Well, I must have made it in some way, as I’ve had my first blog visit from an actual union leader! Interestingly though it’s from Patrick Harrington, President of the new ‘British Workers’ Union’, Solidarity.
Patrick (very politely) takes issue with three of my posts, which refer to his union, and has left me some comments to state his case:
He does indeed pull me up correctly on a factual blunder (Solidarity don’t yet have a certificate of independence) and on making too little explanation on why I think Solidarity members will be assumed to be BNP supporters, but I’ve tried to answer his other points in a similar spirit.
True – there are no direct links between Solidarity and the BNP. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence; co-membership by senior figures in Solidarity (though not Patrick himself), the BNP have welcomed and supported the union, and a BNP spokesperson claimed it would quite likely raise funds for the party (though his comments were disowned by Solidarity). So it certainly looks like a BNP front, but can’t be totally proven as such.
It also follows that they certainly won’t restrict membership to BNP supporters, but the close perceived association between the two organisations, and the likelihood that the current high levels of BNP internal publicity for the union means that many early members are BNP supporters, will I believe cause a lot of people who aren’t BNP (or at least other right nationalist) supporters to be extremely reluctant to have anything to do with it, for fear they will be assumed to be a supporter too.
The recent ASLEF legal win on their right to expel a BNP activist doesn’t mean that there’s no longer any point for political dissidents in joining unions – just those political dissidents whose political activities are in direct opposition to the union’s platform.
Patrick believes that unions should be speaking out about the impact of Eastern European migrant workers, which he believes is depressing working conditions for others. I’d counter that this is exactly what many unions are doing, based on principles of solidarity – the ideal rather than the union ;). Defend migrants from exploitation by bad bosses and demand the same conditions for them. Tackle undercutting in this way and you’ll be safeguarding better conditions for everyone.
Spot on John. Any organisation which starts from the basis that it wants to divide rather than unite workers does not deserve to be described as a trade union.
In fact though the Union enjoys considerable support from the BNP many others are joining. BNP support is based on the fact that we will not discriminate on political grounds. This certainly gives us one base of support but it doesn’t restrict us. Many people have told us that they have a degree of sympathy for the BNP as a balancing pressure group but would never join them. Others have said that they would not join the BNP due to fear that their jobs would be at risk but have no problem with joining us. Even amongst BNP support (in the widest sense) the picture is quite varied.
Additionally, I don’t believe that the BNP are seeking to create a ‘front group’. There position is far more complex in this case. They see the value of an independent Union which treats their members fairly and campaigns for the interests of workers in this country.
Others are joining and don’t seem to be put-off in the way you predict. In particular we are attracting recruits from ethnic minority backgrounds. I have taken a personal interest in encouraging this.
As far as migrant workers are concerned I wrote an FAQ for the Union website on this subject. It specifically answered the point that seems to be being made here ‘Why don’t we just recruit them?’
Let me quote (myself!):-
“We feel that this policy is unlikely to succeed. It is difficult to persuade the new migrant workers of the benefits of union membership. Many Unions have problems recruiting workers generally but migrants pose a particular problem for the following reasons: –
First, they know that if they lose their job before they have completed the 12 months qualification period for any kind of rights or benefits, they often have to go back home. During this 12-month period what a Union can do for them is also limited.
Second, half of all registered workers say they do not intend to stay in the country for more than two years. These workers are likely to want to earn money, send it back and go.
Third, 49% of those registered are in casual jobs, often as agency temps. Agency temps do not have full employment rights.
Fourth, the main advantage to employers in hiring such labour is that it is cheap. By joining a Union and asking for higher rates migrant workers are losing their main selling point.
In Construction an estimated 10 per cent of all workers are A8 migrants. UCATT have recognised the negative effects of this: “every time workers on union-negotiated rates were laid off in favour of low-paid migrant workers it was a propaganda gift to the BNP” (Willie Whalen – Northern Region). Yet there is little evidence that their policy of attempting to recruit migrants has substantially countered or even affected these trends.”
I’m happy to debate this issue as well as the pathetic response to the assault on our pensions and off-shoring. Let people hear the arguments and decide where their best interests lie.
Thanks Patrick. Agreed that organising migrant workers is much harder on many fronts, but many of these problems are shared with other groups of vulnerable workers, and part of the union ideal of solidarity is that we want no-one left behind – unions don’t always just operate on the business case basis. They have less rights for 12 months, but they do have some rights, and a well organised workforce can sort things without always needing to go to law. Also this is where unions acting together come into their own. By banding together into bigger forums, unions have raised the floor in employment law in many areas, tackling these problems on a national scale as well as workplace by workplace. There’s still a lot to do – as you point out temp workers are a glaring omission, but the TUC, TULO, ETUC and others are on the case here too, working for their members and for those who aren’t yet their members.
Well, you say that the TUC are ‘on the case’. It has been a while. They continue to fund Labour without (it seems to us) much return.
I understand where you are coming from. Maybe I’m just more cynical. I don’t think that a strategy of trying to convert cheap labour into (expensive) Union Labour will work in the main.
I note that Germany and France protected their home workforce with restrictions on migrant Labour. Our government didn’t and it is a matter of public record that they hugely underestimated how many people would want to come and work here. If France and Germany had taken more of a share of the A8 workers I would not (personally) have taken such a stance against migrant workers. As it is because of the distortion created by differing national policies we got the short end again. Sorry if pointing this out is seen as impolite but this huge increase in labour supply in a short period has kept down wages. The established Unions playing catch-up isn’t going to do any good. By the time they have recruited significant numbers (presuming they can) the issue will have moved on or become irrelevant.
The bottom line is that companies work for their share-holders and don’t take wider social considerations into account (despite some window-dressing). Ultimately the aim of workers should be to take control of companies through Trusts or Co-operatives (my personal opinion).