Decent pay and conditions for working people didn't simply fall out of the sky.
Decent pay and conditions for working people didn’t simply drop out of the sky
Reading some of the reporting on today’s strike action by public sector workers, you could easily believe that it was trade unionists who caused the worst financial crash since the Great Depression.
It wasn’t of course, but that’s not stopped the right making use of a good crisis to demonise trade unionists and paint unions as outdated and led by ‘dinosaurs’.
Conservative MPs often make the charge that the Labour Party is ‘bankrolled’ by the unions:
“More than half of Labour MPs have had their campaigns bankrolled (that word again) by the trade union threatening to disrupt the lives of millions and bring our economy to its knees,” was how Baroness Warsi scornfully phrased it earlier in this parliament.
Yet when people describe the Labour Party as ‘bankrolled’ by the unions they are actually saying that working people pay for the party – which is surely how you’d want politics to work under any system.
No, what the right are really doing when they attempt to play off the public against trade unionists is trying to turn the public on itself. After all, the ‘millions’ whose ‘lives are disrupted’ by strikes also presumably have jobs themselves – jobs with pay and conditions which have at some point been boosted by the existence of unions.
And that’s the nub of it: however fashionable it may be to decry the trade unions as relics and ‘dinosaurs’ of a bygone era, in reality a renaissance in trade unionism is long overdue. Economic growth may have returned but average wages have been falling for years now compared to inflation.
A common myth about trade unionism is that decent pay and conditions are won by bosses being kind rather than workers being rebellious. But history as well as extensive research contradicts this assumption. A recent study from Manchester University shows that countries with a stronger culture of collective bargaining tend on average to have higher minimum wages.
The widening gap between rich and poor in the past 30 years also reflects the loss of democratic restraint on those at the top. According to a YouGov poll from April, 56 per cent of people would like to see a more equal sharing of income – even if it reduced the total amount of Britain’s GDP.
In other words, millions of people – even many of those inconvenienced by today’s strike – want to see reduced inequality – and trade unions are one of the best ways of achieving that. As the graph demonstrates, countries with strong trade union movements tend to be more equal:
As for the government’s argument that we need a 50 per cent ballot threshold in order for any strike action to be legal: what’s telling is that the people most keen on this have nothing to say on increasing the methods available to unions to ballot members. In other words, they have no interest in making it easier for members to vote in strike ballots, they simply want to make it more difficult to take any kind of industrial action.
No one on the left should gloss over some of the trade unionism extremism of the 1970s. But we’re a long way away from that era now, and the pendulum has swung much too far the other way. Trade unionism today is almost a dirty word, with politicians of all stripes practiced in a sort of collective amnesia whereby decent pay and conditions for working people simply fell out of the sky or came as a result of kind-hearted rich men.
It is a fantasy, and those who decry today’s strike action as ‘politically motivated’ know very well what the real political motivation is in all the talk about ballot thresholds: to take yet more leverage away from working people.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow James Bloodworth on Twitter
125 Responses to “Strong unions won you your rights, not kind-hearted rich men”
Guest
Yes, you’ll always make excuses for more pay cuts, “they can shop at places” is a common one.
Kay
In the 1970s, there was an unhealthy relationship between Union leaders and government. The unfettered power of unions led to public weariness and the feeling that ‘something must be done’. Unions’ ability to disrupt, damage and strangle the country paved the way for a Conservative Government that endured until the last few years of the 20th century.
In the 21st century, there is an unhealthy relationship between the Busines sector and Government. The unfettered power of global corporations, in particular, has led to my disenchantment with the whole concept of democracy.
Which party aspires to restore some balance between ‘hard working families’ (pah!) and the onward march of profiteers and asset strippers? Well for starters, not David Cameron, since the recent announcment displays hostility towards working people who belong to Unions. In my view, the smart political party in the 21st century is one that tunes into public sentiment about the Business Sector and talks of strengthening and encouraging healthier relationships between emploers and employees. David Cameron still thinks it’s 1979, but what year is Ed Miliband living in?
crizz1066
What, how can a company compete with another if it gives away all its secrets. Would you let me look at your bank account and finances??? I agree more companies should be like John Lewis, but opening up the books for all to see, come on that will never happen. Nor should it. I’ve been running my business for 15 years and the accounts still baffle me half the time.
Kozzzzzy
unions were needed long ago. They helped put laws on the books to protect workers and create bargaining deals. Now that these laws are on the books, the unions are not needed much, if at all. The dues should shrink greatly and there should never be a union leader making big bucks. The union leaders of long ago were workers who volunteered their time. Now we have leaders making 6 figures and owning beach homes, while they claim to fight for the worker. The worker is getting shafted.
crizz1066
Noooo I pointed out that if people are dead against zero hours ect they don’t use ASDA. You came back with the whole “if you have cash you can avoid cheap places” So I pointed out Aldi and Lidl, you brought up money here not me. I don’t think you are either fully reading or understanding my comments. So I wont bother to waste my time and reply.