As union leaders take their partners for collaboration waltz TUC swings even further right
Socialist Outlook1990sScanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.
THIS YEAR'S TUC conference must rank as the most risht-wine of modern times. It marked a new stage in the domination of the politics of new Labour over the unions. This was summed up in Blair's speech to Congress both in its tone as well as its content.
Talk about breaking the link between the unions and the Labour Party, the Pricac Minister told delegales, can now be put to one side. since the TUC have now shown themselves to be utterly committed to the idea of social partnership and the agenda of new Labour.
partnership is the form new Labour politics take at longer poses any threat to Blair. "You are now welcome back into number 10", he told union leaders. But as a further reminder of the change from the old days he stressed they would get "not beer and sandwiches but just tea".
This marks a ois acicat for any kind of militant, class based, trade pernicious form of class collaboracon to grip the trade unions since the break with Liberalism at the turn of the century.
When Blair told the TUC conference that new Labour has its "third way" and the unions have theirs, he was again talking of partnership with the employers.
Extreme
The most extreme form of partnership, however, was not proposed Blair although it was taken up by him. That was the proposal by (Sir) Ken Jackson of the ABEU that the TUC should disband its own annual conference in favour of a biannual conference - be organised jointly with the CBI! This takes the breath away.
But nevertheless the idea should not be dismissed as the ravings of an ultra right-winger - though he is. Jackson is also the leader of the second biggest union in the TUC and one which is in merger negotiations with the MSE Blair took it a stage further and proposed that it be a tripartite conNone of this of course is on the cards as things stand. But from the logic of social partnership it excluded in the longer term? If the unions are to subordinate themselves to the employers' interests at the level of the work-place, why not at national level too? That is clearly how Jackson sees it.
What was noticeable at the TUC was that not a single heavyweight union leader was prepared to speak out against the concept of social partnership. Many of them are themselves up to their eyes in negotiating partnership involving no-strike deals and clauses tying the unions to the interests of the employers.
Many employers, in any case, are possibility of extended recognition under new Labour's Employment Relations Act.
It they are going to have to recor nise unions, the employers would the union "partnership".
Examples of this are Unilever, and the Legal and General. They grin of triumph - when John Monks tells them that "the days of 'them and us' and industrial confrontation are over" Ken Cameron (left) raised idea of breaking from Labour, but John Edmonds chrew his wright behind Blair and the Euro Unfortunately, however, it was not just a deepening of social partactship waich Congress as so right-wing. On the European Union and EMU conference rejected the new Labour line *wait until the conditions are right" but voted instead for a policy well to the right of the government's, calling for Britain to get into EMU as fast as possible.
The key to this was the refusal of the major untons with policies to one degree or another against EMU to argue and vote for their position Bill Morris suddenly reinterpreted current TGWU opposition to EMU as meaning "we should not go in until the economic conditions are right".
The most spectacular collapse was UNISON, which despite a clear policy against carly entry to EMU decided to abstain in the vote. If UNISON had argued ana voica axainst it tae molon could have been defeated.
TUC leaders have long been prepared to lead the pack in signing up to a job-cutting welfare-destroying scheme in order to pursue their Buropean model. Now they can claim a congress mandate for Incur posttion. Yet the European social model is evaporating even as they clamour join it. Maybe they haven't noticed the Thatcherite agenda being driven though by parties who are in goy ernment in 13 of the 15 EU counThere was a limited TUC backlash against this right-wing agenda. at least at the level of the relationship between new Labour and the unions.
Fire Brigade Union leader Ken Cameron ruffled a few feathers Tribune rally, the breaking of the link and Allies Referring to new Labour's predominant relationship with the employers, he argued that "the Labour Party no longer sees us as heir natural allics and we can no longer rely on them to be our natural allies™ The trade unions contribute f6m a year to Labour's funds, a third of its entire income. "Why should we keep on signing cheques to a parti which no longer represents us?" Cameron argued. "Why don't we give it to organisations and candidates who promote our interests"?
Of course the other general secretaries scoffed at his remarks. But this is an issue which won't go way - the logic of it is too strong. This debate is happening in a number of unions - at least at tae icci of gaying some political fund money to support the aims of the union.
At the should not support the disaffiliaton of unions from the labour Party - but demand that union rep. rescalaures gut in Labour Party bodies for their union's policies. native party, disaffiliation would STUKKIC remaining union influence inside the party would be lost (even if this is rapidly diminishing) without an alternative being presented.
Cameron himself was reduced to proposing that money should (maybe be given to the Liberal Democrats under some conditions or Friends of the Earth!
This illustrates the problem. It once again shows, however, that the issue of labour representation, and she led ol Date on Britis 10 the left Labour in Britain, is The left has a big job to do.
But the left also has a big iob to do in the unions themselves. Whilst it is true that ideas like the social partnership have less impact at the vasc orsic unions at at top e sometimes to the extent of the deals being relected by the membership against the recommendations of the opposition to it. This is a major problem.
Even the left in the unions have not grasped the significance of the ideology of social partnership. It is hardly ever mentioned in most of the left press or the propaganda of the trade union lefts.
The average age members is now over 40. There is an absolute crisis of the recruitment of young people, yet the answer to this from Monks at the TUC was that the name of the TUC should be changed to "Unions United" since the current name is too complicated for young people to grasp! and a challenge for the left. It is