Being in a trade union isn't the same as being working class.

Last week, local authorities across Scotland unveiled their budgets for the next year. The councils put on a united front of horrific cuts for all. Hopefully comrades from across the country can update us on what their council’s budget will mean for them – let’s have a little look at Glasgow first of all.

Glasgow City Council are making cuts of over £58 million. Thousands of jobs will be lost, refuse collections will be halved, and many vital services will be cut – but instead of taking responsibility for their actions, Glasgow City Council leader Gordon Matheson took the mature approach of bursting into tears and saying a big boy and done it and ran away.

BEST. DEMO. EVER.

Glasgow has often been the site of Scotland’s biggest protests – tens of thousands marched against the Iraq war in 2003, and more recently there has been a great deal of anti-capitalist direct action against tax dodgers, and huge student protests against the cuts. The student movement in Glasgow has been super busy over the past few weeks, what with occupying their own social centre, as well as protesting the course, jobs and services cuts at their own schools, colleges and universities. So, unfortunately, the student movement was unable to provide leadership in protesting against the Glasgow City Council budget cuts. Thankfully though, Defend Glasgow Services (an umbrella group which aims to aims to unite the city’s trade unions, public services workers and community/voluntary groups to defend services) had organised a protest in George Square, which we mobilised youth and student activists for.

On approaching George Square, we were bemused to see no sign of a demo – only a few semi-fascistic nationalists with an enormous banner calling for an end to London Rule – but eventually, we found the anti-cuts protesters, hiding between the City Chambers and the Cenotaph – so few in number as to be completely unseen from the rest of George Square.

There’s no denial though that the trade unionists were happy to see us and have a bit more young blood at their demo, greeting us with calls of Alright lads, how you doing? (despite a third of us being women).

The demo consisted of a few different speakers from within the trade union movement. One speaker spoke on how the cuts would disproportionately affect women, whilst an older man engaged us in conversation about what youse guys, you boys need to be doing . Another speaker vocalised on how the trade unions would keep fighting the cuts. They received gentle applause. There was a muted rendition of they say cut back, we say fight back. cut cut cut back, fight fight fight back – and the crowd dispersed.

After so months of exciting activism, the contingent of SSY and allies couldn’t help but be disappointed. Our city, the city that is already lauded as an prime example of poverty and ill health in Europe, let alone the UK, is about to fucked over even further. And this is the best we can do to protest? A few dozen middle aged people applauding each other politely in George Square? What happened to Red Clydeside?

Back when trade unions were cool...

As young socialist activists, we have seen with our own eyes the level of fetishisation there is towards the trade union movement. The organised socialists who snub youth and student-organised protests and direct actions will put dozens of hours of work in leafletting trade unionists, attending their half-arsed rallies and conferences, and generally trying to woo trade union members, in the assumption that the trade unions ARE the working class and are therefore the only hope for socialism.

Since the Tories came into power last year, there has been an influx of young politically aware people joining the Labour Party. Why? Just because the Labour Party are now in the opposition doesn’t change their right wing, neo-liberal, capitalist agenda… what’s going on?

All the socialist Labour Party members I’ve spoken to about this have only been able to find one excuse which makes the slightest bit of sense – trade unions.

In order to build socialism, they want to build the power of the working class. So far so good. But because of the mistaken assumption that the trade unions and the working class are one and the same, and the symbiotic relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions, they have concluded that not only is the Labour Party socialist, it is the only hope for socialism.

No.

In this day and age, let’s face it – trade union members are the privileged few. Most young people can only dream of having a job so stable that they have the opportunity to join a trade union. I have never been in a job where I’ve had the opportunity to join a union, nor have most of my peers. I knew someone who was in a long term temp job in a unionised workplace – when he asked the shop steward how he could join, he was turned away.

The working world has changed over recent years – temporary contracts, zero hour contracts and long trial periods with no rights (followed by dismissal cos you’re just “not right for the job”) are now the norm.

By pandering to trade unions and their members and bureaucrats, the organised left is wooing middle-class, middle-aged people with homes and cars – and ignoring the real oppressed working underclass. The call centre workers and burger flippers; the job seekers and young apprentices – the people who are really suffering, and the people who are really angry.

The revolution is going to come from below.

