After June 16th – why we need to organise the rank and file

Submitted by Anon on 13 June, 2012 - 9:32

A discussion paper for the 16 June rank and file school workers' conference in Liverpool.


Click here to download pdf.
A rank and file network needs the maximum amount of democracy and accountability as it seeks to test and extend such mechanisms within the Union as a whole. On a national level, it should be based on a network of delegates from representative groups of workers – most importantly, workplace groups.

If we aim towards delivering action that 'works', the network should think beyond “how do we get the Union to fight?”. It should ask, “how do we get the most effective action possible?”. This means thinking through and arguing out strategies for action, as the Local Associations meetings did at NUT conference. But it also means considering what needs to be done – what further organisational steps need to be taken – to ensure maximum impact for any of our actions.

For the NUT, this means looking at how to close the maximum number of schools on any given strike day or how to cause the most disruption through our actions. The NUT is not the only school based union. So it makes sense to involve and attempt to organise non-NUT members into the network, whether they be other teachers, support, technical and site staff. The network should encourage and accept representation from these workers if we are to build the capabilities we aspire to.

The network should have regular national and regional meetings with representative delegates, but it should also use as wide a range of communications as possible to consult, canvass and organise those involved. This means using social media, email lists, blogs and websites but also regular leaflets and newsletters so that we can extend our reach into schools and other workplaces.

Organising the rank and file: what it doesn't mean

A rank and file strategy and organisation is fundamentally about one thing: making the Union more representative, more democratic and better able to win for the members. It is not about establishing a union within a union or secretly conspiring for a takeover or split. A rank and file organisation must aim for a radical shift in the way the Union operates and build a basis to continue and build radical methods.

But it is not a 'conference machine', 'electoral front' or 'resolution pushing' initiative.

The basis for joining a rank and file organisation is not whether or not you describe yourself as some kind of socialist. It is not solely about seeking to win influence in the highest levels of the Union. It is most definitely not about fighting through the structures for the NUT to be 'respectable' or 'moderate'.

The last NUT conference demonstrated a clear breach or some “clear red water” if you prefer, between the leadership of the union and the most militant or 'determined' delegates.

This breach showed the need for a new type of organisation very clearly indeed: this 'new organisation' must be founded on the rank and file of our union; it must seek to coordinate and mobilise the rank and file and, vitally, it must be democratically accountable and take its lead from rank and file members. The issues and problems faced by rank and file NUT members and activists will not be resolved on 16 June. Many of the problems we face will still be there on 17 June, but we should aim lay the foundations for a bigger, more effective network and organisation.

Between national conference and today, there have been developments within the Union that pose new questions and new challenges for those who want the NUT to continue to fight on pensions and to develop programme of action that can win.
One example of this is the “historic” agreement between the NUT and NASUWT. On the surface at least, this agreement looks like a step forward. If you believe we need united action to win or that we are stronger together, then the agreement between these unions seems positive. But the nature of the agreement is problematic: it is an 'agreement' between the general secretaries of two unions. Whether it amounts to more on the ground, in local organisations and schools depends on our ability to organise. Whether or not the agreement delivers action and victories for union members depends on our ability to push for and coordinate a strategy to win. None of these things are determined in advance and if left to their own devices, the leaderships of both unions will continue much as they have done before.

We need to organise the rank and file, push for a radical change in indirection and coordinate the potential power of teachers and other school workers if we are to drive back the attacks from this government and transform our unions into effective instruments for our class.

Questions and Challenges

The most important questions facing not just the National Union of Teachers, but trade unions more widely are these: how do we come to grips with our recent failures and how do we become just as radical in our ideas and organisational methods as the government and other employers?

The dynamics of the pensions and other disputes have shown us that even where we have unions lead by left general secretaries, executives and the left organisations we have all worked to build, there is no guarantee of outcomes beyond the 'status quo'. In fact, the practical outcome of the pensions dispute to date has been the granting of a major concession to the government and a major setback for workers across the public sector and beyond.

In such circumstances and even where union leaderships are of the left, the basic democracy of our movement suffers. Demands raised from below through existing democratic channels; attempts to extend the democratic reach of branches and groups within the union and moves to hold those in power to account through such channels are viewed as a problem and not – as it should be – part of the natural, organic functioning of union organisation.

This phenomena was seen in the way that some of the NUT leadership behaved – both personally and politically – towards activists and delegates who pushed in a different direction on pensions at conference this year. It can also be seen in how the whole 'consultation' process with division secretaries over the future of the pensions dispute played out both at and after NUT conference.
In this sort of environment and especially in the context of the June 16 Local Associations conference, prospects of a major challenge to the leadership line are seen as a 'threat' rather than an 'opportunity' for basic, wide-ranging accountability. This is not a healthy situation.

Whilst democracy is one of the central issues at play in our trade unions and one of the central concerns of union activists, the recent history of how unions have organised needs coming to terms with.

We face a Tory dominated government fixed on a long term strategy of economic austerity. They are fixed on this course not because it is the only route out of the crisis but because it is the route best suited to the class interests that the Tories represent.

The implications of this shape everything that the British trade union movement now faces. In a wider context, politics and economics in this country will be formed and informed by tumultuous events across Europe and beyond arising from the ongoing economic crisis.

