77424 Trade Union Pages - Compass€¦ · "To my father Johnny Curran, who remains a constant...

compassDIRECTION FOR THE

DEMOCRATIC LEFT

Organising to win: a programme for

trade union renewal

£5

77424_Trade Union Cover 4/9/06 4:23 pm Page 1

UNISON’s Positively Public campaign celebrates the achievements of ourmembers in improving public services and aims to put UNISON at the heartof the debate on developing quality public services in the future.

We will do this by developing and promoting positive policies and usingevidence based arguments to challenge government policies that threatenthe provision and quality of our public services.

Join UNISON today Tel: 0845 355 0845(Textphone 0800 096 7968) www.unison.org.uk

Project1 4/9/06 2:22 pm Page 177424_CyanMagentaYellowBlack

Contents

4 Foreword

6 Preface

7 Executive summary

8 An analysis of union decline

14 Platforms for union renewal

18 A new union agenda

23 A new union architecture

30 Conclusion

www.compassonline.org.uk E [email protected] [3]

Organising to win: a programme for trade union renewal

Dedication

"To my father Johnny Curran, who remains a constant inspiration to me, my family, the friends

and comrades who stood by me and all those who believe that solidarity is unconditional"

Kevin B. Curran

77424_Trade Union 32pp text 1/9/06 3:12 pm Page 1

[4] www.compassonline.org.uk E [email protected]

Social democracy is both a process and set ofinstitutions through which society makes itself themaster of the market. This means harnessing thecreative energy of capitalism and directing it in waysthat work for society and the planet, balancing itsdynamism with its tendency, if left unchecked, toboom and bust and to exploit workers. The marketdoesn’t have a morality – just a driving impulse tomake profit. This is precisely why it makes a goodservant of society but a poor master. We are allowingit become a poor master by refusing to assert acollective social authority over it. The future of thedemocratic left is the ongoing struggle to balance thedynamism of the market with the inherent dangersthat come with it.

Central to this process are the unions. Withoutstrong and modern unions there is little hope ofsociety exerting sufficient influence over the market.We don’t have to believe a class war is being foughtto recognise that the interests of labour and capitalcan and will come into conflict and that collectiveorganisation is a prerequisite of ensuring individualworkers’ rights. But as the form of markets changeso must the way in which labour organises.

Tony Blair made a surprise intervention in the‘future of the unions’ debate earlier this year at aUnions 21 event. Here he extolled the virtues of theunions but saw their role like any service sectorprovider as essentially technocratic. Like lawyers,unions for Blair are there to offer a service. But sucha functional role is devoid of a vision or politicalpurpose that is essential to a voluntary and activist-based movement built not on the principles of thebusiness school but the belief in equality, liberty andsolidarity.

The point of issue between labour and capital isone of balance. The power relationship naturallyebbs and flows. There is little chance of striking aperfect equilibrium. Rather a set of beliefs,processes and institutions are required to ensure acontinued renegotiation of the balance of power.This was what gave rise to the remarkable post warperiod of growth and welfarism. That era has gone.What Kevin Curran begins to discuss in thispamphlet is the need for a new settlement for an

economy that is both globalising and localising.

Organisations thought of as beyond renewalregularly surprise even their harshest critics. Butthey don’t do it without being brave. The LabourParty, after 1992, is an obvious case in point. Orlook at football or the cinema; both were written offas dead in the 1970s but have come good and have afuture – not just a past. Newspapers too are provingthey have life beyond their presumed technologicalshelf life. There is no deterministic fate which saysthings must die. But unions are slipping from themainstream of political and public life. Too manyyoung people would not dream of joining a union.It’s not that they are anti-union; rather it’s just notsomething they would even think about.

Too often the movement is overly cautious,defensive and unwilling to understand thatconstructive criticism is meant with the best ofintentions. As Kevin makes clear, the movementfaces real problems but this is not a blame game.Any weakness the movement has is a product of thesweep of history, not the failings of any individuals.The future will be about collective failure orcollective success.

So what are the challenges and the opportunitiesthe movement faces?

The world in which unions came to nationalprominence and influence has gone or is fastdisappearing. In this sense we cannot underestimatethe challenge of modernisation. The movement wasbuilt in an era of deference, material need,centralisation and mass production. Today assertiveindividualism, post-material consumerism for many,disaggregated production and supply chains, and thedominance of market values demand a substantialrethink by the movement. Crucially, the acceptanceof globalisation as a benign force pressurisescountries and their governments to accept themarket’s definition of efficiency. This means closingthe gap between producers and consumers to makemarket signals operate more efficiently. Thissqueezes out the space for mediating organisationslike unions – because they necessitate time andenergy in democracy and dialogue. In the race to


Foreword




win in a globaleconomy there isno time or spacefor unions.

But thesechallenges alsopresent realopportunities.Globalisationbrings with itinsecurity, notjust for those at

the bottom of the labour market but at every level.When it feels as though any white collar job can beoutsourced to India then everyone starts to feelsanxious – not just low paid or migrant workers.People are working longer and harder just to standstill in the pressurised world of the turbo-consumer.But we are not just consumers but producers. Ourpolitical and economic system must start to reflectthat reality instead of allowing the necessary balanceof power between employer and employee to get toofar out of kilter.

Globalisation is the big opportunity for the left andthe unions. Capitalism continually seeks out newsites of production with the lowest levels of labourregulation. But the flight of capital to the bottom ofthe barrel is finite. The job of the union movementin the name of solidarity, but also enlightened self-interest, is to build the networks and organisation toensure there is nowhere for capital to hide in aworld that is being made smaller by cheap flights,the internet and mobile phones. Previously isolatedworkers can be joined up by new virtual trans-national social space. If globalisation is a force thatwe believe can be managed for the good of societythen the cause of the union movement is given new life.

The final big opportunity is the ‘good work’ agenda.The opportunity created by new forms ofdecentralised production and a more assertiveindividualism is the prospect of unleashing thecreativity of the nation’s workforce to drive highproductivity and performance. It is the people whowork within an organisation that know it best, who

know what works and what doesn’t and howsystems and outputs could be made to functionmore effectively. This benefits the individual – whois given the chance to become more autonomous, tomanage their own working life and become morecreative. And it benefits the organisation throughincreased productivity. But this will only happen ifemployees have more of a direct say in the runningof the organisation and they share fairly in the spoilsof increased productivity. This agenda take unionsbeyond terms and conditions to adding real value topeople’s working lives through personaldevelopment plans and the myriad forms ofeconomic citizenship. All these opportunitiescombine to form the basis for a new legitimacy forthe union movement.

Compass and Catalyst will be looking to developthis agenda of globalisation, good work, economiccitizenship and new forms of corporatism thatdeliver social benefits like the Turner Commissionon pensions. But here we start with what will makeor break the union movement – its ability toorganise. Kevin Curran has been a union generalsecretary, lost that position but has kept at it,working to organise people in the food industryacross the globe. His take is naturally particular andhe doesn’t attempt to answer every challenge andopportunity facing the movement. But he offers astarting point for a debate. Most importantly herightly says that the unions’ focus must be onorganising and he goes on to suggest ways in whichscarce resources can best be used to substantiallychange the focus of activity.

There is an old saying that ‘after your love the mostprecious thing you can give is your labour’. As webecome more aware of what we are trading in returnfor wages the role of the unions, if they can reinventthe means to achieve their historic purpose, can andmust be central to our political, social and economicfuture.

Neal LawsonChair, Compass

“Any weakness themovement has is a productof the sweep of history, not

the failings of anyindividuals. The futurewill be about collective

failure or collectivesuccess”



I have been active in the trade union movement all myadult life, as a volunteer up to the age of 33 and thenas a paid official in the GMB. I am now employed bythe International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied WorkersAssociation (IUF) working with others all over theworld on global organising strategies. I have beenactive as a shop steward, safety representative, branchsecretary and almost every position up to andincluding general secretary. Although my experienceof the movement is particular to me I believe that ithas given me a perspective that allows me to drawwider lessons.

As a welder in the engineering construction industry I didn’t just happen to get involved in active tradeunionism. As a lifelong socialist I saw the activeinvolvement in the trade union movement as apractical manifestation of collectivism, socialsolidarity and active citizenship, and a major tool forthe promotion of social and economic justice andpolitical progress on behalf of working people.

I care about the trade union movement not onlybecause of my politics and my unassailable belief inits necessity to ensure a strong and fair democracy butbecause it has been and continues to be my life. I havealways identified with its core values and it helps meto define myself and my relationship to society.

It is an amalgamation of all the above that has movedme to offer an analysis of where the movement is andwhere it could be. I am an optimist by nature and Ibelieve there is a necessary role for vibrant anddynamic trade unionism in the UK. But equally Ibelieve that we have constantly to review and earnthat role so that we keep in step with the people westrive to protect and represent. There has to be aconstant debate within trade unions about how themovement should meet the challenges of an everfaster evolving economy and society and adapt inorder to ensure that we maintain our relevance topeople at work and in their communities.

I am a practical trade unionist and I offer my views toall activists, by whom I mean all in the movementwho make practical contributions to the collectivegood, and all those who are committed tocollectivism, who have faith and confidence in theability of working people and who cherish themovement. Activists understand the political need for

the trade union movement to survive and prosper ifwe are ever to bend the market economy towards thebenefit of society and not to its detriment, as well asstand up to the power of capitalism and the injusticesand havoc it wreaks in our world.

It is you, the activists, who are the foundation onwhich the movement is based and none more so thanthose of you who represent our people in theworkplace. It is my firm view that if we are toprosper then there has to be a substantial movementof power and resources toward the activemembership.

So I proffer this pamphlet to each and every activist.It contains a lot of ideas, some of them my own, a lotof them the result of innumerable conversations anddebates at tea breaks and over pints with friends,comrades and colleagues and at numerous conferenceswhere the most sense is usually talked on the fringe.My reading of others’ ideas and views, from ourfounders to recent publications, has also stimulatedmy thinking. I don’t claim that the scenarios Idescribe are common throughout the movement;equally I acknowledge that there are a lot of positiveinitiatives and developments. My aim is not tocriticise but to comment and be honest and searchingabout our present, so that we can help provide abetter future.

Wherever these ideas sprung from and whatever youthink of them I hope that they stimulate you toengage in discussion with your friends, colleagues andcomrades. The purpose of this pamphlet is to spark adebate among trade unionists about the present andfuture of trade unionism and to try and create modelsthat will ensure that this generation passes a strongand vibrant trade union movement to the nextgeneration of activists. However, tempus fugit and itis a time to be bold and radical and throw off thestraitjacket of convention and contemporary thinking.

Whatever you think of what you read I wish you allsuccess in your endeavours, because without yourendeavours the movement wouldn’t exist.

Kevin B. CurranSeptember 2006


Preface




• Despite a growing economy and a more benign politicalenvironment trade union membership is still in decline,albeit slower.

• Economic and political power is shifting down to thelocality and up to the global sphere.

• The economy is taking on the shape of an ‘hourglass’ –some are doing well but are cash rich and time poor;others at the bottom are both under-paid and over-worked.

• Everyone feels more anxious, insecure and pressurisedwhether because of white collar outsourcing, shiftingproduction abroad or the power of employers overweakened employees.

• Trade unions need to rethink their strategies, resourcesand organisation to meet the threat of decline and rise tothe opportunity of a pressurised workforce, which needseffective organising but also increasingly wants a ‘goodwork’ agenda.

• Unions need to oversee a massive shift in emphasis andresources towards workplace organisation and organisingin non-union sectors.

• Unions should aim to set aside 25 per cent of annualincome for organising activity, defined as consolidatingand building workplace organisation and the expansion oforganising into areas of non trade union membership.

• The workplace agenda must be updated and broadenedout to include:

o a ‘good work’ agendao training and career development serviceso work–life balance policieso employment forecasting facilities to protectindustries and jobs by ensuring they adapt fastero economic citizenship proposals to bring out the full productive and creative potential of workers.

• Unions need to form political alliances and localcoalitions to pursue a wider economic and politicalagenda. Beyond the workplace the new union agendamust be extended to include:

o the sustainability of the planeto wider social justice through a stronger and more effective link to a renewed Labour Partyo community-based organising around such issues as a living wage and affordable housing through broadly based campaignso establishing organising and communication centres inplace of traditional union offices.

• A new international organising agenda is required tohelp stem the tide of transnational corporations being ableto play one country’s workforce off against another in aflight to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions.

• To secure the proper level of international organisationthose unions that exist outside public service unionsshould commit at least 10 per cent of their turnover tointernational organising work.

• To meet the challenges and opportunities, and againstthe backdrop of declining membership, unions need tobecome much more efficient and effective. This demandsa new architecture to enable twenty-first-century unionorganisation.