25 Comments

Meghan says:

February 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm

Hey WorstWitch,

You advertised this as a very controversial piece. However I find myself agreeing with you strongly, particularly when you point out that trade unions were much more effective and representative in the past than they are now. We can no longer rely on trade unions to fight our battles for us, or defer these battles to the trade unions. They’ve become just another mediator between the classes, rather than an embodiment of the working-class, although because of Red Clydeside and the (masculinist) tradition of leftist action in Scotland, we have a nostalgic tendency to look to trade unions to lead. But the fight for socialism has to be fought on multiple fronts. Trade unions aren’t irrelevant by any means (not that I think you’re saying they are), but they are less relevant than they have been in the past.

Really decent article. Looking forward to the lively discussion it will no doubt create.

Mark Gallagher says:

February 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm

“trade union members are the privileged few. ”

yes I sure felt privileged as a Unison member when I was sacked without notice or explanation

James says:

February 16, 2011 at 7:46 pm

Trade union bureaucracy has always existed even on ‘Red Clydeside’. There will always be those holding positions of power in Unions preaching caution and mediation to better their lot when it’s the exact opposite that’s needed.

However I think it is wrong to describe all of those who can join these conservative trade unions as being part of the ‘priviledged few’ as many have a low standard of living that has been continually came under threat these past few years. Obviously there is those you describe as the ‘underclass’ (a term I deplore) that have even worse conditions like which you state in the article but by separating these workers into two different categories which have far more in common than you suggest you create divisons between them when it is the exact opposite that is needed.

You’re correct in saying that the revolution will come from below this has always been the case. But this calls for all workers even the ones who own cars and have mortgages who are none the less exploited under the current system to become class conscious and work together challenging the likes of the Labour Party and the trade union bureaucracy that they help create.

Mike says:

February 16, 2011 at 7:55 pm

I understand and agree with the general sentiment expressed. There is not this clear binary between a past where trade unions were more representative of the working class and the present or future where they are irrelevant. For example in the 19th century this critique could equally been applied to the craft oriented trade unions which were centred on the most privileged layer of white, male, workers who often were only propelled into struggle over bread and butter issues related to preserving their privilege.

In such a climate it was/is no wonder that many clever activists with their heart in the right place came to conclusions like yours. But it was/is wrong. In a period of the upturn of class struggle, the fight for more democratic and inclusive union organisations (against the trade union bureaucracy) is central to the socialist movement. In the 20th century the struggles of women and black workers for broader industrial union organisations intersected with and sharpned the movement for workers control over society. The victories from that struggle provided a counterweight for decades to the vicious onslaught of neo-liberal capitalism that we have experienced since the most militant unions were broken in the last quarter of the century.

Today, the struggle for working class organisation is again central to creating a counter-hegemony to the capitalist system and rebuilding the organised left. The form of organisation socialists advocate of course has little in common with the bread and butter trade unions that you rightly critique. But rather than writing off unions as a whole, which have rightly been centres of socialist activity since the time of Marx, we must build fighting unions, ready to go out into the streets on political issues and fight for an alternative. We need to find a form of organisation which allows the call centre workers, burger flippers, job seekers and young apprentices to represent themselves at work and fight for their wages, rights, dignity and for a political alternative.

Lovebug says:

February 16, 2011 at 8:49 pm

Spot on WorstWitch!

The class basis of the Trade Union movement has, in reality moved significantly. Now “the Unions” and “Public Servants” are pretty much synonymous (even if those performing public services are more likely to be employed by private companies than previously). Now lets be clear here…we celebrate the fact that nurses, teachers and civil servants can organise and build unions, many of whom are a crucial part of the struggle. However, it’s not comparable to the miners or dock-workers who were the backbone of what we understand as trade unionism. But Mike is right in that obviously, those trade unions were as good or as shit as the ordinary members made them.

In the 20th Century we produced STUFF. And the people who mined, built and refined stuff were in unions. This meant unions were an obviously vehicle for working class power. Now we all offer services or products. Those of us who work in 21st Century factories like shops, offices and restaurants aren’t in trade unions or even under contracts. But its us who have our hands of the means of production. Without our burger flipping, furious typing and passing bits of paper through scanners continuously there is no economy. We need organisation and we need to do it ourselves. We might be better off without a distracting layer of bureaucrats when a real fight comes.

We need radical change now because we need to eat, the leadership of Unite or even Unison doesn’t. James – this isn’t about creating a false division. Obviously, in hard times its us who get the most shit. That shouldn’t need defending. Those in no union are in a worst position than those in a similarly paid unionised job. That’s an argument for real trade unionism not against it. We need to STOP the cuts rather than expressing our opposition to them because we have a material need to stop them. If the old unions want to join us in the fight, great…and individual members always will. But we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for Dave Prentice to occupy a building or Aaron Porter to self-flagellate because his market stall has been closed. We’re the working class – not them. We are the only ones who know how to win. Well said again!

