The Labour party has never made trade unions the centrepiece of its messaging. While Tories in the past have explicitly taken credit for declining trade union membership, Labour would seemingly never dream of doing the same for its recent modest increases.
In the eyes of most of the media the Labour party has too close a relationship to trade unions, almost every industrial dispute is framed around what it means for Labour party Kremlinology. When trade unions are in the news with the Labour party, it is usually because of the recent picket-line ban handed down to MPs during the rail strikes. Beneath this however, Labour’s planned future for trade unions is becoming increasingly clear. But the question of whether they will act as quiet evangelists for the trade union movement or cast their demands aside at the first sign of trouble remains.
Labour seeks to make trade unions into national bargaining agents across the economy and has committed to creating a legal framework that facilitates greater organising and bargaining. The party has committed to sectoral bargaining agreements and easier recognition processes for trade unions (the announcements of which may have been publicised more at the 2021 conference if not for Andy McDonald’s resignation). Labour have also essentially pledged to bring back the National Economic Development Council, abolished in 1992 by John Major.
Trade unions are also being presented as vital to Labour’s nascent economic vision. The proposal for implementing a higher minimum wage is contingent on strong trade unions and its recent green energy announcement stressed the vital role of trade unions. In short, it appears as though Labour would create an industrial relations edifice superficially similar to the one that existed fifty years ago, albeit with fewer nationalised industries. This is a party that appears genuinely committed to advancing the collective rights of workers and one which trade unions are still able to exert considerable influence in, as demonstrated by its recommitment to nationalising rail.
However, one of the key differences remains current anti-union legislation. Labour is, and will remain, evasive about which pieces of trade union legislation (other than the current government’s proposed new legislation and the 2016 Trade Union Act) it will repeal. No Labour Party will publicly commit to repealing all anti-union legislation (Corbyn’s Labour was equally evasive on this question) and organised labour would not want all of it repealed anyway, if only to keep in the more mundane bits like the rights against union discrimination and anonymous ballots.
However, it is necessary that most of the limitations on industrial action, for instance bans on secondary action, mandatory notice to the employer of action, and necessity of postal ballots, are repealed. All of these would be useful for the trade unions such as CWU, RMT, ASLEF currently engaged in strikes and unions such as UNISON, RCN, and NEU currently balloting. Without these legislative changes, trade unions will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to bargaining as the threat of successful industrial action (which is never easy or pain-free for unions) is a necessity for negotiations. Although industrial action is not a panacea, as recognised by Unite’s “Strikes-plus” approach, without it, trade unions will merely be at best minority partners and at worst useful patsies for bad employers.
The above is easier said than done. Implementing a new social order is never easy, and in order for this structure to have permanence and not be dismantled by a future Conservative government, Labour would likely need to win power at two successive elections. This would give Labour and trade unions potentially a decade to implement and maintain this structure and make organised labour a fact of society that cannot be undone with a couple of parliamentary bills. Equally, trade unions would need to empower their stewards at a shop-floor level and be sure to avoid becoming powerful national negotiators but weak shop-floor advocates in the day-to-day lives of members’ work unable to articulate what their members actually want.
There will always be an incentive for any government to not give organised labour too much power. Labour will have to accept that the drawback of its bargaining framework will mean more industrial disputes. National level bargaining and agreements will inevitably increase the size of disputes, and with this common terms and conditions will mean a common dispute. encompassing more and more workers, will emerge.
As well as this, a national level bargaining framework for multiple industries may increase the likelihood of more differential driven disputes, as seen in the 1950s through to the 1980s. However, the flip side of this is that greater bargaining power for trade unions means that workers will experience a fairer, freer, and more prosperous life. Equally, refusing to implement these measures for fear of inevitable drawbacks does not acknowledge the need to unshackle trade unions in order to combat the problems of precarity and deteriorating wages and conditions of employment.
It is inevitable that a Labour government will always have some conflicting interests with organised labour, as demonstrated by the Atlee government’s frequent strike breaking, such is the reality of running a state. This does not preclude cooperation that, ultimately, benefits both parties and the rest of society.
When it was last in office, Labour did not do enough for trade unions, although it should be noted that this was also partly because of different demands from much of the trade union movement at the time. As most workers were not members of a trade union, Labour made the mistake of focussing on individual workers’ rights instead of facilitating increased union membership. Starmer’s Labour have recognised this error and appear genuinely committed to expanding the role of organised labour within society, but it must not compound one historic error with a new one by increasing unions’ presence without also sharpening their industrial teeth. The combination of Labour’s electoral omerta on anti-union legislation, poor media coverage of trade unions, and the issue not being a vote mover means that we will only know what Labour’s answer is if it comes to power.