• Communication and information technology (CIT)must be radically and wholeheartedly embraced to enable:

o the self-sufficiency and more effective operation of officers and stewardso communications through text alerts and emailso campaigns and coalitions to be run virtually from thelocality, through the national employers and the nationstate to the international sphere.

• The union movement should create the resources tomodernise by practising collectivism and solidarity in itsorganisation.

• Collective purchasing of CIT, cars, properties and allprocurement needs across the movement could free uphuge resources to help fund the new organising agenda.

• Collective service provision for legal and pensionservices, one national union call centre and help-line, plusthe pooling of back-office functions would improveservice provision, help less secure unions and free upresources for recruitment and workplace services.

• The enactment of single union environments (SITUEs)in every multi-union workplace would radicallytransform the effectiveness and efficiency of themovement. Instead of wastefully competing for membersa system based on SITUE, administered by areinvigorated Trades Union Congress (TUC), wouldensure higher standards of service at minimal cost.

• A new central regulatory authority (CRA) for the unionmovement would be established to oversee, regulate andenforce single union environments.

Executive summary



The trade union movement is in decline both innumbers and influence. After the Tory onslaughtended in 1997 the trade union movement experienceda period of government that can at least be described,even by their fiercest critics, as being neutral towardstrade unions. It hasn’t attacked, and some wouldargue that it has tried within its limited understandingto assist. However, it is clear that this government isnot going to give us a legal leg up. This is reflected inthe modest demands in the Trade Union FreedomBill, which in itself expresses the tacit understandingin the movement that we are only going to grow byour own efforts.

In May 1997 there were 26.4 million people in jobs inthe UK. Today there are 29.9 million in jobs, anincrease of 2.5 million in the workforce. Many ofthese jobs are in the service sectors. The growth inpublic sector spending has created around 600,000jobs in a sector where trade union organisation isstrongest and more able to recruit new members. Yetover the same period trade union membership hasfallen by over a million. The growth in low-paidservice jobs in the cleaning, catering, security andhotels sectors, especially in the south east, has beenmet by a new generation of economic migrantsseeking work and an improvement in their quality oflife. Many of these workers earn the minimum wage,have English as their second language and are oftenexploited by unscrupulous contractors and agencies.In theory they represent an ideal constituency fortrade union organisation and representation.However, it’s not only in these sectors that we havebeen failing. Although there have been some positivedevelopments, notably at the Public and CommercialServices (PCS) Union, the National Union of Rail,Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) andTransport and General Workers Union (TGWU), theoverall picture is one of decline.

If we had maintained our share of the workforce,overall membership would have increasedsubstantially. Therefore despite there being a recordnumber of jobs in the UK, historically low levels ofunemployment and a politically neutral environment,the trade union movement is shrinking.

The strategic response has been a continuingrationalisation by amalgamation, which has done littleto stop the slide. Although we are still strong, theclear and inescapable truth is that the trade unionmovement is failing. However, while we retainstrength we have the opportunity to change andrenew the movement.

This decline should be of great concern to the vastmajority of people at work who depend on collectivebargaining to deliver their terms and conditions,either directly or indirectly, through a strong tradeunion movement. Those who believe in a strong civicmovement that can act as a counterbalance to stateand corporate power should share the concern. Thekey challenge for us is to try and understand how wegot ourselves into this predicament and, moreimportantly, what we should do to turn the situationaround and build our organisations and grow themovement. For this to happen trade unions have todevelop strategies and structures to encourageparticipation in their governance and activity and toconnect with working people who are outside ourremaining strongholds.

I believe that trade unions have become tooinstitutionalised and prevented from progressing byoutdated paralysing structures, which give precedenceto process and that have developed governancesystems in which the real control lies with the full-time management who oversee a command andcontrol ethos. This hasn’t been a deliberate or evenconscious process, but is the result of a gradual driftthat has encouraged the movement to ebb away fromorganising as the prime objective of trade unionism,to be replaced by the prioritisation of the institutionsthat trade unions have unwittingly developed into.Many might say that this is the fate suffered by anysuccessful organisation that has failed to renew itspurpose.

The result hasbeen that theorganising ethosthat was at thecore of tradeunion purposehas graduallybeen replaced byinstitutional self-interest. This hasresulted in aresourcestransfer awayfrom theorganisationsthey were and towards maintaining the institutionsthey have become. This was never meant to be. Asurvey in one union revealed that many members wholeft did so because they were unhappy with someaspect of the service they did or didn’t receive.Complaints from members included there being too


Part I:An analysis of union decline

“The key challenge for usis to try and understand

how we got ourselves intothis predicament and,

more importantly, whatwe should do to turn the

situation around andbuild our organisations

and grow the movement”




little contact with workplace representatives, notenough help given to members with problems atwork, and only rare if any contact reminding themthat their union exists to protect and promote theirinterests. No-one can blame our workplace activists.They are all volunteers, and many of them get little orno facility time to carry out their union duties. Toooften they feel isolated while the resources availableto them are often minimal at best.

A legacy to change

Many of the present generation of trade union leadershave inherited the result of decades of benignindifference and understand and accept the need forradical change. However, their room for manoeuvre isoften limited by the outdated power structures theyinhabit and the lack of a coherent narrative withwhich to inspire potential supporters towards a visionof what could be. Despite that some trade unions andindividuals within trade unions are attempting toaddress these issues through increased emphasis onorganising. But I think it is fair to say that althoughorganising has become the lingua franca of the tradeunion movement it hasn’t taken root in the prevailingculture of protecting the status quo. To analysewhether a trade union is serious about organising onecan simply examine their operating costs budgetalongside their membership income.

In most cases the institution has first call on allmembership income. All organisations need to sustainthe infrastructure that they require to fulfil theirpurpose. But when purpose has been overtaken tomaintaining the institution, more and more of theiroperating costs become redirected away from theirpurpose and in the case of trade unions that meansorganising and workplace organisation. Trade unionleaders at every level, from general secretaries to shopstewards, who are trying to promote an organisingculture, often find they have to wrest resources awayfrom their institutions. If they are winning, anincreasing proportion of their operating costs will bespent on organising. Whether it’s at a fast enoughpace is another question, but at least they arebeginning to move in the right direction. Howeverthe cult(ure) of institutionalism will fight for everypenny and will use the internal governance structuresto prevent these leaders progressing both in intent andinfluence. An organising union can be differentiatedfrom an institutionalised one by how its resources areprioritised.

A changing society

Our founders shaped our organisations in response tothe prevailing employment structures and theeconomic and social environment. Democraticstructures and governance were based on theengagement of the membership and depended onmembers turning up at meetings, making collectivedecisions and voting on contentious issues andcontested elections. When I joined my unionmembers were still being fined for non-attendance,although a sixpence (2.5p) fine wasn’t much of asanction even then! These structures weren’t conjuredup from the ether. The values of collectivism and careand concern for others were reflected incontemporary working-class culture and theorganisations that they created to deliver that ethos. Idon’t subscribe to the view that at some time in thepast there was a golden era of mass membershipinvolvement in trade union deliberation andgovernance, but these structures sufficed in that theyreflected the reality of people’s lives up to and afterthe Second World War.

The post war economic recovery and growth laiddown the foundations of the modern global economyand Britain began to reap the benefit in the 1960s. TheAsian Tiger began stirring; high streets were offeringcheap, disposable goods from Hong Kong; Tescostarted ‘piling high and selling cheap’. Food wasplentiful and available out of season. Washingmachines, spin dryers, hoovers, cars, transistor radiosand televisions were becoming common. All of thesedevelopments changed the lives of a working classthat had experienced mass unemployment, poverty,hunger, deprivation and world war within ageneration. However, although the lives of ourmembers had changed irrevocably, we didn’t blink aneyelid, mainly because economic growth, broadpolitical consensus and increasing prosperity hadprovided millions of new members, while classmemory of the recent past kept working people loyalto their organisations and engrained class solidarityretained their commitment.

Trade unions had never had so many resources and somuch influence, and had roles in the economic as wellas the political life of the country. In fact trade unionshad never had it so good and our power was used togood effect, with rising wages, occupational pensions,annual holidays, sick pay and so on. All of theseimprovements in the quality of life were added to thetraditional benefits of trade union membership andwhat had been won had to be protected and improved



on. As a result we had a strong and growingmovement with enormous political clout and withhindsight we had reached our zenith.

A changing world

The influence of transnational corporate power in theglobal economy has left many nation stategovernments transfixed as capitalism rampages overthe planet. The limp response is a race to the bottom.The constant unseemly scramble to deregulate and toboast about the flexibility of labour smacks more ofthe slave market than the labour market. As a richcountry in a privileged continent the pursuit ofhappiness and fulfilment and a general improvementin the human condition has been cast aside to makemore and more demands in the hopeless task of tryingto slake the corporate thirst for ever increasing profit.If the government can’t defend its citizens who can?

The trade union movement has always been aprotective barrier, shielding workers from the powerof capital. I believe that people at work have neverneeded a strong union movement more than they donow, and yet we aren’t growing. In our changedworld it is not so easy to separate work from themyriad other issues that the contemporary worldconfronts us with, and therefore we should considerbuilding much stronger relationships with thecampaigning civic community. It should not be toodifficult for us to contemplate union nationalbranches solely containing members who are alsomembers and supporters of specific non-governmentorganisations (NGOs). If we are to address seriouslythe imbalance of power between citizens, capital andstate, trade unions and civic society have to form analliance based on shared values that provides mutualsupport and the potential to be more effective.Amicus and the TGWU recently launched aconsumer boycott of Peugeot in response to thatcompany’s threat to close its plant in Ryton,Coventry. How much more effective could that callbe if we were already part of a civic coalition?

Government and our political parties have lost therespect of millions of citizens, which has led to anactive disengagement from conventional politicalactivity. People feel disempowered in the face oftransnational corporations and compliantgovernments and have become disillusioned withparty politics. In the wider context it is hardlysurprising that people are turning away fromconventional political activity and looking foralternative outlets for their political investments. This

is one of the consequences of people’s realisation thatin our fractured communities and globalised world,local and international networks are supplantingnational ones. However, that doesn’t mean thatpeople aren’t engaged in or wouldn’t like to beengaged in political activity.

Millions of people who may not define themselves as‘political’ marched against an unjust war, and aretrying to make poverty history. Many passionatelysupport the work of countless numbers of NGOs andbecome involved in single issue pressure groups. Inother words they practise our values – they care aboutpeople and join with others to try and effect change.They know that individually they will not make ablind bit of difference to the negative effects ofglobalisation – and that is where a dynamic tradeunion movement has a major role to play. First, it canremind people of the record of success that themovement has in achieving progressive social andeconomic change through effective collective action.Second, it can point out that a strong unionmovement lends organising ability and resources toassist, work with and sometimes underpin single issueorganisations. Third, it can open a wider dialoguewith those outside union membership who share ourvalues and, like us, care passionately about economicand social injustice. Then we all have a better chanceof achieving our collective ambitions for change.

I would encourage those who are part of thevoluntary civic movement, whether throughmembership of Greenpeace, Tools for Self Reliance,War on Want, Friends of the Earth or whatever, tojoin a trade union, not simply for support at work,but also because by doing so you make the entirecivic movement stronger and better able to combatthe power of the transnational corporations,international capital and a disconnected state. Peopledon’t join Friends of the Earth for what they can getout of it; they join because they identify with theirpolicy objectives. We in the union movement need tomake ourselves more open and accessible to potentialmembers who may join to help advance a civiccommunity agenda covering issues fromenvironmental pollution to Fairtrade.

This returns us to the matter of structure. Energeticand committed individuals aren’t going to joinfossilised institutions. But they will join dynamic,effective campaigning organisations that can stand upto the power of international capital and thegovernments that connive with them. There continuesto be a move away from disciplined political activity





that requires a commitment to and defence of aparticular set of policies as enshrined in the partypolitical structure and toward support for single issueorganisations. This could be interpreted as a negativereflex action to the draining power of Parliament andgovernment. National structures are becoming lessrelevant to peoples lives and the international moreimportant in the face of the growing power of thetransnational corporations and the reach ofglobalisation. Alongside this development is thegrowing feeling among many people that engaging inconventional political activity is pointless aspoliticians can’t or won’t respond to needs andconcerns because they are powerless, incompetent,corrupt or acting out of self-interest.

A static union movement

Generations of British people have supported the roleof trade unions as they recognised the need to be partof a collective organisation whose prime purpose is tocreate a balance of power in the workplace so thatthey aren’t exploited, and are treated fairly andequitably while earning a living. Although there is nolonger an homogenous working class the vastmajority of people in Britain are working peoplewhose main asset is the ability to sell their labour foran income. This provides them with the means eitherto survive or prosper. Most people have no otherassets to maintain their standard of living or fulfiltheir material aspirations. In other words, withoutsufficient income from employment to sustain theirlifestyles working people would depend on the stateto some degree or other. It follows that all workingpeople have a lot in common, whether or not they areconscious of shared interests or whether they identifythemselves with a particular social class or not. If weare to re-energise the trade union movement we haveto base our strategies on the prevailing cultures ofworking people and recognise that these cultures aremany and diverse – a one size fits all approach isuntenable.