James says:

February 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm

Lovebug a division is created when you essentially write off workers who have a low standard living (albeit better than those on temporary contracts and the like) as being part of the ‘priviledged few’ just because they are members of unions that have conservative leadership. These workers will be experiencing the pain of these cuts as well and are necessary agents in any fightback.

The leadership of these unions should rightfully be challenged but the ordinary members are just as much part of the working class than any of us.

Andy Bowden says:

February 16, 2011 at 11:18 pm

Fuck trade unions. We must organise behind the uniting factor of cute baby animals. Namely goats, rabbits and sea monkeys.

Danny_Boy says:

February 17, 2011 at 1:28 am

Isn’t the point to fight for the unions to organise the hyper-exploited “underclass” the article talks about? Like it or not the trade union movement is the only movement that organises workers *as workers* is any significant numbers (7,000,000 is not an inconsiderable figure) so if your politics are based on fighting for working-class power you can’t really take a short-cut around it.

Yes, it’s led by shitbags but it exists. It’s there. The road to the workers’ movement we need lies through the existing one, not around it. I think we need to revolutionise the existing movement, not attempt to build a new revolutionary labour movement from scratch.

Plus I fucking hate cute animals.

Andy Bowden says:

February 17, 2011 at 2:46 am

And now for my serious opinion….

I disagree wi calling union members privileged – you could argue on the same basis that someone who works in McDonald’s flipping burgers is privileged compared to someone on the dole. The reality is both their situations are quite shite. Most union members are still overwhelmingly not middle class, in Scotland today most of them will be in the public sector, low to average paid with some union membership in certain private sector workplaces.

That said I agree with the points made in the article that for the vast majority of radicalised young people, trade unions have not been a factor in getting them angry, organised or political. Look at the student demos, the closest thing students have to a proper TU, the NUS called a candlelit vigil. But that was shunned in favour of a march called by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts. In Glasgow our student demos were organised by Glasgow Against Education Cuts and not the SRC, NUS etc. .

In the anti-cuts movement across the country, UK Uncut has organised much much more direct action against the cuts than the official TU movement has – despite the fact that Trade Unions have 7 million members and are still the largest organisations in society. There doesn’t appear to be any organised campaign by unions to try to attract all the new young people in shitty jobs who have become politicised, or organise direct action against the cuts. The exceptions to this I would note would be PCS and RMT – the only young folk I know who have or are members of a union have been in PCS.

This is not all the fault of trade unions, the fact that the UK has transformed from a productive economy (mines, cars, ships) to a service based one (insurance, financial services) means capitalism has been able to start afresh, with a playing field in these sectors where unions find it extremely hard to operate. I’ve been a Socialist for 7 years, and have never been a member of a union cos all my work has been temp – if I get permanent work I’d join the union wi out question, and so would everyone in SSY IMO including the author of this article. The problem is trade unions have never seriously and strategically organised to methodically ensure everyone who works, including temps is in a union. It’s a lack of organisation and foresight their enemies don’t have.

But the territory is where we are, and we should encourage young people to join TU’s and TU’s to reach out to younger members. As well we should recognise that young people will find different organisations to express their anger about the cuts in the absence of unions in their workplaces and relate to it. We also need to confront the problem we have in the ‘private vs public sector’ divide that the Tories have been whipping up, where predominantly non union private sector workers are pitted against unionised public sector workers, with the latter sometimes enjoying better conditions to the former due in part to high union density in their workplaces. Trade Unions need to make inroads into private sector workplaces to undermine the Tory propaganda that private sector workers pay for public sector pensions etc.

The basic message I agree with is in this article is that the working class since the 80′s is now not predominantly unionised, and will get angry at the cuts in ways that won’t be expressed through the channels of unions that existed in the past – we should help organise and channel that anger constructively.

Stephen says:

February 17, 2011 at 9:59 am

“In this day and age, let’s face it – trade union members are the privileged few. ”

No…i’ll think you’ll find that the actual privileged few got their wedge from Barclay’s over the weekend and are now largely in Innsbruck or the Virgin Islands.

Do union members in general have better wages, conditions and job security than non union members?

Yes

That is why people join them.

That is what they do.

That is what they are for.

