In defence of trade unions and Labour’s union link

by Amanda Ramsay

When Ed Miliband published his list of meetings with party funders, unsurprisingly several were with Unite’s general secretary Len McCluskey.  This was widely reported in the press but in the articles there was scant mention of the myriad of sectors a huge union like Unite represents: millions of individuals, working people, 20 sectors at the last count including agricultural, health as well as industrial.

As if one meeting every year or so would be enough time to discuss the huge swathe of complex issues that unions like Unite, the GMB and Unison are dealing with on a daily basis.

The contrast with the elite vested interests of the Tory party, as personified by the  likes of Lord Ashcroft and former Conservative Party Treasurer Peter Cruddas, could not be more stark.

But it’s not just the so-called right-wing press who are complicit in the misrepresentation in the media. Last Saturday, the Independent referred to Len McCluskey donating £5million, as if it were a personal donation, like he just wrote a cheque out of his own money!

“The Labour Party has benefitted from the publicly known link to working people and their views and needs,” Esther Pickup-Keller, president of the Aspect group of the major professionals’ and managers’ union Prospect tells me. “This type of democratic channel is a long, long way from secretive private dinners and meetings with senior politicians by capital corporate interests and donors.”

It’s offensive to hard-working people that the very small amounts of money paid by individual trade union members to the political funds of our unions are portrayed as somehow wrong by certain right-wing commentators and MPs. Where’s the balance?

I’m no militant, but let’s remember what this is all really about. One of the most poignant stories to learn as a teenager, to spark my imagination and social conscience, was that of the Tolpuddle Martyrs; their story speaks about something universal, way beyond party politics – shock and awe that these men could be shipped-off to be imprisoned on the other side of the world, for standing-up for their rights in the workplace, civil rights, human rights, call it what you will.

This is still the case today, for those of us who believe in trades unionism, the relevance of trade union membership is as relevant now as it’s ever been.

Ellie Reeves, a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC), was clear when she told me,

“The government is set on a path of eroding workers’ rights – from increasing the threshold for claiming unfair dismissal from one year to two, to plans to introduce fees for tribunal claims and ‘no fault compensated dismissals’ – the union movement is more important than at any other time in recent history, standing up for the thousands of workers let down by the Tory-led government,”

With workers’ rights and pay under attack, public sector pensions being raided by this government, and private sector pensions languishing in a flat-lining economy, we are all suffering at the hands of this elitist Tory-led government.

Then you have the issue of class. Whilst class is still very much a British peculiarity, some sections of the middle class seem to think trades unions and membership is somehow purely a working class matter.

This misconception seems to go both ways. One union worker, maybe judging me on my appearance, said: “Why are you a member of the GMB?” Ok, I’m not a boiler maker but I work. Moreover, I believe passionately in the values of the trades unions and Labour movement.

What saddens me is how unfashionable a stand-point mine seems to have become. Somehow it feels like I should keep quiet, like it’s not part of mainstream debate, but why?

With union leaders being portrayed as the bogeymen of British politics and the likes of Carol Vorderman, branding Unite’s potential drivers’ strike action as “un-civic” on prime-time television, there is a mountain to climb in building public understanding of the role of unions.

Beyond their position as a vital part in the balance of power and influence in any modern, democratic nation state, something people die for in other parts of the world, unions such as Unite are negotiating for basic health and safety rights on behalf of their members.

For the tanker drivers, as for many groups before, it’s about, “wanting a national minimum agreement as a defence for the cowboys,” as one senior Unite member explained. Something that is in all of our interests.

People find their political conscience and conviction in a number of ways, family being as huge an influence as working conditions or economic status. My father, a retired Metropolitan Police officer and member of the Police Federation, tells how he would have it out with colleagues who turned-up their noses at collective action, but pointed out they’d be happy enough to take the pay rises and better working conditions won by the Federation.

The “haters” are quite happy to benefit from the gains that trade unions have delivered:- sick pay, paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights and health and safety protection in the workplace to name but a few. The list is literally endless. But when it comes to standing together with their fellow colleagues, in defence of the common interest against discriminating employers, excuses are all too easily found.

Labour’s relationship can be difficult, but for me its essential and inextricable nature was best summed up when I spoke to Parmjit Dhanda, parliamentary and campaigns officer at the Prospect trade union, and former MP for Gloucester.

“For many of us the link between our politics and the trade unions is much deeper than a financial ‘hook-up’, and that mustn’t be forgotten in the debate over funding.

“The link may not always seem rational, certainly to those who oppose it, but to many of us it is wrapped up in emotion and the value of that shouldn’t be underestimated.”

Amen to that.