We failed to change and stood still while our membersstarted to enjoy the fruits of a developing welfarestate allied to greater disposable income, which theunion movement was in large part responsible for.Some of these changes heralded the beginning oflong-term shifts in social and economic patterns ofbehaviour and obviated the need for traditionalworking-class institutions such as sick clubs. People’saspirations changed. Now they go on holiday toFlorida not Folkestone, have a TV and now theinternet at home, and they do not visit working men’s

clubs. We have to catch up. In other words ourmembers began to experience a new society – one thatwould have been beyond our founding members’imagination – while we stood still. These changesthemselves have taken new directions. The rate oftechnological change has brought changing patterns ofsocialising and the present period of relative economicstability has enticed hundreds of thousands to buyproperty abroad.

All of these developments change people’s perceptionsand provide them with new experiences. Whateverour views of these developments they are a reality. Itis through this complicated mix of poverty pay,second homes, job insecurity and rampantconsumerism that we have to chart our course. Tradeunions do not have a divine right to exist. Ifcontemporary trade unionism does not respondadequately to the existing social and employmentenvironment to become more relevant, then workingpeople will create other forms of collectiveorganisation in the same way that they created tradeunions in the first place. Whether other choices couldpresent an alternative to orthodox trade unionism orsupplement it depends on the expectations andobjectives of the people who might form or jointhem.

However, we should understand that if we continueto decline and are seen to be less relevant to today’scomplex and multilayered social reality, we may runthe risk of people looking to other forms of a morenarrowly defined collectivism that might be bereft ofany ideological, socialist roots. This might be more inline with old style American ‘business tradeunionism’, which people look to for simple‘insurance’ rather than to bring social and politicalchange. There are signs that the ongoing action toroot out far right trade union entryists is beingsuccessful to the point that the BNP is consideringdeveloping its own workplace organisation. Weshould also be alert to the danger that fundamentalistscould feed on community alienation for the samepurpose. The all-embracing non-sectarian Big Tent ofthe British trade union movement is a precious legacyand all responsible trade unionists should be carefulto advance any ideas for change within thoseparameters and under the auspices of the TUC.

Our internal governance mechanisms are out of kilterwith contemporary culture. In the majority of casesbranch meetings are either very badly attended orhardly exist at all. It is obvious that social interactionand habits, and political and class affiliations, have



changed beyond all recognition and yet some persistin maintaining the illusion that branch meetings arethe foundation of membership engagement anddemocracy – they are not and haven’t been fordecades.

Most trade unions would purport to be driven by thedemocratic involvement of their members; that is afterall where leadership legitimacy is meant to springfrom. Rulebooks were written to enshrine bottom upcontrol. However those same rule books have hardlyresponded to the enormous changes in social andeconomic conditions over the last hundred years.They have been regularly revised but our structureshave remained essentially the same. I was a branchsecretary for ten years up to 1988 and have attendedhundreds of meetings and I can say without a shadowof doubt that attending branch meetings is not at thetop of the list for most people’s preferred night out.In other words branch culture and trade unionprocess and procedures are no longer in synch withmany contemporary workers’ experience or cultures.The key factor is that working-class culture is nolonger homogenous and trade unions therefore haveto learn to deal with this complexity.

Although there have been moves to modernise,especially among some of the smaller unions such asConnect and Prospect, many still have structures thathaven’t kept track with the times. Massive change inevery walk of life has left some rooted in an outdatedstereotypical image of a Hovis advert of trade unionmembers (mostly men) who work in large factories,who walk or cycle to work from their close andhomogenous communities, and whose social activitiesare centred on their pubs and sports clubs. Theyrarely travel, have few leisure outlets and look to theirmutual societies, sick and benefit clubs for support toget through the daily grind of their lives. Thetraditional branch structure was based on these pastrealities and these structures no longer serve thepurpose of ensuring that an active and interestedmembership is in control of their organisations –when people have no influence over direction of anorganisation they lose interest in it.

The challenge that we face and that strikes at the verycore of trade union purpose is the growing weaknessof workplace trade unionism. The 1998 WorkplaceEmployee Relations Survey noted that ‘the number ofworkplaces with high union density, and a wide andwell established collective bargaining agenda hadfallen from 47 per cent of recognised establishmentsin 1980, to only 17 per cent in 1998’. The same survey

showed that in 25 per cent of workplaces where tradeunions were recognised there was no union stewardpresent. Some estimates indicate that less than half themembers of recognised unions now have a layrepresentative in their workplace. Thus we have notonly lost and are losing members we have also lostand are losing the very lifeblood of trade unionism –workplace leaders.

It is my view that this is the inevitable outcome oftrade union institutionalism’s gradual domination ofpower and resources to the detriment of our foundingand prime purpose – workplace organising.

Tony Woodley and the TGWU recognised this trendand as a result launched its ‘100% Membership’campaign in May 2004. Its objective is to stem thisdecline and reverse the trend as the essential first steptoward re-creating an effective organising union byfocusing the ‘time effort and resources’ of the unionon rebuilding workplace organisation. We deliver ourcore purpose at the workplace and it is there that wedo or die.

A woman’s movement

There is not space enough in a pamphlet to address allareas of concern or indeed to do them justice, but itwould be remiss not to mention the need for morewomen activists to achieve the highest levels of officeand power.

An obvious weakness in our structure is thefundamental failure to correct the gender balanceamong our senior leadership. Despite the fact thatover the last decades the number of women in tradeunions has increased massively, women are nowherenear adequately represented in the positions ofinfluence and leadership that could give ourmovement a wider dimension. There is no-one else toblame but ourselves. An essential part of our politicaland policy agenda is our constant battle against the‘glass ceiling’ that women face in almost alloccupations. We are left very vulnerable to countercriticism when our record is so very poor. I recognisethat there have been advances in the middle rankingswhere more women leaders are present as well as therecent changes in leadership at Equity, Association ofTeachers and Lecturers (ATL) and NationalAssociation of Schoolmasters Union of WomenTeachers (NASUWT), but this is too little and notfast enough. The GMB membership recently electedDebbie Coulter twice in succession to the position ofdeputy general secretary and Amicus recently





promoted Jennie Bremner and Gail Cartmail tobecome new assistant general sectaries. Some of theseleaders are in unions with a large female membershipand therefore that is the least we should expect. Weshould all be impatient at the rate of change and notbe simply satisfied with the fact that there is somechange.

I have witnessed women who have broken into full-time union positions become disillusioned with whatcan be very macho and competitive environments.Some adopt the prevailing culture and some leavewhile the rest are left to wrestle with the task ofchanging the situation. We desperately need toprovide a forum for women, especially those whohold senior positions among our officers, to explainand implement what needs to be done to correct thisweakness. They have the experience of the barriersthey had to overcome, the conscious and unconsciousprejudice they faced and the ongoing difficulties thatwomen in the movement experience. I know that theycan provide the answers and if we don’t listen and acton them it will be our loss.

The presence ofwomen in tradeunion forums ishugely beneficial. Ihave often been inall-maleenvironments andthey can be veryunedifying to saythe least. Articulateand able womenalways improve thequality and rangeof discussion andintroduce

dimensions that all-male environments often miss.But of course it is at every level that we need theactive involvement of women, many of whom are putoff by the macho image portrayed by the media oftub-thumping middle-aged men shouting andmenacingly jabbing their fingers in the air. Ourstructures and cultures are not always immediatelywelcoming to women and represent some formidableinstitutional barriers. In order to be relevant we mustbe representative and that means that the movementneeds to refocus on the feminine.

The movement could benefit if a women’scommission was established to grasp this nettle anddeliver the solutions that will fill this unacceptable

vacuum and make us whole and all the more stronger.This could be a standing or ad hoc committeeresourced to bring in the best expertise and researchto make substantial recommendations about how theunion movement renews itself in terms of theinfluence of women and transforms its organisationalability to represent women at work. However acommission in itself would not be able to deliverchange unless it was accompanied by the publicrecognition by men in leadership that some of theirambitions will be the casualties.

Is decline inevitable?

Has the union movement had its day? Is thecombination of change factors identified aboveenough to dictate the slow but steady weakening ofthe trade union movement? Confidence in the futureof the union movement doesn’t come from pamphletsor speeches but the actual conditions of workers. It isreflected differently from in the past but theinsecurity and anxiety of workers, at every level andsection of the economy, is as great today as it has everbeen. In this global and unregulated economy thepressure to compete seeps relentlessly into everyworkplace. The power of the employer in these ultracompetitive markets puts every worker at adisadvantage. The economy itself is developing into atop heavy ‘hour glass’ with a group doing very well atthe top but trapping many in a cycle of low wage andlow quality of life at the bottom. The stress of life forworkers and their families among this group isgrowing. For them opportunities to advance arediminishing while at the same the demand for thetrappings of a consumerised society means they endup working all hours to ensure their children have theright clothes.

Our beginnings as a mass movement started as areaction to what was deemed by our ‘betters’ to beour lot and the inescapable consequence of economicdevelopment. We just have to peruse thecontemporary media to see those same views echoedby the transnational corporations and their neoliberalapologists today. It doesn’t matter whether you’re apalm oil worker on a plantation in Indonesia, a carworker in Coventry, or a white collar worker seeingtheir job being outsourced to India, being sacked isthe same in any language or culture. Yet tradeunionists exist to demonstrate that all markets areartificial constructs and can be bent to help developthe good society rather than be allowed to shatterambition and sunder aspiration and replace it withdespair and hopelessness.

“Despite the fact that overthe last decades the numberof women in trade unionshas increased massively,

women are nowhere nearadequately represented inthe positions of influenceand leadership that could

give our movement a widerdimension”



But it is not just a defensive agenda that can shape anew unionism – there is the hope of a ‘good work’agenda too. The shift away from mass production,which many trade union structures are based on, toincreased localisation of production and servicedelivery opens up the potential for workers to ‘givetheir labour’ and contribute in more meaningful ways.People don’t just want to be cogs in a business wheelbut want the opportunity to be creative at work, toadd real value. Companies and organisations need thelatent potential of all their employees to help makethem more enterprising. Concepts such as greatereconomic citizenship, as well as training and careerguidance, unlock this potential by allowing workersto shape their working environment. Workers knowbest how to make improvements and revolutioniseworking processes – they need the structures andfreedom to do this. The challenge of the ‘good work’agenda is another that the union movement must riseto.

The response of our founding generations was tocreate a counter culture that centred on community,care and collective action. The friendly societies, theco-operative movement, funeral funds and sicksocieties were all the manifestation of the convictionthat there was another way – that the consequences ofthe market weren’t inevitable. Indeed, after a centuryof mass centralisation of production we are returningto many of the more localised and specialist featuresof the economy that gave rise to the early self-organising principles of the movement. There is theopportunity to ‘go back to our future’ in a worldwhere people can and will be able to take control oftheir own lives, but only if unions escape the mass,deferential era of the past.

The self-help organisations of the past valued dignityand understood respect and accepted that everyonehad a role to play, to be included rather thanexcluded. We now have a similar opportunity. We arepresently experiencing the ideal environment for ourvalues to be restated, reconfirmed and recognised asbeing as relevant now as they were then. We also havethe advantage of being a more literate and learnedmovement with a huge range of resources, technical,intellectual and presentational skills and knowledge.Our potential to be more authoritatively assertive inour leadership and ability to comment oncontemporary society is enormous. People aredesperate for direction on how to wring a better andimproving quality of life out of this disjointed society,which puts profits and consumerism above life,leisure and love, and I believe that a reinvigorated

trade union movement can be a major part of theanswer.

What will kill the movement off is a reluctance tochange by seeing change as any enemy of our valuesrather than the means to ensure that our goals ofliberty, equality and solidarity thrive in the workplaceand beyond in this century as they did in the last. Therest of this pamphlet suggests some of the ways theunion movement can be renewed to face the threatsand opportunities set out above.

Will Thorne, the founder of the union that becamethe GMB, was an economic migrant. He walked fromBirmingham to London to seek a better future forhimself and his family. Will Thorne, Ben Tillett, TomMann, John Burns, Eleanor Marx and others wereinspirational organisers who found common purposeand started to build on the existing working-classculture by agitating among and in the community.They worked within the contemporary and prevailingsocial and economic structures. Their task was toconvince working people that they had the power tofight back if they could find the courage to combineforces. They had to inspire and lead and they did abloody good job and generations of workers,including this one, owe them and theircontemporaries a great debt of gratitude.

