Which way now for the unions?

What sort of post-recession society we want to see is a key question for TUC leader Brendan Barber

by Tribune Web Editor
Thursday, September 10th, 2009

What sort of post-recession society we want to see is a key question for TUC leader Brendan Barber

The trade union movement is in a hard place. Far from being the classless recession that was once predicted, this downturn has hit workers in many of the same industries and regions as those of the 1980s and ’90s. Construction, manufacturing and finance are just some of the unionised sectors hit hard.

This leaves unions running fast, but not even standing still. Job losses affect membership and income. Many union officers have found dealing with redundancies has come to dominate their lives. And when they are not doing this, they have to contend with the employers taking advantage of job insecurity to hold down pay, cut pensions or treat people badly in other ways. The private sector has suffered the most, but the public sector – particularly local government – may well be next.

This situation is not going to change in the near future. Britain may well meet the conditions that economists set for a technical recovery by the end of year, but most experts say that unemployment is set to increase throughout 2010. It will take some years – and the right government policies – before we have a chance of getting back to relatively full employment. Perhaps that is something we undervalued, as we had come to take it for granted.

The political situation is fraught, too. I don’t predict elections. But when even ministers say that Labour has only a 50/50 chance of winning the next election, unions need to think through what a change of government or a hung parliament will mean, even while those affiliated to Labour do all they can to stop that happening.

The biggest threat is a switch of economic policy from dealing with the recession to big cuts in public spending. Our argument must be that this will make the recession worse. When business and consumers stop spending, then – as John Maynard Keynes taught us – the public sector must make up the difference. Cutting spending when we are still in the grip of the recession will increase unemployment – and thus spending – and so reduce the tax take.

But while these may be hard times and some tough decisions approach, there is also much going for the union movement. For 30 years, we have faced an economic consensus that was shared in various forms across political parties and through much of the developed world. It gave primacy to markets, was relaxed about inequality and saw deregulation – including legal obstacles to effective trade unionism – as the all-in-one solution to every issue.

That consensus is now in crisis. This economic crash was not part of the normal ups and downs of the business cycle, but caused in bank boardrooms while regulators looked the other way. Now, as Adair Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority put it, we can see that much of what was once celebrated is socially useless.

At the same time, we face runaway climate chaos. Few can now deny that we need urgent action to move to a low-carbon economy and manage that on a global basis. That cannot be done with markets, deregulation and shrinking the state.

So the key question is what kind of post-recession society and economy we want to see and to map out how we get there. Unions have a huge amount to contribute to that. We never fell for neo-liberalism, and the policies needed for the new economic era are exactly those that unions traditionally back and understand.

While the next few years are undoubtedly going to be tough both for ourselves and our members, looking to the longer term, union values and ideas have a crucial role to play in building the politics and the economics of the next phase in our history – as we can already begin to see in the United States under Barack Obama.

I do not expect that to be a smooth, easy or painless process. However, after 30 years, unions have a new opportunity to be part of the solution, not seen as part of the problem. The challenge is to put together a new progressive movement for a low-carbon, globalised and connected world – and that won’t happen without a strong union voice. l

Brendan Barber is general secretary of the TUC

The only place you can read all of Tribune's articles as soon as they are published is in the magazine. To find out more about subscribing from as little as £19, click here.

About The Author

  • angela pinter

    Brendan Barber would be a great deal more convincing if the TUC had not consistently supported a neo liberal government masquerading as New Labour.
    The unions are still foolishly funding a Labour party which has deliberately undermined them by creating a deregulated labour market.

    The truthis that , as Frank Field has stated, there will have tobe cuts in public spending and tax rises at the same tiem. The country is bankrupt. ANd so is the Labour party.

  • angela pinter

    Brendan Barber would be a great deal more convincing if the TUC had not consistently supported a neo liberal government masquerading as New Labour.
    The unions are still foolishly funding a Labour party which has deliberately undermined them by creating a deregulated labour market.

    The truthis that , as Frank Field has stated, there will have tobe cuts in public spending and tax rises at the same tiem. The country is bankrupt. ANd so is the Labour party.

  • Barmy Army

    ‘The unions are still foolishly funding a Labour party which has deliberately undermined them by creating a deregulated labour market.’

    The deregulated Labour market was set up before Labour came to power in 1997. Lets not forget that.

  • Barmy Army

    ‘The unions are still foolishly funding a Labour party which has deliberately undermined them by creating a deregulated labour market.’

    The deregulated Labour market was set up before Labour came to power in 1997. Lets not forget that.

  • Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

    To avoid short term smash and grab tactics which will only weaken the weakest players first I should imagine it is best for all concerned to think much carefully about “efficiency” -as I think the government are doing. One way of looking at “efficiency” in my view which might be useful would be to consider the populist slogans known as “bonus culture” and “co-payments” together.ie as expressions of the same thing.

    It seems to me that at one end of the scale we have “bonuses” for executive types – which nobody really can understand whilst at the other end ie in the real world we have “co-payments” which are also really hard to understand from the perspective of the customer/consumer/ client or even worker.

    Citizens are awash with consent or reply type forms, many of which bear no stamp of any recognisable authority and as such might as well be a blank cheque for concerns nobody really can understand. I wonder if in effect, the signatures we provide willy nilly on such forms because “it’s what we normally do”, even though these bits of paper contain particular combinations of tick boxes which may not be necessary or appropriate- are contributing to set ups which don’t have to account to us directly ie this “bonus culture” which top executives benefit from at the other end.

    I think it’s really important to clear the decks so to speak, or the space between front-line workers and citizens of all types of inappropriate or unnecessary bureaucracy and especially unaccountable commercially driven “tick box” type consent/reply forms.

  • Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

    To avoid short term smash and grab tactics which will only weaken the weakest players first I should imagine it is best for all concerned to think much carefully about “efficiency” -as I think the government are doing. One way of looking at “efficiency” in my view which might be useful would be to consider the populist slogans known as “bonus culture” and “co-payments” together.ie as expressions of the same thing.

    It seems to me that at one end of the scale we have “bonuses” for executive types – which nobody really can understand whilst at the other end ie in the real world we have “co-payments” which are also really hard to understand from the perspective of the customer/consumer/ client or even worker.

    Citizens are awash with consent or reply type forms, many of which bear no stamp of any recognisable authority and as such might as well be a blank cheque for concerns nobody really can understand. I wonder if in effect, the signatures we provide willy nilly on such forms because “it’s what we normally do”, even though these bits of paper contain particular combinations of tick boxes which may not be necessary or appropriate- are contributing to set ups which don’t have to account to us directly ie this “bonus culture” which top executives benefit from at the other end.

    I think it’s really important to clear the decks so to speak, or the space between front-line workers and citizens of all types of inappropriate or unnecessary bureaucracy and especially unaccountable commercially driven “tick box” type consent/reply forms.