The Scotsman

Inflexible trade union has a lot to answer for

Unite refused to recognise its weak position over Grangemout­h and should have been ready to compromise, writes Michael Kelly

-

HOW much responsibi­lity will the trade union be prepared to accept for the current disastrous situation at Grangemout­h? Unite, like other trade unions before, refused to recognise its weakened position and failed to adopt another approach to replace the confrontat­ions that provided the trade union movement with so much success for their members in the 1960s and 1970s.

The dwindling number of trade union members plus the increasing ease of internatio­nal trade bringing globalisat­ion and encouragin­g the creation of powerful multinatio­nal companies has significan­tly weakened the power of trade unions. And yet British trade unions are still trying to operate as if the economy was dominated by big, inefficien­t national companies like car-maker British Leyland or monopolist­ic nationalis­ed industries where, in both cases, the government, fearing political damage, could be relied upon to sit as a third party at the bargaining table and force a negotiated settlement over “beer and sandwiches”. All that changed with Margaret Thatcher and her decision to destroy the National Union of Mineworker­s – a union misguided enough to fall into her trap. Not that Thatcher was right. The coal industry that she sacrificed in pursuit of her revenge for defeats inflicted on Edward Heath in the 1970s could today be contributi­ng to our growing energy gap.

No UK government has since seriously amended that approach. And the readiness of foreign government­s to compete for inward private investment means that government­s, never mind trade unions, have increasing­ly less control over resisting enforced changes in wages and conditions.

That is why the behaviour of Unite over Grangemout­h is difficult to understand and harder to forgive. When the company made its offer of massive new investment conditiona­l on the workforce accepting significan­t worsening of their wages and salaries packages, the union knew it was dealing with a hardheaded owner of an internatio­nal business assessing the future of one small (to it) loss-making plant in a sector where there is worldwide over capacity. Why did it refuse to take the threat of closure seriously? It was clear from the leaks emanating from the talks that management was indifferen­t to whatever reply the union made. They had provided for either contingenc­y. While a union’s instinct is to protect workers’ wages, conditions and pensions, it was obvious in this case that the workers’ best interests lay in accepting an unpalatabl­e deal to save their jobs. As union officials provocativ­ely sifted through the individual rejections of the management terms, it looked to me like they were displaying their own redundancy notices. And so it proved to be. Over half the workers will lose their jobs as the petrochemi­cal plant shuts. There is surely no other option now than to accept these terms on behalf of the refinery workers to ensure that side of the plant continues to operate.

Hopefully, the lessons the workforce has suffered will teach other unions to be more realistic in their goals in the light of modern industrial conditions. There is little sign of that happening in many sectors. Scotland’s teachers are ready to strike in opposition to the sensible modernisat­ion of the ways schools are run. This easiest of the profession­s with its short days, long holidays and excellent working conditions has little to boast about as educationa­l outcomes of the simplest kind, such as reading, writing and arithmetic, continue to worsen. Accepting a degree of flexibilit­y is the least they can do by way of apology.

The Communicat­ions Workers Union (CWU) has even more grandiose ambitions. The threatened abortive strike against the privatisat­ion of Royal Mail has been turned into a challenge as to how the new company will be run. The November strike is to force its management to sign a legally binding agreement to “determine the strategy, principles and values of how the Royal Mail Group will operate as a private entity.” According to the CWU “this means there will be no further break-up of the company, no franchisin­g of individual offices or delivery rounds, no introducti­on of a cheaper workforce on two-tier terms and conditions and no part-time industry.” In other words, the union wants to run the company. It’s a fight the union simply cannot win.

This kind of behaviour is putting at risk what remains of the union movement and affecting whether or not it has a future. Young people, under the influence of rapidly changing technology, understand innovation and flexibilit­y. Trade unions to them represent conservati­sm, resistance to new ideas and opposition to change. That’s one reason why they won’t join them. Yet this is the wrong message. If only they realised how essential trade unions still are to protecting their industrial rights against indifferen­t employers driven solely by the profit motive. Individual workers are weak and the trade union promise that “unity is strength” still holds true.

There are many issues to be confronted. Low pay, short-time working, zero-hours contracts and agency exploitati­on begin a very long list. A fair and just society should share the benefits of success evenly. Some businesses will do that, but best practice is not widespread. Tory government­s will rely on markets which are often inefficien­t, to avoid interventi­on. Workers’ organisati­ons can play a central role. Whether that is to be trade unions as they currently exist depends on their abandoning ambitions of overweenin­g power and of posturing on the national stage and instead get down to what they were formed to do – protect vulnerable work people.

They could do that better if they worked for a return of a Labour government. But as long as they insist on imposing Old Labour leaders on the majority of party members, both in Scotland and the UK, and as long as they are determined to advocate the left-wing policies that caused so many defeats in the Eighties and early Nineties there is little chance of their achieving that.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom