By Tom Unterrainer, Nottingham City NUT
In what appears to be a turn to the organised working class, Respect has called a conference on “Organising for Fighting Unions”. Sponsors of the conference include a number of trade union general secretaries and John McDonnell MP, who recently announced his intention to stand for Labour Party leader. Issues up for discussion include the RMT-sponsored Trade Union Freedom Bill, pensions, privatisation and political representation. For today’s labour movement these are central issues — the Trade Union Freedom Bill being a litmus test for the movement and for the credibility of union linked MPs. The conference is likely to be a sizeable event with the bulk of the trade-union left in attendance but there is reason to be cautious about the aims and possible outcomes of the day.
Inside the NUT and the new lecturer’s union, UCU — where Respect has a sizeable number of supporters — the political character of recently organised or proposed initiatives to coordinate the left have been premised around different ideas.
Respect supporters have argued that the best way to get union members active is by focussing on international issues. The recent UCU-Left conference, despite being organised in the midst of a ballot over the controversial pay settlement, was dominated by the issues of Iraq and the “all important” boycott of Israel. Only a very short session of the day was set aside for debating the central issue facing UCU members.
Supporters of Solidarity/Workers’ Liberty attended the conference and argued that the agenda be shelved in favour of coordinating a national approach to rejecting the offer.
At a meeting of the Socialist Teachers’ Alliance where a proposed conference to assess the aftermath of the Education Bill was under discussion, members of the SWP produced a fully worked out time-table for the day. Their schedule was dominated by meetings on war and neo-liberalism.
Of course it’s important that rank-and-file union activists have an understanding of wider political issues but when we face acute problems such as low pay and privatisation surely these should dominate the discussions. The SWP argued that very few NUT members could be mobilised around the issues directly facing them and the anti-war movement proved that large mobilisations were possible on this issue.
Others responded by pointing to the recent series of strikes around attacks on teachers pay structure. Union members are prepared to act when effective organisation is used — surely we should focus on a discussion of more effective organising and leadership?
So in education unions the SWP/Respect is pursuing an agenda dominated by what it sees as “higher politics”. The US revolutionary Hal Draper described this attitude as essentially “anti-trade union” characterised by the idea that “the political movement is primary and the trade unions are just a lousy reform outfit that we’re really not interested in, because we’re interested in the bigger game”. The bigger game for the SWP is building its latest political project — an electoral alternative to New Labour. For this they are prepared to jettison the basics of how socialists operate in unions.
But doesn’t this conference contradict the old approach? Are SWP union activists out of step with the leadership? Should we not welcome an emphasis on the key issues? You just have to look at the SWP’s behaviour in other unions to remain cautious.
In Unison they say very little about the pensions sell-out, remain loyal to the union leadership over strategy for fighting NHS cuts and new attacks on the pension scheme. They argue that the left should concentrate on being the “best fighters for the leadership strategy”. A perspective of organising the rank-and-file isn’t just absent but implicitly rejected.
So when this conference talks of “Organising for Fighting Unions”, who are Respect seeking to organise? It would appear to be “friendly” bureaucrats. If you can’t relate to the membership you’ll try your best to cosy up to the “leaders”. There is no reason to believe that a strategic summersault is on the cards — this conference fits snugly into the perspective of building Respect.
It’s important that working-class socialists relate to this conference and argue for alternative ideas — there will be many key activists from across the unions in attendance and they could be influenced by what we say. The issue of the Trade Union Freedom Bill is likely to unite all. The campaign around the Bill should not be limited to influencing Labour MPs on an individual basis — the whole trade union movement needs to respond.
Those who are members of Labour-linked unions must demand that MPs who refuse to support the Bill should no longer receive funds and that any candidate for the leadership should pledge their support. This should become union policy, not just an email to your local constituency office. In the CWU such a policy already exists, but this will not hold unless the membership insists.
Pensions is likely to be a controversial moment. Respect is keen to maintain the support of Mark Serwotka (the General Secretary PCS) who signed up to the pensions sell-out with other public sector unions. Two members of the SWP on the PCS executive also voted for the sell-out — the only vote against came from a supporter of Solidarity.
We should not hold back from reminding those present that these union ‘leaders’ defused what would have been the biggest strike since 1926 — a movement that could have transformed trade unions into “fighting organisations”.
None of this can easily be undone but the issue of how to continue the fight should take centre-stage. The trade-union left should argue for policy that admits the mistakes, commits the unions to strike action in the event of inevitable future attacks and maintains a perspective of reversing the current situation. This will be unpopular with those at the top-table but without such policy we’ll be left with a dishonest and sterile approach.
Honesty is also required on privatisation. The battle ground currently centres on schools and the NHS where the campaigns that exist need an injection of militancy.
The NUT lost out on the Education Bill not through lack of effort but through lack of organisation. The campaign focussed on lobbying MPs but a number of initiatives did emerge that could now be transformed into something more influential. With coordination and an imaginative approach those who opposed the Bill could be effective in stopping the formation of “Trust Schools” and City Academies where they are proposed. In Unison members need to break from the leadership’s approach and fight to ensure that ballots against privatisation are carried unanimously.
The last key issue is on political representation. Respect’s National Secretary John Rees welcomed the decision of John McDonnell to stand for Labour Party leader but said he didn’t think it possible to transform the party. This really does miss the point.
There can be little doubt that significant events are required to win back democracy and labour movement influence in the Labour Party but to dismiss the political implications of the McDonnell candidacy is to misunderstand the opportunities that exist now. The trade union movement from top to bottom has the chance to take sides on the future of political representation in a way that cannot be offered by any of the would-be alternatives.
Respect is likely to focus its efforts on winning the support of disaffiliated unions on a candidate-by-candidate basis and in influencing rank-and-file union activists away from the fight inside Labour. Socialists should argue that the leadership contest offers us the chance to find a real political expression for the biggest issues — the issues to be discussed at the conference. The degree to which the labour movement will renew itself both in terms of militancy and political influence depends on taking our fight to the top and on how we organise such efforts.
The most effective way to organise those within the unions with the will and capability to take on the fight is through rank-and-file organisation. Rank-and-file organisations unite ordinary members, stewards, reps and elected local officers into a force capable of arguing for, influencing and winning actions against employers and the government. Without such a force we limit ourselves to becoming advocates for the timid organisational approach of union leaders and apologists for bad policy. “Rank-and-file” appears nowhere on the letter sent out to union branches advertising the “Fighting Unions” conference. We must take the argument to the conference and push for coordinating those present into a real fighting organisation.