These organisers built general trade unionism fromthe bottom with nothing but their vision about whatcould be, fuelled by their application and convictionthat it could only be achieved by organising. Theyopened up trade unions to the mass of workingpeople against all the odds, in spite of the oppositionof the contemporary trade union establishment andthe employers, not to mention the politicalestablishment of the most powerful nation state thatthe world had ever seen, Victorian Britain. Theirefforts and achievements remain an inspiration tothose who seek to build a more dynamic and brighterfuture by rediscovering the imperative andreinvigorating zeal of organising that is the essence oftrade unionism and which transports our message.And that message has as much relevance andresonance today as it had in the 1890s, if not more so.

We have to recognise that our national structures areno longer as relevant to our members’ lives as they


Part II: Platforms for union renewal




once were. In the days of tripartism andcomprehensive national collective wage bargaining,national office played an essential role. That’s nolonger the case. This provides us with the opportunityto deconstruct the ‘head office’ model and strip itdown to effective and efficient support for essentialleadership and strategic roles. In every aspect of ourlives the ‘national’, while still relevant, is becomingless so as it’s being squeezed by the ‘global’ at one endand the ‘local’ at the other. Therefore we have toreflect that in our structures and our understanding ofthe continuing fundamental role we can play insociety. Our resources have to go two ways: somedown to local organising and some up to globalorganising.

Unions in the workplace

To get back to organising trade unions have to investmore trust and confidence in local activists andactivism. Many unions will tolerate local initiatives aslong as they don’t have a price tag and they havecontrol over them. Many regional structures don’tnecessarily provide the freedom of activity that isrequired to release the latent power and potential oflocal activism. An institutionalised structure’s mainpurpose is to command and control the membership.There may be a rule book adherence to membershipdemocracy but to be effective this has to beaccompanied by an ideological and organisationaldesire to realise the latent power contained within themembership. Trade union leadership is not aboutbeing in a position of power, it’s about empoweringand inspiring the membership to harness the power ofcollectivism and community action. Trade unionsgrew strong because of membership ownership andcontrol, and because they were close to their unionsnot only organisationally but also by place. Resourcesneed to flow back to the roots to revitalise and allowcollective endeavour to flourish on behalf of workingpeople.

Refocusing our organisational structures under theauthority and legitimacy of a move back to organisingpriorities in our communities would of necessity haveto be accompanied by accountability and monitoring.Local organisation would have to have a benchmarkto measure up against before appropriate resourcesare made available. Once agreed, a definitiveorganising contract between the union and themembership with aims and objectives should comeinto play. The most effective democratic trade unionstructures are those centred on the workplace, whereactive engagement is employed out of a combination

of self-interest and accessibility. I do not believe thatwhatever structure that might be developed therewould be an explosion of democratic activity, butthere would be more involvement and thedevelopment of a stronger feeling of ownership andengagement in a move to more workplace focus. Self-interest and collective interest are not mutuallyexclusive. People wouldn’t join trade unions if therewas nothing in it for them but they see that being partof a collective at work is in their self-interest. Itfollows that the closer trade union governance is tothe workplace and to the members the stronger tradeunion organisation is and the more likely that moremembers would become engaged.

Where possible all governance and decision makingshould be as close to the workplace membership as ispractical. Accessibility is the key. Members shouldn’thave to overcome barriers to prove their democraticcredentials in order to gain involvement in thegovernance of their own organisations. To avoiddoubt, let me be clear. However open a structure is, itis nearly always a minority of its membership whotake responsibility for its operation. That is my directexperience after a lifetime of activity in the voluntarysector. The key determinant of democratic legitimacyis the size of the minority and the fact that everyonegets a real opportunity to become involved. In turn alarger proportion of the minority can reflect themake-up and wider views of a membership muchmore effectively than any clique.

Our workplace structures should be as flexible aspossible in order to reflect the different methods ofwork organisation, production and service delivery inour constantly evolving economy. Members could begiven choices about the shape of union structureswithin their workplaces or companies. That way wecould mirror our members’ everyday employmentenvironment. Reflecting these structures doesn’t meanthat we necessarily agree with them, but it may helpour workplace organisation become more effectiveand relevant to the workers who inhabit them.

Equally we could offer membership more closelytailored to individual needs or wishes. When othermembership-based organisations such as roadsiderescue companies recruit, they often offer a menu tochoose from to suit the potential member.

In order to reinforce the sense of collective interestemployees in large companies could be put inmembership silos. These ‘national branches’ couldhave their local workplace organisation made a part of



a national ‘silo’ and have dedicated representative andnegotiating functions. A proportion of membershipincome would be allocated for organising. If themembers wanted they could re-brand theirorganisation, for example GMB Asda.Workplace branch meetings should be as localised aspossible at department or shift location and operateon the basis of ‘open forums’ so that we start to moveaway from the paralysis that procedure engenders andinvite involvement and engagement. For those insmall workplaces or with a scattered membership,different strategies have to be applied. For this tohappen structures have to be flexible in order to meetthe needs and wishes of the membership and not forthe interests of the membership to be made to bend tothe needs of the institution. If we are successful indevolving resources and organising for localcommunity-based activity (and therefore growingpower) we will open up to people their ability toeffect change.

Thousands of small victories represent incrementalchange but as importantly they also provide practicaldemonstrations to people that collective action can beeffective in and outside the workplace and thisrealisation develops their political awareness. Thiswould also be the route for making a contribution tothe development of active popular support forprogressive left policies and making the stand againstcorporate power and state indifference, which needsto happen if we are to redirect our society with aninformed, politicised and empowered civic movement.

We have a great story to tell. The trade unionmovement is a living testimony to the power andeffectiveness of collectivism. We should usecollectivism as the narrative for empowerment andchange. This is the stuff of raw politics. It isn’tcomplex. It is rarely dramatic. It is hard work basedon effective, resourced, bottom up organisinginformed by a passion for social and economic justice.

Unions in the community

Localising our organisational structures would offerthe opportunity to review the way we organise in ourcommunities. ‘Community’ is a word very much invogue and people have strong and varied ideas onwhat it means. I am not about to add to the debateother than to say that its best left to the people in thecommunity you want to organise to decide their ownpriorities. That would require us to be moreimaginative and flexible in structural andorganisational responses.

One of the optionsis to create anorganising andcommunicationscentre in the placeof a traditionalbranch or tradeunion office. Thistype of centrewould provide thetraditional tradeunion servicing andemploymentadvice. But it couldalso choose toprovide learning and communication resources, taxand benefit advice, occupational health monitoringand healthy living advice. It could let space to localauthority services giving housing advice and tocommunity groups. It might choose to set up anursery for working parents or go into partnershipwith trade-union-friendly legal firms. The possibilitiesare endless but with the local trade union andcommunity activists leading we can be confident thatwhatever service is provided for or housed in thecentre it would be what that particular communityidentified as a need.

In return trade unions would achieve credibility,added authority within the community and readyaccess to the community network. The ‘bushtelegraph’ would keep trade unions informed aboutthe problems the community experience not least inunorganised workplaces. Trade unions would have tocontinue to earn support and respect but they wouldhave a location, role and ‘place’ in their community;in time people would turn to ‘their’ union, rooted intheir organisation, their daily experiences and theirspecific culture, and then we would get the chance forour new beginning. This twin track approach wouldenable distinct but not separate roles, in theworkplace and the community, made possible by thediscipline and resources generated by organising andinformed by collectivism and care for each other.

I know that various community initiatives and manyactivists in union branches and centres forunemployed workers are attempting to provide whattheir communities need but are constrained becausemany simply don’t have the influence or resources todevelop. The creation of well-resourced organisingand communication centres would enable a cross-fertilisation of ideas and experience as well as bringmutual support and strengthen democratic


“This is the stuff of rawpolitics. It isn’t complex.It is rarely dramatic. Itis hard work based on

effective, resourced,bottom up organisinginformed by a passion

for social andeconomic justice”




engagement. This kind of model might also offerpublic sector trade union branches, which alreadyhave vibrant and dynamic workplace organisation, theopportunity to expand their organisation into theircommunities. Unions in different communities maywant to develop their own local structures specific totheir particular circumstances. Flexibility and theability to respond to different needs are essential to aresponsive and democratic organisation.

Unions in the global economy

Historically trade unions followed the developmentof industry and the economy. We began by organisingin the villages and the towns, then regionally andfinally nationally, following the development of thecompanies or industries whose employees weorganised. We learnt from bitter experience thathaving any unorganised workplace in a companyinvited the employer to divide and rule and that theway forward was to get all the workers to recognisecollectivism and solidarity as the only effectiveresponse. As capitalism developed and employersacquired more surplus, companies broke through thenation state boundaries and went international whilewe remained at home. We now have a lot of catchingup to do.

As an internationalist movement informed bycollectivist humanitarian values, there is muchcommunication and the occasional opportunity totake solidarity action in support of brothers andsisters in another country. However, international co-operation centres mostly around political and ratherthan organising activity. Governments have longrecognised the limits of the nation state and that wehave been living in a changed world, and as aconsequence ceded authority to international andglobal bodies – the European Union and the UnitedNations are but two examples.

We in the trade union movement have not followedthe developments in international political relationsand corporate behaviour and structures as closely aswe might have done. We are of course aninternationalist movement and solidarity is at the coreof our purpose. However, solidarity is but themidwife of organisation and organisation is the onlypath to power and justice for workers. Andorganisation requires resources. Trade unions are asreluctant to cede authority as most otherorganisations are, and they are very reluctant toapportion resources to global organising. But if weare to establish an effective international organising

strategy we have to recognise the need to develop tothe next level, just as our local trade unionsrecognised the need to become regional and ourregional unions became national over a hundred yearsago. This is just another step, albeit delayed, in thatprocess – but it’s a step we must take if we want thepower to challenge the transnational corporations.

Derek Simpson of Amicus has begun to develop avision of a pan European union that would ignorenational boundaries and sees this as part of anecessary response to globalisation. Amicus has alsosigned international strategic alliance agreements withother unions to provide more effective protection andsolidarity action against global corporations. Globalorganising requires the power to initiate action inworkplaces in different countries to secure acceptableterms and conditions for workers who share the sameemployer, as well as to have any chance at all ofdefending jobs inside the transnational corporations.There are some good examples of effectiveinternational action. The TGWU worked with theAmerican Service Employees Union (SEIU) toimprove workplace standards, training and employeedevelopment in the First Group Bus Service in theUK and the USA. The campaign ‘Driving upStandards’ joined 26,000 UK employees with their UScounterparts to assist them to win recognition in theUS. International organising requires time, effort andresources but should become a central andcomplementary strategy to our efforts at localorganising. The local and the international arenas areequally important to us to demonstrate effectiveness ifwe are to help people gain control of their, jobs, livesand environments. Whatever the challenges we shouldbear in mind that what we should be seeking to do issimply to extend our collectivist principles.

The International Trade Union Federations (nowmore commonly referred to as Global UnionFederations or GUFs) are discussing with theiraffiliates and among themselves how they can worktogether globally for the benefit of working peoplethroughout the world. The IUF has brought togethera number of its affiliates who are working collectivelyto organise the major contract catering companies.This initiative is unique not least in that each of theunions involved (from Australia, Canada, Germany,Ireland, Spain, the UK and USA) have signed anagreement that commits them to paying 20 per cent ofeach newly recruited members’ union contributionback into an international organising fund to maintainan income stream to take this initiative into othercountries. It is too early to say whether this will be



successful but it illustrates the fact that theinternational movement understands that if it is tochallenge the power of the transnational corporationsit can only do so by assisting affiliate unions toexpand their national organising capacity throughinternational co-operation. GUFs are discussing witheach other what strategies they can adopt to enablethem to assist organising in countries with traditions,economies and cultures as different as Indonesia andthe USA. The success of any of these initiativesdepends on resources, and national unions thatrecognise this are helping fund work which theybelieve to be crucial to the future of trade unionseverywhere. If international organising is to be able tohelp grow national unions, more resources will haveto be released either by unions taking their owninitiatives or by them increasing their funding to theirrespective GUFs.

If they are the levels at which unions must effectivelyorganise, what is the new union agenda they mustfight on?

Trade unions are a force for good in society and havebeen ever since those first courageous individualssought to challenge the power of the employer bycombining into groups. Throughout our tremendoushistory we have been at the forefront of every majorprogressive social, economic and political advanceright up to the present day. We have developedleaders who have gone on to serve at every level ofcommunity and political organisation from parishcouncil to the cabinet and all points in between. Wehave provided opportunities for education andenlightenment for working people from the days ofthe socialist cycling clubs to the Workers’ EducationAssociation (WEA) and the TUC postal courses andtoday’s learning reps. We are centred on the mostgraphic manifestation of active citizenship –voluntarism. We are the biggest voluntaryorganisation in the country. We are one of the mostenduring and successful institutions in the history ofBritain. We have been central to the formation of ademocratic society, the welfare state, universal healthcare and education. When the state belatedly gave us alegal status under the Health and Safety at Work Act,we delivered. Trade union safety reps have reducedfatalities and saved countless people from seriousaccidents and disease – so many its impossible toquantify.