Amanda Ramsay is a former Labour councillor and cabinet member


Tags: , , , ,


17 Responses to “In defence of trade unions and Labour’s union link”

  1. GSilver says:

    “For many of us the link between our politics and the trade unions is much deeper than a financial ‘hook-up’

    yes, we are owned body soul and huge overdraft by the unions. Without union funding we are bankrupt and because of that we are susceptible to having to do what we are told by union leaders who seem hell bent on picking fights and recreating the nightmare of the early seventies when the ‘british disease’ (striking) turned this country into a hell hole mocked by the whole of europe.
    So tell me just how in thrall to the unions and their cheque books are we? and if they say ‘jump’ do we bother asking how high?

  2. madasafish says:

    This is still the case today, for those of us who believe in trades unionism, the relevance of trade union membership is as relevant now as it’s ever been.

    Clinging to a shibboleth when Trade Union Membership has nearly halved over the past 30 years..

    I recommend Amanda Ramsay reads: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/t/11-p77-trade-union-membership-2010.pdf

    and apologises for making claims totally at variance with the actual historic facts.

    Trade unions are in long term decline. Period.

    A lot of that has been caused by the actions of successive unions who have refused to co-operate with their employers and as a result have either contributed to the decline of those industries or driven them to become non -union..

    Eg: the print unions, the coal miners.

    Strangely enough, certain unions are continuing those same self defeating strategies today despite long term evidence that such policies destroy jobs.

    Amanda Ramsay obviously thinks adopting policies to destroy jobs is a cause worth supporting…

  3. swatntra says:

    ‘The “haters” are quite happy to benefit from the gains that trade unions have delivered:- sick pay, paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights and health and safety protection in the workplace to name but a few. The list is literally endless’

    So Unions will be around for a good while longer. Not only to improve terms and conditions at work but also to campaign for a fairer society at home and improvements for workers worldwide.

  4. Interesting that the comments left are anonymous. Have the courage of your convictions. What are you worried about? People knowing who you are, or what party you work for? Or?

  5. Clint Spencer says:

    Quite simply there are more people who are not in a Union than in a Union. Why would you vote for a party that is so in hoc to the Unions, given the recent rhetoric of McLuskey, the ongoing battle between London and the RMT. It’s a serious issue. The only people who have no issue in general are Tribal wing of the party.

    “The contrast with the elite vested interests of the Tory party, as personified by the likes of Lord Ashcroft and former Conservative Party Treasurer Peter Cruddas, could not be more stark.”

    People who don’t belong to Unions see the above as equally vaild when written as: “The contrast with the vested interests of the Labour party, as personified by the likes of Len McLuskey and Bob Crow.”

    What I find most amusing is the lefties in our pack dismissing any negative issues as “the right wing media” When you say “The Independent referred to Len McCluskey donating £5million, as if it were a personal donation, like he just wrote a cheque out of his own money!” McLuskey is absolutely using his money as a lever. Unless the Labour Party give him what he wants they get less cash, is this any different from Ashcroft et al?

    You say your not a militant but the tone of this article says that you are, the tone is offensive to anyone who isn’t a blinkered tribalist. I suspect your young, easily led and think your so damn right.

    Answer this, if the relevance of trade union membership is as relevant now as it’s ever been, why is it in decline?

    I can’t stand the rhetoric in this article, More people voted Tory than Labour, when they hear people use the marketing words: Tory-led government. Elitest etc. they soon realise you’re a tribal wind bag and you’re going to get a load of biased class war twaddle and switch off. Oh that’s your article and perhaps that explains this comment “What saddens me is how unfashionable a stand-point mine seems to have become. Somehow it feels like I should keep quiet, like it’s not part of mainstream debate, but why?” If you can’t offer a bigger picture view, without slagging off business why should anyone listen to you?

    The Labour party is in decline because of tribal lefties holding it back. The Labour party is often called a broad church, what it really needs to do is to divorce the blinkered, people who can’t see the bigger picture. The country is crying out for representation. It doesn’t want an unsustainable future and plonkers who cant see beyond the state and who look at the world of business with such disdain have no value in the eyes of the general electorate. They’ll get a lovely reception from their tribal brethren, helping them to cement their class war views. You should have published this on Labourlist, you would have found a load of like minded views there.

  6. Clint Spencer says:

    “Interesting that the comments left are anonymous. Have the courage of your convictions. What are you worried about? People knowing who you are, or what party you work for? Or?”

    This is the standard retort of a tribalist. The anonymous posts raise real issues and all you can do is make it personal. Read the posts think about the points raised and PERHAPS if the blinkers come off you’ll learn something.

  7. Mike Homfray says:

    Clint: yes, more people voted Tory than Labour, so very little point in Labour trying to be a pale copy of the Tories.

    Labour is clearly a party with links to the unions – that’s why its the ‘labour’ party, the party which enables representation of ‘labour’ as opposed to ‘capital’

    Whatever sort of policies you want to see, that’s something quite fundamental about the party and what its all about.

  8. You could not be more wrong about me, Clint Spencer. I am not anti-business, quite the opposite and spent years working in the private sector. I hate class war and am far from easily led. Anyway, the beauty of a democracy is free speech. That is what debate is for, to learn from each other and develop our understanding. Believe it or not, I appreciate your post and have learnt something very important from it. So thank you.

  9. Clint Spencer says:

    Mike how silly of me. There I was thinking about modern relevant Labour party…….

    We don’t want that do we, no a collection of weirdo’s irrelevant to the needs of the broad electorate is what the Labour party should be about.

  10. Rallan says:

    “Interesting that the comments left are anonymous. Have the courage of your convictions. What are you worried about? People knowing who you are, or what party you work for? Or?”

    No offence, but only lunatics and newbies allow their real details to be published when commenting on a public online forum/blog. As the author you’re invested in the article and your name is on display. But for everyone else it’s strictly nicknames or first names only. That might seem paranoid to you, but it’s a very sensible precaution.

    Besides, I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to be persecuted for disagreeing with your article 🙂

  11. madasafish says:

    Amanda Ramsay says:
    April 7, 2012 at 9:01 am
    Interesting that the comments left are anonymous. Have the courage of your convictions. What are you worried about? People knowing who you are, or what party you work for? Or?

    Well I posted a rational argument on another Labour website and received a reply saying I was a Tory bastard and hoping I lost my job.

    Under those circumstances – the site is moderated but the moderator seemed to think it was a reasoned reply – I would be crazy to use my own name..

    (One female writer used her twitter account ans a US shock jock (right wing) encouraged some 80,000 of his followers to tweet her…)

  12. Mike Homfray says:

    Clint: does ‘modern’ and ‘relevant’ mean not being the Labour party at all…?

  13. franwhi says:

    What a lot of vitriol on this post – Is CS for real with the nasty personal attacks and Amanda I have to say when you need to dis your readers for their anonymity you’ve lost them. Yet, I believe your original point has some validity because no fair minded person can balance a few elite individual donors against trade unions which even today still represent significant numbers of people. because they have been elected which – no matter how distasteful you find them – is more than can be said for those individual wealthy donors. The only argument is to lampoon union leaders who after all are there because they have stood for and gained a members mandate. I’m not sure about the Lib dems but do the Conservative party have any equivalent funding streams which comes via small , modest subscriptions from a group who are far from wealthy individually. Maybe such funding and the historical link to one party is a political anomaly in this day and age but real passion for politics of any party could also look like this if people felt connected enough to regularly subscribe. The fact that people don’t is a mark of the disconnect between formal political parties of all persuasions and the public at large and is a huge blight on our UK democracy. Still don’t let that issue get in the way of a good old unreconstructed rant on union leaders – It’s easier to just shoot the messengers

  14. test says:

    “One of the most poignant stories to learn as a teenager, to spark my imagination and social conscience, was that of the Tolpuddle Martyrs; their story speaks about something universal, way beyond party politics – shock and awe that these men could be shipped-off to be imprisoned on the other side of the world, for standing-up for their rights in the workplace, civil rights, human rights, call it what you will.”

    Ooh, let me guess; you’re a middle class public sector worker, aren’t you? No working class unionist speaks or thinks like this.

  15. swatntra says:

    Amanda is right anons are pretty hopeless, they simply don’t have the courage of their convictions and won’t put ther money where their mouth is. They may have one or two interesting things to say but they are pretty irrelevant.
    But its also true that there are a lot of nutters out there on the internet and the sooner a Govt(s) brings in a way to regulate comments and force people to adopt an internet etiquette or face the consequences and heavy penalties the better.
    Thats always been my view.

  16. madasafish says:

    Trying to regulate the internet is liek pushing water uphill.

    How do you regulate US posters except by banning them?
    Or French ones?

    Or regulate US sites?

    Answer: you cannot.

    After all look at Guido Fawkes: his website is outside UK legal jurisdiction.

    And who decides what is “proper comment”? Based on the past, any criticism of any millionaire who can afford a good lawyer is NOT fair comment- a position encouraged by the prior government.

  17. Clint Spencer says:

    franwhi,

    I’m for real and I seriously believe in what I have said. Thanks for the tribal retort, totally wasted on me.

Leave a Reply