall, the record of union militancy is still modest by the standards of the 1970s, or 1980s (the previous high was 4.1 million days lost in 1989, in 1970 it was 10.9 million). More disturbingly for union members, the success rates of these disputes is poor, suggesting that union leaders have endorsed action to raise their organisations' profiles, but failed to see through the disputes to victory. Will Hutton is half-right that 'the balance of power is firmly with the employers' (Observer 7 September 2003).
The appearance of increased union power is for the most part an illusion created by the waning of the employers' authority - not in the face a combative workforce, but due rather to their own crisis of purpose. Faced with output per worker 15 per cent less than in France, seven per cent less than in Germany, Digby Jones projects the failings of British industry onto the union awkward squad. But in fact they have much less influence on Britain's low output than the poor investment record of British bosses (see Mary O'Mahoney and Willem de Boer, Britain's Relative Productivity Performance, NIESR, March 2002).
On a society-wide level the government's 'yes' to the Public Service Forum is characteristic: the willingness to deal with the union leaders is not due to their authority, but the government's weakness. Having lost public support over the war, the Prime Minister is thrashing around for an ill-defined 'domestic agenda', and has latched onto public sector reform as a 'bread-and-butter' issue that he hopes will appeal to the voters. But badly-bruised after trying to face the public down over Iraq, Blair is once again trying to rebuild a consensus by including union leaders.
Far from being stronger, unions are still declining in workplace representation, down to just over 28 per cent of employees (from 48 per cent twenty years ago). According to the CBI 67 per cent of employers bypass union consultation compared to 40 per cent in 2001. Collective workplace action suffered an historic defeat in the 1980s, and younger workers have grown up in employment without any sense that it can work for them. Even with tighter labour markets, most still see advancement as a personal strategy. -- James Heartfield