By doing so our representatives continue to make amassive contribution to GDP and save the NHS andthe benefits system billions of pounds and all at nocost to the state. This is a collective service providedfor the good of all and delivered by a committedvolunteer force. Through trade union legal provisionwe have provided a service to millions of citizens,which many could not have afforded, again at no costto the state. Our trade union education provision hasopened access to education, learning and developmentto hundreds of thousands of working people.

Our movement is founded and dependent on thearmy of volunteers that the media traditionally sneersat – workplace reps. All workplace reps – shopstewards, safety reps and learning reps – give of theirtime freely without material reward to provide theinterface between the employed and the employersand their agents. Thanks to their daily efforts 99 percent of all workplace problems are resolved beforethey are given breath. For all their efforts these manythousands of workplace leaders do not receive norseek recognition or reward. They do it because of a

sense of duty and because it is the right thing todo. Our society has yet to recognise what amassive contribution these men and women maketo our country’s well-being. Many trade union

members do, however, and that is why they identifynot with their union but with their workplace reps,who are the first people they’ll turn to for advice andsupport. These workplace leaders are the people whogive life and credibility to our movement and theirvoluntarism is the core of our collective strength.They are the ones who are delivering on our primepurpose. We must redouble our efforts in the support,identification, training and development of workplaceleaders so that we continue to build a corps ofinformed, confident and competent workplacerepresentatives. It follows therefore that we shouldfocus an increasing proportion of our resources onthese leaders and workplaces. Maybe we should domore work to integrate the efforts of health and safetyreps, stewards and learning reps and try and buildthem into more effective workplace union teams inorder to maximise their efforts and leadership. Weshould also seek ways to direct this invaluable sourceof collectivism and duty into the communities wherewe are largely anonymous. This represents anothermajor challenge for the present generation of tradeunionists.

If we are to grow stronger then we have to have thecourage to break out of our self-imposed traditionalboundaries and take trade unionism to a new level.


Part III:A new union agenda




We have to migrate towards developing a coherentproactive political strategy that confronts andarticulates the anxieties about the big questions thatrequire practical responses, which conventionalpolitics and politicians cannot or do not want to face.

The environment

The environment should be at the top of this list. Thetrade union movement took root in a much simplersociety. The transition from an agrarian economy toan early industrial one was one in which humankindwas either struggling against or harnessing theelements in a largely sustainable use of resources. Theaccumulation of capital generated by wool productionfollowing the Enclosure Acts was the catalyst for theindustrial revolution to go full steam ahead. Theindustrial revolution witnessed the beginning of theunsustainable exploitation of resources. Charcoal, asustainable resource, was replaced by coal. Extractingcoal from underground was to become the enduringsymbol of humankind pitted against the natural worldin an alien environment and marked the beginning ofthe unsustainable economy.

It was however still largely a time of innocence ofhuman endeavour. Britain was still overwhelminglyrural, there remained a balance between people andthe environment and there was still a rhythm to lifedictated by the seasons. Any adverse effects werelocal and science had little awareness of theconsequences of industrialisation. It was not untilmany decades later into this revolution that was tochange the world that concerns began to develop. Theearly unions came into being in response to theexploitation of labour on the grand scale thatcapitalism demanded and had no concerns other thanto obtain dignity and justice for workers. There arenow other pressing collective concerns and theenvironment should certainly be a top priority for allof us in the movement.

To its credit the leadership of the National Union ofMineworkers (NUM) has been consistent in itsadvocacy of a balanced sustainable energy policyranging from investment in clean coal technology torenewables. A coherent sustainable national energypolicy can only be achieved by a government thatrecognises, understands and is committed to asustainable economy. Commonsense demands thatthis must involve clean coal energy. We haveenormous reserves of coal, which would help usachieve self-sufficiency in energy. We have thetechnology to develop and deliver clean coal energy

and export that technology to China and India, whichin turn would make a tremendous contribution toaddressing global environmental concerns. We shouldpush for a solar panel on every roof, insulation inevery wall, the collection, storage and use of greywater, local energy generating schemes and a compostcontainer on every street corner. We have to use ourleadership and help initiate a debate about the need toreduce consumerism and energy consumption, andpopularise and enable all forms of recycling. Equallywe could promote more labour intensive organicfarming and encourage people to consume regionallyproduced food in season. This would increasedomestic agricultural production and help tostimulate the rural economy – and we should push forimproved conditions for agricultural workers withinit. We should build popular support around the railand transport unions’ campaign for a massive increasein investment in the rail network, an increase in thefrequency, security and staffing of services, theintegration of rail services with bus and tramdevelopment, and a lower and more accessible farestructure.

We should build alliances with the proponents ofcarbon neutral and energy efficient house buildingand add them to our coalition with Defend CouncilHousing, and strengthen the case for the building ofsocial housing under democratic control. This wouldmake council housing an exemplar for the industry aswell as providing sustainable housing stock.

Unions are involved in several initiatives on theenvironment, from the Trade Union SustainableDevelopment Advisory Committee to Unison’s workwith the New Economics Foundation on sustainablecommunities. However, as with much of our work welack a narrative in which to present and communicatethese endeavours. We have to convince people that thepower of the transnationals and the reach ofcorporations into every aspect of our lives is notinevitable and can be regulated and controlled andthat human priorities take precedence over themarket. These are just a few areas that would generatemasses of jobs while trying to deal with the realdanger of the environmental crisis.

Social justice

Most of this debate is avoided by politicians as itwould require the use of tax. We need to achieve theimpossible and rehabilitate tax as the citizens’contribution to a safe, sustainable, just and contentsociety. Tax giving should be portrayed as an



expression of self-esteem as well as self-interest. Anability to contribute should be recognised as the act ofa good citizen attracting credit. Instead of measuringsuccess by the level of income someone earns, itshould be measured by the proportion of income thatperson contributes towards developing a safer, moreefficient, sustainable and just community.

This could be part of a narrative that we in themovement could articulate by concentrating on thefoundation stones of a fair society: the adequateprovision of housing, transport, the utilities,education and health, enveloped in a sustainableeconomy and environment and anchored in aparticipative and responsive democracy under thecontrol and direction of the people. The Labour Partyhas never been in more need of a dynamic, energisedand intellectually confident trade union movement tocarry this message. It should not be forgotten that thetrade unions saw off the SocialDemocratic Party and kept the partyalive during the wilderness years of1979–1997, when it would haveotherwise collapsed. However,although we proved our worth asdefenders of the Labour faith andnursed the party through its sickness,we failed to provide leadership anddirect it with new ideas when itreturned to government. We workedto an agenda centred on demands andalthough those demands werefundamentally important we didn’tsupplement them with ideas and avision of what could be. Weidentified what we were against andhad only a narrow narrative of what we were for. Asthe Labour Party begins to flounder again we havethe opportunity to rectify that omission and forge astronger relationship based on the simple but firmground of increasing democratic control of everyaspect of our lives.

We should guide the Labour Party away from thepolitics of the soundbite, the illusion of targets andthe con of commissions and task forces and towardthe politics of the concrete. We should direct it awayfrom a government that idolises the private sector andputs its energy, resources, determination andcommitment into war towards one whose outcomesare recognised as being for the benefit of all.

We have remained loyal to our founding principle ofsolidarity, our commitment to collectivism that finds

its expression in concern and care for all those whosuffer any disadvantage. To us solidarity in the fightfor justice is unconditional, the call to arms that isalways answered. We recognise this as a moral codethat is based on our common humanity and concerns,which enables us to reach common conclusions. Thisshould be our agenda. The party doesn’t need to keepseeking a new agenda. We’ve already got one and it isenduring, but in order to deliver that agenda we needto be strong and growing and able to build effectivecoalitions to champion it.

An expanding agenda

The bulk of the UK trade union movement was builton the consequences of the industrial revolution andthe fact that this island became the workshop of theworld. With globalisation and the continuingdevelopment of Brazil, Russia, India and China

(BRIC), the world is now theworkshop. In acknowledging that factwe also have to be honest about thecircumstances in which we can protectjobs and communities and those wherewe can’t. We need to move away frompurely reactive responses and towardmore proactive ones. This will be adifficult and challenging process. Beingreactive means that in protestingredundancies and closures we alwayscommand the moral high ground, andrightly so. But more often than not weand the people we are defending lose.We should also consider the harderoption and accept that with the rate ofinnovation in every scientific,

engineering and technological field, the ever-changingpatterns of consumer behaviour and the pace ofeconomic development, we will be constantly facedwith changes that will result in job loss and shift.Rather than remain the irreproachable gallant loserswe may have to show more leadership. To make thatreality more palatable we have to be ready to identifyand promote alternative tactics and policies. Wouldwe not serve our members better by examining howwe can best assist in creating jobs while at the sametime identifying policies that would need us to bemore proactive in a wider political agenda?

We could offer the government, academia andbusiness an opportunity to join us in developing anemployment forecast facility that would serve as anearly warning system to job threats as well asidentifying future job growth prospects. At present


“Many of today’s

great-grandparents

are amazed at the

levels of affluence

experienced by their

grandchildren and

great-grandchildren”




when jobs are lost existing state resources aredeployed on launching lifeboats to rescue thedistressed, when we should be building new vessels ofopportunity. We should be proactive in makingrecommendations to government for intervention intraining provision, research and development andproviding wider and more accessible employmentopportunities. More generous grants and tax breaksshould be made available to stimulate growth in newand developing sectors to achieve economies of scaleand make new products more affordable. Plansshould be put in place so those workers who are atrisk of losing jobs experience as smooth a transition aspossible into new employment.

This would necessitate government recognising thatthe hands-off approach to the economy is no longersensible in the real world and that a responsiblegovernment would enable the state to intervene in theinterests of the well-being of its citizens. Politicianswon’t take a blind bit of notice of any ideas ordemands unless we have the power and authority togo beyond the current limit of maybe having a say inwho the next leader of the Labour Party might be.The active support and involvement of thousands ofcommunities which we would be actively organisingaround the country would provide a power base thatwould solicit an altogether different response.Growing organising power would mean that ratherthan traipsing to No.10 for another set piece, thepoliticians would have to court an energised andeffective trade union and community movement.

Never in our history have so many people in Britainbeen so materially well off. Many of today’s great-grandparents are amazed at the levels of affluenceexperienced by their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Our founders’ immediate policyobjectives weren’t hard to define: shorter workinghours, higher wages, the relief of poverty, improvededucation and health, safer workplaces, affordablehousing and so on – and they remain central to ourpurpose. However, with increasing affluence and thesatisfaction of basic human needs and aspirationsmany people are now trying to look beyondmaterialism and are opening up another battlegroundbetween labour and capital.

People at work want more control over their lives.Co-operating with capital is a means to an end forthem and conflict at work is inevitable when theyexert that desire for control. A recent example was the2003 Gate Gourmet dispute when the GMB, TGWUand Amicus took up the cudgels on behalf of a largely

female workforce and took action against proposalsthat would interfere with family and home life. Timeis the new money and contentment is the newambition for many. People at work are developingtheir own collective bargaining agenda and ultimatelyit poses a challenge to deferred gratification in post-industrial economic development. If not now when?is the question in many people’s minds.

Many workers now want the choice about work–lifebalance, about working not just to live but also tofind satisfaction, happiness and earn self-esteem. Oncethe basics of life – food, shelter, health and safety –have been secured, people’s aspirations move on andthey want better education, improved housing, andmore time to think and appreciate life. At this stage ofour economic development there is evidence thatthose sections of the population who have reachedthat level are now seeking a better balance betweenthe need to earn and the desire to enjoy. Thatenjoyment can take many forms, for examplespending more time relaxing with loved ones, beinginvolved in sport and leisure, enjoying the arts,participating in education for education’s sake ortravelling. This is not true of the many who arestruggling to keep family and home together and whoare up against the odds, but it demonstrates that theexperience of working people is wide and varied andwe need an action agenda that covers the concerns ofall. For many the size of the wage packet is not the beall and end all it once was.

Our ever-changing society means that the workplaceis fast taking second place to the living space.Working people’s lives used to revolve solely aroundthe workplace but now they spin in ever-increasingconcentric circles. Rather than get giddy and leftbehind we have to rotate with them. There is still ahuge democratic deficit on the issue of workers’control over their work. In twenty-first-centuryBritain workers in every sector and at all levels arestill generally considered to be too untrustworthy toget on with their work without high levels ofsupervision. The command and control ethos in theaverage British workplace is redolent of thetraditional military chain of command. ‘Lions led bydonkeys’ may be too pejorative a metaphor, but toomany workers experience resentment and frustrationat unnecessary supervision and lack of opportunitiesto put their ideas into practice. The simple fact is thatpeople like to be left alone to get on with their work.The collective common interest exerts a powerful peergroup pressure for everyone to make a faircontribution and not swing the lead.



