Sunday, May 20, 2007

“Building Stronger Unions - organising in the context of global capital”

On Thursday I spent an interesting few hours at the “Union Idea’s Network” (UIN) first ever conference, held in London Metropolitan University. About 100 people attended, seemed to be a mix of trade union representatives and academics. Quite a few young people and a very high proportion of women (unlike most trade union meetings I attend). The UIN is the “online website, supported by the TUC, bringing together trade unionists and academics to exchange ideas and information to stimulate debate and support action” (TUC).

I think UIN was only set up last year, the on-line forum doesn’t seem to be very active but it is early days. It has 960 registered users on its website. There is a fair amount of useful articles, research and information available as well. Mostly though written by academics for academics. There is a desperate need for new ideas and new ways of thinking in the Trade Union movement. We have got to evolve or die.

The conference was aptly called “Building Stronger Unions - organising in the context of global capital”. TUC Deputy General Secretary Frances O'Grady was the keynote speaker. Below are some extracts from her speech that I found particularly important to think about.

'None of us should underestimate just how dramatically globalisation is reshaping capitalism, nor the profound implications this must have for how unions must organise” …. “growing popularity of new forms of pirate capital exempt from rules of the game, including private equity, hedge funds and the appropriately named vulture funds”…. “Now - more than ever - we need to think globally and act globally” …'Perhaps the only way unions can stand up to the multinationals is by taking them on at their own game”….'Unions also need to reach out to all workers. Moving beyond traditional union strongholds, to create new union bases for the future” Finally
'But though global economic change represents a huge challenge for us, it also signals a genuine opportunity. We may not be able to stop globalisation, but we can work to shape it to progressive ends both here in the UK and internationally, articulating a compelling alternative vision of the global economy rooted in workers' real concerns. One based around decent work, opportunity for all, and the case for investment in housing, healthcare, childcare, transport and education. A vision of an economy that treats people as human beings, not just human resources.

I think she is convinced that if we properly organise we can restrain and even shape Globalisation.

Doug Miller from the ITGLWF and Paula Hamilton from the ITWF spoke about the complex supply trains of multinational companies. Doug mentioned that NIKE has at least 700 suppliers. He called for Multinational “buyers” to take affirmative action to promote trade unions in sub-contractors, not to just passively support “free association” of labour. They should insist in contracts there is a clause against victimisation of factory trade union organising committees. Paula spoke of the frustration many trade unions felt since the real “employer” of workers refused to talk to them directly and they had to deal with 3rd parties all the time. For example, Marks and Spencer’s design, price, specify materials, approve subcontractors, insist on certain suppliers etc for their clothing suppliers. They, not the actual owners of the clothing factories are the real employers of the factory workforce.

I was slightly disappointed that the potential importance of workers capital (trade union members pension funds and other collective investment. Often we are the owners of companies that exploit workers) wasn’t recognised. Trade unions need to do more work on this issue.

Professor Jeremy Waddington, Manchester University and Bronwyn McKenna, Director of Organising and Membership, UNISON talked about “Organising in Europe”. I was amazed on the low level of trade union membership in France. I think Jeremy said it was only 8%, with only about 4% in the private sector. Despite this, trade union demonstrations in Paris sometimes attract more marchers than the entire national membership. It there some sort of trade off – the lower the level of membership, the higher the level of mobilisation? Bronwyn talked about the future being strategic alliances between European trade unions not mergers. There are two many legal, organisational and political differences to overcome. Flexible alliances are needed.

Professor Jane Wills, Queen Mary, University of London and Martin Smith, National Organiser, GMB talked about Organising amongst low paid and subcontracted workers

Ken Livingstone and the GLA have introduced a London Living wage for his staff and contractors. This is now £7.20 per hour. There are estimated to be 400, 000 workers in London who earn less than that. Jane phrased the work of London Citizens. Martin took part in a survey of “sweat shops” in Tower Hamlets about 5 years ago. It discovered widespread exploitation of local garment workers. Many had thought that the sweat shops had been priced out by overseas competitors. For basic manufacturing this is true but for “finishing work” it is still often more effective to carry this out close to the final market. Especially if you exploit the workers. The GMB are thinking about carrying out another survey.

There was practically no discussion about the role of trade union “Political” power or campaigning. Strange in one way seen this was the day after McDonnell conceded defeat in the Labour leadership. In questions I did point out that despite the obvious problems and tensions, it was still in the interests of trade unions to support the Labour Party. I used the example of what would happen to the GLA “Living wage” if Ken is kicked out in the elections next year and the Tories take control? I think everyone present knew the answer. Surprisingly my point went down quite well.

In all a very good conference and I would recommend trade unionists have a look at the UIN website and consider attending any future events.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did Frances O'Grady make any actual proposals for union organisation aside from her shallow rhetoric?

John Gray said...

Hi Phil (whoever you are)

Yes, course she did! Come on, you know the historic problems that the TUC have about committing affiliates to policy. Her speech was really thinking “out of the box” (in TUC terms). Instead of the defeatist moaning you come across in the Labour movement about Globalisation, she was a breath of fresh air.

Anonymous said...

Examples please John? - the waffle you have reported is the sort of bluster we have been accustomed to from Andy Stern of US union SEIU and his UK mini-me's Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley.
What concrete organising proposals did Frances put forward and what differentiates them from existing union strategies?

Tom Powdrill said...

See what you mean about the lack of mention of workers' capital John.

I'm not too keen in the phrase 'pirate capital' either. What does it mean? The growth in funded pension systems around the world is only going to result in a growing proportion of capital being from working people. Therefore when you look behind any hedge fund, or private equity partnership, you're going to find workers' capital. So what's the point in demonising our own money? Better to try and get hold of it and use it more responsibly surely?

John Gray said...

Hi Phil
I take it you are not a huge fan of Frances. I am! So this may colour my views. I’m not up-to-date on existing TUC polices on Globalisation (can guess) however, you must firstly accept that the affiliated unions would kick her to bits if she announced a major new policy with agreement beforehand or it is in accordance with conference policy.

What I thought was interesting even inspiring (my interpretation) was her argument that unions should embrace globalisation. After all we are the true internationalists! We should steal the multinationals superior organisational methods to shape the future while restraining their excesses.

At the risk of sounding even vaguely Marxists (God forbid) she is right that outsourcing of jobs to developing countries does give unions an organising opportunity that we must seize.

Okay, I can accept that her speech was not a manifesto (not her job). However, for a conference dedicated to promoting desperately needed new Ideas in tigmoo, it was pretty damm good.

John Gray said...

Hi Tom
Yes, one speaker even responded to a question on this issue I put that he thought that there were “actuarial problems” with pension fund’s getting involved! I had thought that we had got rid of that argument. Worryingly, I got the impression that the overwhelming majority present accepted this view. Obviously we are not getting our message across. Need to do try harder.

I think the term “pirate capital” (I’m guilty of using it) is used for our propaganda. It is a very descriptive and emotive term which people can easily relate to (unlike most of the stuff we put out on “workers capital”?). Yes, use of the term is potentially an “own goal” (Travelodge announcement today that they are “creating” 10,000 jobs) but is this a price worth paying? It is just so apt and obviously winds up the “opposition”?

Anonymous said...

OK John & thanks.

As generalised sloganeering it's fair enough but search a few Stern speeches and you will find this is very much a case of old wine in new bottles.

John Gray said...

Well, just had a look at Andy's Stern blog http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-stern/

Can't imagane Dave doing anything like this? Still...