We face the prospect of further, deeper cuts to public spending; a medium to long term increase in unemployment and 'under-employment'; systematic attacks on the pay, terms and conditions of all workers; the likelihood of complete privatisation in wide sections of what was once the public sector and the promise of further, global economic ructions.

To meet the challenge of these circumstances, the trade unions need to climb some pretty steep steps, very quickly indeed.

Part of the reason we face such dire circumstances is rooted in the 'wasted decade' of relative prosperity under the awful New Labour government. The NUT and other unions failed to organise themselves and failed to push for significant advances for our class in a period where the argument that “we don't have the money, we all need to tighten our belts” could not be deployed.
Although most of the current union leaderships were not in place during this period, they have not broken with the orientation and methods of those who went before them. Whilst the current government is even more radical and aggressive than New Labour ever was, our unions have become relatively more cautious and defensive.

We need to fight for a significant shift in our unions and we have a limited window of opportunity to ensure that we can defend and extend the interests of our class. If we fail to make changes now, the situation we face can only get worse. The starting point of this process must be an effort to organise the rank and file of our unions.

Rank and File: 'problem' or solution?

No trade unionist would dispute the need to 'organise' members. Everyone recognises that where our unions have workplace groups, regular meetings, active stewards and an actively engaged membership we are stronger. Stronger not only because we know where our members are and can communicate with them but stronger because where they are organised in this way, members are in a position to respond and react to issues where they work.

Workplace organisation is the source from which trade unions draw their strength.
All too often, though, the 'rank and file' members of a union are considered to be either a 'problem' that needs to be resolved somehow or – related to this view, as we shall see – they are treated as a stage army, waiting in the wings to respond to calls from national headquarters.

How are the 'rank and file' – or ordinary members, if you prefer – regarded as a 'problem'? It's not so much that they– indeed, we – are a 'problem' but more that we are 'problematised' by the leadership of the unions. For example, in the recent pensions dispute much was made of the claim that the rank and file membership lacked the confidence to support a more regular or intensive programme of action. Some NUT division secretaries reported that the members 'would not support' more action or that we were not ready for it.

The response of the rank and file NUT membership to the June and November 30 strikes suggests that this was not the case. No doubt, a great deal of effort was expended by NUT divisions and associations to mobilise significant numbers but it cannot automatically be claimed that the members were not ready for more.
Connected to this 'problematisation' of the rank and file is the way in which the leaderships of most unions – and this has been seen very clearly in the course of the pensions dispute – treat us as a 'stage army'. The preferred 'solution' or 'resolution' to the idea of the apparent passivity and relative lack of mobilisation of the rank and file is the idea that the massive numbers of workers who actually make up our unions will willingly and readily respond to each and every call to action offered from on high.

These conceptions are false for two reasons. First, they conceive the relationship between the leadership and membership of the unions through the lens of serial defeats and set-backs for our movement. This idea is built upon thinking informed by and trapped in the mistakes made through the Blair years and before. If members were not seriously mobilised in the good times, if the union leaderships lacked a strategy and programme of action to advance our aims in this period etc... why would members automatically act when the call is made from a remote, mostly anonymous leadership?

Secondly, simply thinking of the membership as a 'mass' that needs 'shifting' does not effectively address the very real organisational problems we face. The membership of any union is uneven, diverse in confidence and experience. In areas and sectors with a legacy of organisational militancy – even to a small degree – members are more likely to respond to calls for action. In workplaces with a confident, capable representative or steward, the membership is more likely to respond.

But it's also true that these 'readily responsive' areas, sectors and workplaces will want a say in how and when they fight. If the strongest sections of our movement are mobilised one day and packed off back to work the next with no victories tucked under their belts then over time any potential strength will be squandered.

The mass of the membership are not a real factor in the deliberations and decisions of the union leaderships and executives precisely because there is no effort, no mechanism and seemingly little willingness to involve the membership in any of the decision making processes. The 'views of the membership' cannot be measured in irregular elections to national executives or in the votes of delegates at conferences. They are not expressed by the 'line' taken by executive caucuses of the left or right. Neither can they be truly represented in survey after survey. Where the membership has 'spoken' with an overwhelming voice demanding action – in the 2011 ballots – their clearly expressed wishes have been ignored down the line.

It makes good trade union sense to properly consult, involve, take a lead from and give control over disputes to active and militant groups of workers. If this is true, then – if we are to be consistent – it makes sense to extend this thinking across the membership of the union. Nobody should expect a miraculous 'levelling up' of confidence and experience – it has to be organised, fought for and extended across the board.

The workers best placed to carry out this essential task are the rank and file themselves.

Organising the rank and file: how?

If we are to organise the rank and file in the NUT and other unions, we need to be clear that such moves are not just a 'good idea' in general but that it needs to be done in a specific way for specific ends.

The clear motivation for such an organising effort comes from the outcome of the pensions debate at NUT conference and the vivid display of industrial conservatism from the Union leadership. So we need some form of organisation that can properly represent and campaign for the views of rank and file activists. Further, we need a form of organisation that can not only push for a certain line of march within the Union as a whole but which can take initiatives more locally. Lastly, a rank and file organisation should be a network that sees its role as 'levelling up' confidence and mobilisation across the board.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.