Unfortunately we have virtually no input into theprocesses that dominate a third of our lives. This isstill the case although numerous studies and our owncollective history and experience have shown that ifwe want to improve productivity, efficiency andservice provision then investing in the education,training and development of employees and givingthem more responsibility, control and self-management at work will make them more fulfilled.They will then produce the goods more efficiently.There is an enormous amount of untapped creativeintelligence within every workplace. Heavy-handedmanagement methods lead workers gradually towithdraw their use of creative intelligence, theirgoodwill and their co-operation. All of which has anadverse effect on productivity.

The nature of work is a political issue and we need toput the whole question of democracy at work centrestage of our policy programme. As citizens we wantto be empowered in our neighbourhoods andcommunities and we want to carry that samedemocratic right into our workplaces. This I believe isa contemporary issue not least because of the constanttechnological developments seeking to remove the‘human’ aspect of work. Whether you are asupermarket worker, middle manager, cleaner orcarpenter you seek more control over your work. Themore control, the more self-esteem and satisfactionand the greater the efficiency and productivity. Thosesocieties who strive to democratise the workplace willultimately achieve better economic performance andsocial cohesion.

Local organising and coalition building

Single issue pressure groups weren’t as commonduring the creation and growth of general unionism.Today’s trade unions sometimes engage with orsupport the work of pressure groups but usually thisis in areas where trade unions believe that the pressuregroup in question has more expertise or it ispolitically expedient to engage with it, albeittemporarily. It is my view that it would help tradeunion organising if trade unions were to build morecoalitions with groups that share our values ofcollectivism for the common good. This would be avery fruitful two-way street – unions using theirpolitical influence and their resources to assist groupsin the community who are fighting back on behalf ofthe people they wish to organise in the workplace.

This is especially true of the millions of unorganisedworkers in the service sector, many of whom have no

experience or knowledge of the benefits of tradeunionism. To be an effective power in the land tradeunions can no longer stand isolated with decliningpower bases in diminishing workplaces.

I do not for one minute advocate the slightest moveaway from the essential trade union emphasis onmaintaining and building workplace organisation,which would be the last redoubt in the face of anyfuture anti-democratic coalition of state and corporatepower. However, in order to maintain and build onthe trade union bulwark for democracy, we need toseek alliances with those that advocate on behalf ofthe disenfranchised, the powerless, the dispossessedand the oppressed in favour of efforts towardsequality and greater quality of life for all of ourcitizens wherever they live and whoever they workfor and in whatever circumstances. This wouldrequire trade unions to accept that in somecircumstances we should provide resources and share,and sometimes cede, authority in some areas ofactivity in recognition that other organisations arebetter structured and equipped to operate in thecommunity than we are. That is the essence ofcoalition building – enacting tactical decisions tosupport the strategic objective of growing power onbehalf of working people.

We have to break out of our remaining strongholdsand build alliances before we become too weakbecause of lack of effective organising. This wouldneed trade unions to review and renew our purpose,to become lean organising machines and to moveaway from unnecessary and ineffective structures – tostop looking inwards, getting excited and mesmerisedby internal institutional issues while the world passesus by. We should be looking outwards towards anexciting, demanding and enthralling new chapter thatwould make our founders proud.

A good example of effective coalition building is theCitizens Organising Foundation (COF), which joinedwith unions and community groups in variouscampaigns through its London Citizens Network(LCN). COF is in the process of building networks in anumber of cities, but it started in east London throughthe establishment of The East London CommunitiesOrganisation (TELCO) and developed the ‘LivingWage’ campaign. The ‘Living Wage’ is presently set at£7.05 per hour and represents a level of pay andconditions that would enable a full-time worker living inLondon to provide for themselves and their family. TheTELCO campaign for cleaners in east London hospitalsled Unison to join forces with TELCO.





The coalition helped bring about an increase in wagesfrom £5 per hour in 2003 to £7.48 per hour in 2006.The campaign included a mobilising march of 600local people in support of ‘their’ cleaners. In CanaryWharf and the City of London, London Citizenslinked up with the TGWU and as a result cleaners atBarclays, Deutche Bank, HSBC, KPMG, LehmanBrothers, Lovells, Morgan Stanley, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers and the Royal Bank of Scotland all receivedwage increases. Most of them got the ‘Living Wage’,as well as 28 days’ paid holiday. Organising iscontinuing until these workers receive full sick pay.

The Association of University Teachers (AUT)branch at Queen Mary College joined with TELCOwith support from Unison, the student union and theGeography Department to campaign on behalf of thecleaning staff. The campaign included a video letter, amarch and a demonstration to lobby the CollegeCouncil, which resulted in talks being held leading toan agreement to work toward the ‘Living Wage’ bythe end of 2007. London Citizens has now established‘assemblies’ in south and west London as well asBirmingham. For a small, under-resourcedorganisation they certainly punch above their weight.

These union and community coalitions have made areal difference to workers’ lives, resulting in higherwages, better conditions and dignity and respect atwork. This has been achieved with fewer resourcesthan a traditional trade union approach would take.The purpose, determination and dedication thatLondon Citizens apply to their work is veryimpressive and produces resonance within thecommunities they assist to empower. They havecredibility and relevance with some of the hard toreach workers we should be aspiring to organise.

Although this is only a small beginning, LondonCitizens and these unions have demonstrated theeffectiveness and massive potential of trade union andcommunity coalition building. The organisationalgovernance of London Citizens is based on open anddemocratic assemblies. They are lean (too lean theymight complain!), light and can respond quickly toopportunities and challenges. If the trade unions arethe Heavy Armour, LCN and their like are the LightInfantry and we could do worse than be humbleenough to understand what we can learn from themand from many other effective, small, community-based organisations and start building sustainablerelationships for the benefit of workers andcommunities.

Another example of how a union can join with otherorganisations to defend and empower working peopleagainst corporate power and the indifference ofpoliticians and the state has been set by the GMB.

The GMB joined up with Friends of the Earth,Banana Link, the New Economics Foundation, Waron Want and the Small and Family Farming Alliance,among others in Tescopoly. This coalition alertscommunities to the activities of the Tescosupermarket chain. One of the campaigns involveddefending Queens Market in east London, which hadbeen threatened with demolition to make way for yetanother supermarket. A New Economics Foundationsurvey found that the market generated £9 million offood supply to the local community at half the priceavailable in the supermarkets. The market not onlyprovides an essential economic service to workers butis also an integral part of the community, so itssurvival was important to the whole community’squality of life.

So far in this pamphlet I have set out a case forchange, the platforms on which we could organiseand the responsibility of the movement to go beyondits members and address wider challenges. The finalsection explains how this might be achieved.

As long as there is strong workplace organisation andan informed and active membership governing anddirecting unions there will always be a strong tradeunion movement.

To ensure that we have a future based on ourstrengths we have to reduce the corporate structure oftrade unions to the bare minimum commensuratewith an efficient and functioning lay memberdemocracy. We need to de-construct institutionalismand direct more resources towards the support ofworkplace reps and the development of workplaceorganisation and leaders and the millions of theunorganised.

Contrary to some views I believe that a practical,participative membership democracy is notincompatible with the centralised and efficient use ofthe resources generated and owned by themembership. I appreciate that every organisation,however small, needs a structure, but George

Part IV:A new unionarchitecture


[24 www.compassonline.org.uk E [email protected]

Woodcock’s words still ring true: ‘Structure is afunction of purpose.’ And whereas I have an idealisticobjection to Robert Michels’ ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’I recognise that it has an obvious rationality at itscore. However, if an organisation that has become aninstitution starts failing then there is a need toreadjust the emphasis back towards the ideologicaland organisational impetus that gave it birth and madeit successful in the first place.

Trade unions have deal with the acquisition and use ofpower on behalf of working people and the onlysource of that power and its legitimacy is massmembership of working people and real democraticaccountability – not institutional self-interest. I refutethe doomsayers’ view that leadership among workingpeople is diminishing. Every workplace has leadersand the challenge for an organising union is toidentify, recruit and develop them. But the culture ofinstitutionalism does not welcome new, unpredictable,independent and dynamic individuals. By definitionleaders want to get things done and thereforerepresent a challenge to the status quo. They do notwant to attend endless meetings and get bogged downby process. An organising union actively seeks andencourages leaders and their energy and clears awayany obstacle that might impede them in theirorganising efforts.

Embracing new technology

Communications and information technology (CIT)makes a lot of our challenges easier to meet. We canuse it to mobilise, organise, communicate, involve andeducate our members, and to deal efficiently withmoney and resources. Many CIT savvy local activistshave had their own branch websites for many years.Unison, the Communication Workers Union (CWU)and others are getting more of their branches online.We need to speed up development and use thiscapacity to its maximum. All unions could start bypooling members’ email addresses and mobile phonenumbers for the purpose of establishing a nationaldatabase, via the TUC, which could grow into apowerful campaigning tool.

The employment profile of non-members is veryvaried. One category of non-member includes thosewho are self-employed or work in consultancy typeemployment. Workers in this group might be lookingfor professional support and advice on tax, insurance,contract law, as well as occupational health and safetyand the other core trade union services of advocacyand representation. They may well be unaware of the

relevance and value of collectivism to their lives. Themembership needs of this group are going to bedifferent from those of others who are not tradeunion members. For example those working on short-term contracts or employed by agencies may wellhave numeracy and literacy difficulties or English as asecond language. They are paid at or near theminimum wage, often have difficulties with housingand health, and require benefit advice. People in eitherof these groups may be portfolio working forcompletely different reasons.

I am not suggesting that these two scenarios reflectthe experience of a majority of people at work inBritain today but they do illustrate that the ‘one sizefits all trade union membership’ is not as relevant as itonce was. The ‘hour glass’ analogy that somecommentators have identified is illustrative of today’sreality. The homogenous working class no longerexists. However, the vast majority of people at workshare a community of needs in their daily efforts towring a better standard of living for themselves andtheir families as well as economic and social justicefrom a society becoming increasingly centred onconsumerism and the insatiable appetite of corporateprofit. The future of our trade union movementdepends on whether or not we can meet those needs.There could be a virtual branch for self-employed orcontract-based members, which they could accessthrough their membership.

The same process could be used in organisingcampaigns for those at the bottom of the economy.We have yet to realise comprehensively the potentialof the ever-developing CIT. Many migrant workersare daily visitors to internet cafés and depend onemail and the web for keeping in touch with theirfamilies and conducting their affairs. For much lessthan the price of bus fares to and from branchmeetings members could have meaningful engagementwith and ownership of the organisations they pay tomaintain. The mobile phone is now thecommunication tool of first choice and text ‘alerts’ area useful means to direct people to further informationon websites, as the CWU is currently doing in itscampaign against the privatisation of the Post Office.Union structures could apply a combination of bothoptions and voting; people could be involved either inperson or through the web.

There are some very good examples of this in thenational and international movements. Labourstarthas established itself as the premier internationalinformation and campaigning web-based organisation





for trade unions worldwide, and hasvolunteer contributors who writeinformation articles aboutcampaigns, struggles anddevelopments. Trade unionistsaround the world provide their emailaddresses to keep informed. Thislarge and developing webcommunity can be activated withinhours. The recent victory of securityworkers in Indonesia was helpedenormously by the level ofinternational trade union support.Included in that were the 6,400emails from Labourstart subscribers.

Unions could start poolingmembers’ email addresses andmobile numbers for the purpose ofestablishing a national database,which could grow into a powerfulcampaigning tool. There would be some objectionsand obstacles to setting up such a database but itsvery existence would draw voluntary responses fromactivists who would want to support it when theyrecognised its potential.

While union governance structures need to changeradically so do the working environments of the staffand officer corps. Most full-time officers have atraditional office and a secretary. Many of them nowhave mobile phones – generally the most sophisticatedpiece of IT equipment available to them, althoughthere are huge differences between trade unions,gender and generations. However, many officers havenever had training and some have never had theopportunity to become administratively self-sufficient. A trade union structure based onworkplace organisation and organising does not needtraditional offices or daily access to secretaries.

Today’s union payroll is bigger than it was in the1970s yet it is not uncommon to hear complaintsfrom full-time officers (FTOs) of being overburdened. The reason for this is that in the sameperiod there has been a massive decline in the numberof workplace reps and therefore FTOs have beenpulled into workplaces to carry out what areessentially shop steward functions. The flow ofresources to workplace organisation would enablestewards and other workplace leaders to providemore, if not all, of the servicing function. Mostofficers understand that where there is effective andefficient workplace organisation members receive a

direct service and have little or noneed to contact ‘the office’ or theofficer. One of the objectives inreleasing more resources to theworkplace would be gradually totransfer servicing demands away fromthe officers to workplace leaders. Theever increasing numbers of tradeunion learning reps and workplacelearning centres are constantlydeveloping potential leaders amongunion membership.

Officers with more time andappropriate CIT support would findthemselves able to become muchmore active in organising in nonunion sectors and companies. Manyofficers are not computer literate letalone comfortable with constantlyexpanding CIT capacity. Officers

equipped with satellite navigation, laptop ornotebook, internet telephony and a mobile phonewould be able to manage their duties much moreeffectively. More investment in CIT training shouldbecome a priority. Also CIT competent officers needa lot less administrative support and reliance onsecretarial backup. In many cases officials who have asecretary have one because of their perceived statusrather than because of any organisational necessity.Therefore assessment of need should be the criteriaand those secretaries who are no longer required foradministrative duties should be offered organisertraining. During my time as an official many of thesecretaries (all women) I came across had moreknowledge and a greater empathy with themembership than some of the officers (mostly men).

The TUC trade union reps’ email list([email protected]) is a fine example of usingCIT to provide a direct service to workplace reps. Itinforms and enables workplace leaders to shareinformation, experiences and successful strategies atthe touch of a button. If access is easy, people will getinvolved through self-interest. To develop that self-interest into an understanding of the prevailing powerstructures and concern for and on behalf of othermembers is part of the organising agenda and theprocess of political education. All papers, documents,decisions, balance sheets and accounts should be madeavailable to the membership over the web. Opennessand transparency should be the watchwords of anyorganisation that purports to have democracy as acore value. The era of the blog is with us and some

“The homogenous workingclass no longer exists.

However, the vast majorityof people at work share a

community of needs in theirdaily efforts to wring a better

standard of living forthemselves and their families as well as economic and social

justice from a societybecoming increasingly

centred on consumerism andthe insatiable appetite of

corporate profit”



leaders are enthusiastically embracing thisopportunity to keep the membership informed oftheir activities and what their union is up to. BillyHayes of the CWU and Judy McKnight of Napo aretwo high-profile trade union bloggers who are usingthis new communication tool to help break downdisengagement and distrust.

We should aim to increase our organisingproductivity and maximise our resources to supportthat same goal. Equally the work of former secretarialand support staff could be directed to frontline orworkplace engagement, following appropriatetraining. The more committed and trained peoplethere are in the field directed by a clear andunambiguous organising agenda the more able we willbe to meet our challenges. If the officer corps weretrained in CIT staffing levels and office space could bereduced at national, regional and local level. Officescould be sold and/or unused floor space could beleased. The first option would release more cash tohelp fund organisational changes and the secondreduce operating costs.

Many union officers and staff were active members oftheir unions before they became full-time employeesand probably were among the more vociferousmembers. Understandably the transition to employedstatus brings new responsibilities and undueinterference from officers in the governance anddeliberations of a union has to be avoided. However,there should be a space to provide opportunities forofficers and staff to bring their creative intelligence tobear on contemporary issues and challenges withinthe movement without incurring the wrath of theleadership.

Many of these full timers have a lifetime’scommitment to trade unionism and by dint of theirrole are closer to the membership than the leadership.Their collective experience and intelligence representsan enormous resource, which could be tapped moreextensively.

Putting collectivism into practice

Because of the competitiveness inherent in the UKtrade union movement we have never fully realisedthe benefits of effective institutional co-operationbetween unions. That has also been reflected in howwe have used our resources and deployed ourservices. Competitiveness demands that each unionclaims to provide better services than other unions.This of course precludes unions co-operating to

provide the best services collectively. If we are toidentify the resources we need to be radical, then wehave to develop some basic housekeeping rules to getourselves in order. All trade unions have to procuresimilar goods and services from stationery to carpetsand from cars to computer systems.

We should pool our needs and form one procurementagency to buy on behalf of the whole movement. Intime we could offer the service to other voluntaryorganisations, community groups and NGOs thatshared our values. The enormous buying power of theagency would secure enormous savings, which couldbe used for our organisational objectives. EquallyCIT hardware and systems could be standardised,which would assist communications and the exchangeof information. The deals that could be made oninternet telephony, mobile phones, BlackBerrydevices, laptops and so on would assist the efficiencyof the movement and would also aid the process ofamalgamation if that was an organisational objective. Icannot see any good reason why we shouldn’t startmoving towards that goal. Equally all unions providea similar range of services – legal, health and safety,research, pensions and so on – yet we have nevercombined to provide them centrally.

Trade unions are rightly proud of our legal serviceprovision. This essential service could be combined,put out to tender and two or three trade-union-friendly large companies and/or a co-operative ofsmaller companies be selected to provide an evenbetter and wider range of services for our members.The same could be done for pensions departments.The movement would have overall control of theseservices, which need not be located in London butbased in the countries and regions of the UK.

The ‘back office’ operations of unions mirror eachother – admin, computer, personnel, research and soon – and could also be shared and provided under acommon agency. This could represent a furtheropportunity and role for the TUC. Again theobjective would be to create better service provisionand make operating cost savings. Clearlystandardising all service provision throughout themovement is no small task and would take time, but ifwe are to establish organising as our prime objectivethen we have to realise the resources to do that. Theprice of membership in the UK has always beenrelatively cheap and our members have becomeaccustomed to these levels of subscription. We shouldconsider arriving at a common tariff of subscriptionsand then increase it annually. This would be more





acceptable if we were able to provide better and widerservices as a result.

Key to the purpose is the objective of reducing anyoperating costs that do not have an audit trail in orderto develop our organisation as opposed tomaintaining institutions. All the proposals I haveoutlined have the double attraction that not only dothey reduce costs but they are also a practicalmanifestation of our collectivism.

Our sense of collectivism and solidarity and belief inprogressive principles means we should consider auniversal sliding scale of membership subscriptionsimilar to that which Unison operates. This slidingscale could be based on a percentage of incomecontained within a maximum and a minimum. Such asystem would gel with our sense of fairness andwould reflect the wide range of incomes among ourmembers in our ‘hour glass’ economy.

Redesigning the architecture of the movement

If individual trade unions were to undergotransformation would they be any more successful inorganising, growing and representing than other tradeunions? This is where we have to face anotherchallenge.

The British trade union movement is still locked inthe deadly embrace of duplication and competition,which will slowly but surely deny us a future. Thetraditional response to failing trade unions andattempts to avoid duplication and competition is toamalgamate. Amalgamation clearly offers theopportunity to avoid duplication and competitionamong the merger partners, but the merged tradeunion still finds itself in the same competitiveenvironment. Amalgamated trade unions often createa hybrid structure to satisfy institutional sensitivitiesof the partners, or the dominant partner imposes itsstructure and simply accommodates the incomer.What results is that two failing institutions havesimply bolted together structures that are part andparcel of the reasons of failure.

I believe amalgamation can be a successful strategybut it has to be based on some clear preconditions:

• that there is a demonstrable benefit to the members

• that a new structure is developed that enables thenew trade union to be fit for purpose

• that it is centred on workplace and communityorganising

• that it invests heavily in the identification anddevelopment of informed, competent and confidentworkplace leaders

• that it enables the resources of the union to be re-invested in organising and the members, not theinstitution

• that a substantial proportion of the operatingbudget is dedicated to organising

• that the union doesn’t spend more than its incomeduring a financial year.

There are other considerations but these representsome basic building blocks. The question of how thetrade union movement is organised is fundamental tothe question of whether we will be able to continue tobe effective advocates on behalf of people at work inthe twenty-first century. There is an enormouscontradiction at the heart of the movement whichquestions a fundamental principle in which we allprofess to believe: collectivism. I do not know of anytrade unionist of any political persuasion that doesn’tcherish our adherence to unity of endeavour. Yet wehave allowed ourselves to be dogged from the verybeginning by competition and this inherentcontradiction has to be resolved if we are to growstronger.

I believe this is part of the reason we are in decline –duplication of effort and waste of resources, poachingof members, mutual suspicion at every level,sometimes outright hostility. To what end? Ifcompetition has been instrumental to our declinecould a renewed commitment to collectivism revitaliseour vision and our purpose?

The response to our need to bring some order to ourstructure has been the process of amalgamation andtransfers of engagements. Notwithstanding the factthat there have been mergers that have rationalised thearchitecture of the movement, for example Unison increating a major public sector union, the fact ofgeneral decline in membership demonstrates thatmergers on their own are just part of the answer.While they provide short- to medium-term strategiesfor two or three unions they do nothing to addressthe challenges facing the whole movement.



If we were to apply collectivism to the question ofmovement structure we might arrive at a verydifferent solution. If we continue this wastefulprocess of competition it will continue to erode ourresources and undermine the organisational andpolitical effectiveness of the movement. We have adecision to make. We can either accept the basicconcepts and values of capitalism – which iscompetition in an open market and devil take thehindmost – as a strategy to preserve individualinstitutional security, or we can abide by ouroriginating values of co-operation and collectivismand face the organising challenge together byregulating our behaviour and putting the interests ofworking people above individual ambition andinstitutional self-interest.

Single union environments

In order to grow and prosper the movement shouldconsider agreeing to work within distinct spheres oforganisation and influence. In other words distinctcategories of employment or economic sector couldbecome the preserve of one or, by agreement, moreunions. No-one should underestimate the enormouschallenge that such a proposal might create but Ibelieve the issue needs addressing as a matter ofurgency.

My early experience as a young shop steward was onmulti-union construction sites. As an official I wasoften involved in the same multi-union scenarios.Mostly there were good inter-union relationships andcomradeship. However, having up to five officersfrom different unions at the negotiating table alwaysstruck me as being a nonsense. Thankfully those typesof situations do not arise as often as they used to, butwhere there are two or more unions present in anyworkplace there is always a risk of duplication ofresources at the very least, and outright hostility andinstitutional competition at worst. Working peoplewant a strong, purposeful and professional union intheir workplace. Most are not bothered what union isrepresenting them, or what it is called so long as it iseffective. If collectivism was to become ourrediscovered guide we could work toward single tradeunion environments or SITUEs.

SITUEs would eliminate duplication and competitionand allow unions to concentrate all their resourcesand energies on organising in their identified area ofthe economy without distraction. The SITUEstructure, along with previous proposals for sharedprocurement, service delivery, back office functions

and so on, could provide the TUC with asupplemental but crucial role as a procurer, regulatorand arbitrator. Such a role would enable the TUC toplay an effective, proactive part in assisting allaffiliates to organise and grow.

The TUC continues to play an important role as theauthoritative voice of the British trade unionmovement, which draws strength from the fact thatthe TUC unites all affiliates under one non-sectarianumbrella. Unlike many other national movements ithas no competitor institution. This is an enviableposition and should not be under-valued or taken forgranted. The TUC is also ideally placed to provideinfrastructure support to affiliates to enable them toconcentrate on organising, not least because it remainsrespected and trusted by affiliates large and small.

The new structure would require a central regulatoryauthority, developed under the authority of the TUC,which would examine the claims of unions toexclusivity in a particular area, make assessments andissue recommendations. It would in effect act as aclearing house. Prior to submission unions would beencouraged to ‘swap’ membership. For example twounions with local authority membership may agree tomembership transfers between two local authorities,A and B. As a result one would gain exclusivity rightsin A and the other in B and two SITUEs would becreated. Such an arrangement would benefit allconcerned and allow unhampered concentration inorganising the non trade union employees in bothauthorities.

Similarly private sector unions could come toagreement, company by company or sector by sector,in order to concentrate their resources effectively. Insome sectors of the economy some unions arestronger in different parts of the country and a similarunderstanding could take place to allow geographicalSITUEs. Applications for SITUEs would beaccompanied by medium- and long-term organisingplans over a defined period. These plans wouldinclude appropriate costings and identified resources.On acceptance of the application the union would begranted free rein until the end of the defined period(say 2–3 years) and its performance would then besubject to review in order to establish whetherorganising targets were being achieved and if themembers were getting good service. If it was apparentthat this wasn’t the case, the union would be givenadvice and support and the period would be extendedin order to have the opportunity to improve or loseexclusivity.





Such a structure would provide the movement with aself-regulatory structure based on organisationaloutcomes while avoiding accusations of monopoly. Iftwo or more unions believed it would best serve theinterests of the membership and develop organising ifonly one union was operating within a company thathad several locations, or indeed within an entiresector, they would need to take certain actions.

First they should establish whether the respectivememberships would be agreeable to a SITUE. Nextthey would have to decide which union would remainand which would withdraw. This stage would only beachievable if the departing union was offered a similarset of circumstances elsewhere.

If all these conditions were met a SITUE would havebeen achieved. If however a union wanted to create aSITUE but couldn’t get an incumbent union(s) toagree, they would have to take another route. Theywould need to develop an organising and strategyproposal and put it before the CRA. In this event anyunion(s) resisting the SITUE would need to put acounter proposal before the CRA to enable it to makean assessment and issue a ruling.

However I believe that in practice this proposedregulatory structure would open up so manyopportunities that unions would make realisticassessments about their respective positions. Indeed insome (many?) cases unions would privately be pleasedto divest themselves of minority membershipresponsibilities and be able to re-allocate resources.Therefore I believe very few cases would go forwardfor adjudication. As part of this process each unionwould also be required to identify sectors andemployers with no, low or weak organisation andsubmit an organising plan. This would ensure twothings: there would be a balance of rights andresponsibilities; and the movement would begin todevelop organising strategies for the whole of theeconomy, including those where we have thus farfailed to make an impact.

There may be some circumstances where one unionmight want to agree to a SITUE but be concernedabout a short- to medium-term reduction inmembership income. In this eventuality a mechanismcould be agreed whereby the departing union isguaranteed a level of income from the union in theSITUE – again this process would be overseen by theCRA.

A proposal for a structure for the implementation andregulation of a SITUE is given below. In allcircumstances the process would have to be informedby two guiding principles. The collective interests ofthe membership where a SITUE is agreed and thecollective benefit to the movement would need to takeprecedence over all other considerations.

If a SITUE is created existing membership of anotherunion would not be a liability and would not bediscouraged. However, by agreeing to a SITUE otherunions would, de facto, undertake not to put time andresources into the SITUE unless it was for thepurpose of individual representation of an existingmember if so requested.

Over time the presence of other unions would reduceand disappear. In the circumstances where a majorityof members declared for a SITUE it would be self-evident that it would be in the collective interest totransfer membership. Notwithstanding that, everyconsideration should be given to members who wishto retain their own union membership. Memberstransferring would not lose benefit rights and wouldhave continuity of membership. If during a period ofSITUE members became dissatisfied they would haveaccess to internal union procedures. If they remaindissatisfied they would have recourse to the CRA ifthey had the support of at least 50 per cent of thetotal membership. They would have the right to statetheir case before the CRA and in that event theappellant membership would receive advice andadministrative support from the CRA.

The TUC would be responsible for establishing theCRA. It would have two main functions. The primaryone would be as the authoritative body responsiblefor directing, administering and authorising theprocess of change. The secondary one would be toadjudicate in the event of disputes. The TUC’s CRArole would enable it to play an effective role inassisting all affiliates to organise and grow.

I believe that this proposal would enable themovement to make decisions about the effectiverationalisation of resources, in order to focus ongrowing the movement through increasing themembership in organised areas as well as being able toorganise better in companies and sectors of theeconomy where we are weak or non existent.



Membership of the Full Council and Disputes panelThe CRA Full Council would be composed of:

• the TUC General Secretary and an independentlabour lawyer as joint chairs• the TUC Executive Council• labour lawyers, industrial relations academics, ACAS• the Secretariat – provided by the TUC.

The Disputes Panel would be composed of:

• joint chairs• three Executive Council members• one labour lawyer, one industrial relations academic,one ACAS nominee• the Secretariat.

Procedure

1. Unions would be invited to examine their areas ofmembership, identify their realistic prospects andmake decisions about the transfers of membershipthat they consider would ultimately benefit themembers and their organisational efficiency.

2. Members be consulted and balloted if necessary.3. Unions would negotiate and if they come to

agreement submit the transfers to the Full Council forapproval and registration. The Secretariat would beavailable for advice to assist agreement if requested.

4. The Disputes Panel would be available to listen toclaims for a SITUE in companies where unions havenot been able to come to mutual agreement. TheCouncil would have the authority to defer compliancewith a Panel decision if a union was able todemonstrate that its immediate compliance wouldthreaten its organisational stability.

5. An independent appeal system would beavailable, nominated from an approved panel.

6. In the event of a successful appeal the matterwould be referred back to the Full Council withrecommendations.

In this pamphlet I have put forward some ideas abouthow the movement could meet some of the challengesthat face us. None of them are intended to beprescriptive and none of them are exclusive. They areintended to contribute to the debate that has to haveas its outcome a stronger, more powerful and moreeffective movement.

I recognise that many innovative initiatives have andare being taken and that much hard work is going onat every level. I also recognise that leaders at everylevel rarely have the time to read, reflect, consider,develop and broadcast their own ideas oncontemporary trade unionism. It is my contentionthat we remain strong but we are also failing and oneof the reasons for that is because our efforts aren’tcollective efforts. They are efforts on behalf ofindividual trade unions and not on behalf of themovement.

For the trade union movement to grow we all need togrow together. Individual success won’t protect andpromote the interests of working people let alone thepolitical power we need to mobilise on their behalf. Ifwe ally a practical commitment to collectivism to anacceptance that our unions are a means to an end andnot ends in themselves, then I believe the need tochange our behaviour and structures becomes self-evident. The suggestions I have put forward are acombination of the practical and the philosophical.The practical ideas are simply designed to deliver thefollowing outcomes:

• maximise the efficiency of service delivery• provide more accessible and flexible engagement formembers’ activity in governance and the workplace• provide stronger international structures designedto stand up against the transnational corporations• provide more effective and enduring alliances withNGOs and civic and community groups• release more resources for organising and growingthe membership in every union• build stronger workplace organisation• construct a stronger political power base.

The philosophy underpinning these practicalsuggestions is simply one of collectivism andsolidarity. I don’t think that this constitutes a veryradical agenda, rather it combines our foundingprinciples with an acceptance that change is ourconstant companion. However, I do believe that weare at a watershed and we either recognise ourresponsibility to act or the movement will continue toweaken.

As no trade unionist wants the latter, the challenge forus all is clear. I look forward to a future that willwitness a strong, energised, exciting and dynamictrade union movement, which continues to be aneffective guardian for working people and thedetermined agent of social and political progress.


Conclusion




Kevin B. Curran has been active in the Trade

Union Movement all his adult life and has

represented and negotiated on behalf of working

people at most levels from the shopfloor as a

steward to the Warwick Agreement as a general

secretary.

He is a committed European and Internationalist

and now works for the International Union of

Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering,

Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF).

Kevin is 52 and has been married to June for 29

years; he has an adult son and daughter. He lists

his interests as trees and wood, running and

reading, ‘allotmenteering’ Crystal Palace F.C. and

enjoying the company of friends and family.

About the author



Compass is an umbrella of organisations andindividuals who believe in greater equality anddemocracy. Listed below are some of theorganisations who have been involved withCompass or who think are operating in aninteresting and complimentary space.

Active Citizens Transform (ACT)[email protected] / 020 7278 5788

Amicus35 King Street, Covent Garden WC2E 8JG/ amicustheunion.org

Catalyst catalystforum.org.uk /[email protected] / 020 7733 2111

Centre for Reformcfr.org.uk / [email protected] / 020 7631 3566

Citizen’s Income Trust www.citizensincome.org / [email protected]/ 020 8305 1222

Citizens For Europenew-politics.net/campaigns/ citizens-for-europe / [email protected] / 020 7278 4443

Comprehensive Future comprehensivefuture.fsnet.co.uk /[email protected]

Co-operative Party co-op-party.org.uk /[email protected] / 020 7357 0230

CWUcwu.org / [email protected] / 020 8971 7200

Demosdemos.co.uk / [email protected] / 0845 4585 949

Electoral Reform Societyelectoral-reform.og.uk / [email protected] / 020 7928 1622

Fabian Society fabian-society.org.uk / [email protected]/ 020 7227 4900

Fawcett Societyfawcettsociety.org.uk / [email protected] / 020 7253 2598

Foreign Policy Centre fpc.org.uk / [email protected] / 020 7388 6662

IPPR ippr.org / [email protected] / 020 7470 6100

Joseph Rowntree Reform Trustjrrt.org.uk / [email protected] / 01904 625 744

Labour Partylabour.org.uk / [email protected] / 08705 900 200

Labour Students labourstudents.org.uk /[email protected] / 020 7802 1234

Local Government Associationlga.gov.uk / [email protected] / 020 7664 3000

Make Votes Count makevotescount.org.uk / [email protected]/ 020 7928 2076

NUT nut.org.uk / 020 7388 6191

NEF neweconomics.org.uk / [email protected] / 020 7820 6300

New Local Government Networknlgn.org.uk / [email protected] / 020 7357 0051

New Politics Networknew-politics.net / [email protected] /

New Statesman newstatesman.co.uk /[email protected] / 020 7730 3444

Opinion Leader Researchopinionleader.co.uk / [email protected] / 020 7861 3080

POWER Inquiry powerinquiry.org /[email protected] / 0845 345 5307

Progress progressives.org.uk /[email protected] / 020 7808 7780

Renewal renewal.org.uk / [email protected]

Save the Labour Party savethelabourparty.org /[email protected] / 01254 388 474

SERA sera.org.uk / [email protected] /020 7263 7389

Socialist Educational Associationsocialisteducation.co.uk / [email protected]

Social Market Foundation smf.co.uk /020 7222 7060

Soundings lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/contents.html / [email protected] /020 8533 2506

TELCO telcocitizens.org.uk / [email protected] / 020 7375 1658

TUCtuc.org.uk / 020 7636 4030

The Smith Institute smith-institute.org.uk /[email protected] / 020 7823 4240

Unions 21 unions21.org.uk /[email protected] / 020 7278 9944

Unison unison.org.uk / 0845 355 0845


Useful contacts




About Compass

Compass is the new democratic left pressuregroup, whose goal is to both debate and developthe ideas for a more equal and democratic society,then campaign and organise to help ensure theybecome reality.

We organise regular events and conferences thatprovide real space to discuss policy, we producethought provoking pamphlets and we encouragedebate through online discussions on ourwebsite. We campaign, take positions and leadthe debate on key issues facing the democraticleft. We’re developing a coherent and strongvoice, for those that believe in greater equalityand democracy as the means to achieve radicalsocial change.

We are:

• An umbrella grouping of the progressive

left whose sum is greater than its parts.

• A strategic political voice – unlike thinktanks

and single issue pressure groups Compass

can and must develop a politically coherent

position based on the values of equality and

democracy.

• An organising force – Compass recognises

that ideas need to be organised for and will

seek to recruit, mobilise and encourage to be

active, a membership across the UK to work

in pursuit of greater equality and democracy.

• A pressure group focussed on changing

Labour – but recognises that energy and ideas

can come from outside the party, not least the

200,000 who have left since 1997.

The central belief of Compass is that things willonly change when people believe they can andmust make a difference themselves. In the wordsof Gandhi

‘Be the Change You Wishto See in the World’

CompassFREEPOST LON15823LondonE9 5BRt: 020 463 0633e: [email protected]: www.compassonline.org.uk


DEMOCRATIC LEFT




Waged (SO / Paypal) – £27.50

Waged (Cheque / PO) – £32.50

Unwaged (SO / Paypal) – £12.50

Unwaged (Cheque / PO) – £17.50

Organisation (i.e. CLP; think-tank; NGO) – £42.50

Please contribute generously. Compass relies on individual members for funding. Minimum

joining rates are suggested below. To join Compass simply complete and return this form

to Compass, FREEPOST LON15823, London E9 5BR. Please pay by standing order if at all

possible so that a regular income can be counted on.

I’m not eligible to be a member of the Labour Party (i.e. you’re member of a different political party)and I would like to become an Associate Member of Compass (with no voting rights).

NAME

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NO

EMAIL

LABOUR PARTY CLP

Standing Order InstructionsPlease pay immediately by standing order to Compass’ account, Lloyds TSB, 32 Oxford Street,London W1A 2LD (a/c 02227769, sort code 30-98-71) the sum of £27.50 / £12.50 / other £ (please delete as appropriate) and then annually, unless cancelled by me in writing.

Bank / Building Society Bank Address

Account Name Account Number

Sort Code Signature

Date I enclose a cheque made payable to Compass

Joining form


DEMOCRATIC LEFT



DEMOCRATIC LEFT

Organising to win: a programme for

trade union renewal

£5

77424_Trade Union Cover 4/9/06 4:23 pm Page 1

UNISON’s Positively Public campaign celebrates the achievements of ourmembers in improving public services and aims to put UNISON at the heartof the debate on developing quality public services in the future.

We will do this by developing and promoting positive policies and usingevidence based arguments to challenge government policies that threatenthe provision and quality of our public services.

Join UNISON today Tel: 0845 355 0845(Textphone 0800 096 7968) www.unison.org.uk

Project1 4/9/06 2:22 pm Page 177424_CyanMagentaYellowBlack

Date post:	24-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

77424 Trade Union Pages - Compass€¦ · "To my father Johnny Curran, who remains a constant...

Documents