Sighs

succumbs briefly to pessimism of the intellect .

goes back to day job

reasonably secure, reasonably well paid , unionised

Keir says:

February 17, 2011 at 11:10 am

Interesting that the original post mentions Red Clydeside, and example I think it is right to bring up, not for nostalgia reasons but because it is arguably the closest Scotland has ever come to revolution and so worth looking at. Red Clydeside came about on the back of a massive wave of unrest in the munitions industry during the First World War, specifically through the struggles of privileged engineers. These engineers were paid better than other workers in the factory, and were fighting to retain their various privileges above other workers. Red Clydeside was a direct product of the Clyde Workers Committee which was lead by socialists such as John Maclean who got their hands dirty and joined the evil privilege-defending unions, arguing for a socialist perspective.

Yes unions to day are for the most part flawed, but if we are serious about resurrecting the Red Clydeside spirit then we need to working class to be organised as a class, to work together for its own betterment. Socialist parties, even during the height of Red Clydeside, but especially now, can only claim to represent a tiny portion of the working class, like it or not the trade unions are still far more representative than the likes of SSP/Y. Now, if unions are past their sell by date then what is the alternative? Are people advocating building new radical unions? Or leaving the working class un-organised or only part of temporary single-issue groups?

Keir says:

February 17, 2011 at 12:46 pm

Andy says

“The problem is trade unions have never seriously and strategically organised to methodically ensure everyone who works, including temps is in a union. It’s a lack of organisation and foresight their enemies don’t have.”

This seems to be a bit of an odd statement, at the pinnacle of the UK labour movement, in terms of density at least, only 55% of workers in the UK were unionised. I don’t think it’s unionising every last worker that is important, but rather ensuring that key sectors of the economy (the most obvious example being fuel, power and transport, which any economy, service or otherwise, depends upon) are unionised. It’s easy to snipe from the sidelines and complain the unions aren’t doing enough to recruit young workers, fine, but lets be constructive, what should they be doing more of? What is SSY’s answer to the problem of organising young and unskilled workers?

Sarah says:

February 17, 2011 at 6:22 pm

I really agree with this article and really don’t see how it can be interpreted as being anti-trade unions, it’s just saying the factual facty fact that the overwhelming majority of working class people are not in unions and in fact have no access to unions. Therefore, it’s a priority that we work towards offering an alternative for those left behind in this underclass (which, contrary to some comments I’ve seen, isn’t simply a right wing term – it’s OBVIOUSLY no judgement, it’s the reality of where people are now – not even working class, bereft of work and bereft of identity) who are not and will not be helped by the union obsessed outlook of the British left.

It doesn’t say unions are undesirable. Of course they are desirable. Everyone having the ability to do unionised, socially useful jobs is something to strive for. But it’s not even close to the reality of where we are today, and what are we doing to focus on and provide for the ununionised/unemployed millions? Fuck all, cause people want to spend their time building for the backslapping TRADE UNION MAN organised demos like the one described at the start of this article. That’s not shitting on the people who do try hard to organise these things, it’s attempting to introduce some reality into the situation.

There are still some unions that have potentially the capacity for radical action. Given the focus on education cuts right now, the UCU and the EIS have this potential, though they DO represent a privileged type of worker with a more secure and stable job. I hope they do and in the process shift the whole union movement to the left a bit. But yet again, they are not the bulk of the working class. I’ll admit that for example Unison represents a lot of workers who aren’t at the more privileged end of trade union membership (though having any sort of stable job is still more privileged than having no job at all or working temp jobs, and I don’t see why anyone would go out of their way to deny that) such as cleaners and nursery nurses ARE the type of people that when we DO do work on organising with unions, we should be focusing on. I still don’t see how any of this contradicts TheWorstWitch’s article. I think a lot of the responses have been very kneejerk.

Btw, it’s back to the old discussion about privilege – it doesn’t mean YOUR LIFE IS AMAZING if you have privilege. It means that you have systemic advantages over other people because of something that applies to you but doesn’t apply to them. That doesn’t mean you can’t be oppressed in other ways, such as class or race or gender. One privilege does not negate a different oppression. But it’s the duty of the privileged to accept their privilege and attempt to change and challenge it. This shit is getting tiresome.

Also, saying that the position that most SSY members are in, which is in the ununionised, shit job or no job position, is “sniping from the sidelines”, is unhelpful and untrue. We wouldn’t be at the so called “sidelines” (because of course the unions are totally at the centre of every anti-cuts struggle going on at the moment.. er no, they could be, but they’re not. It’s why little collectives and non-hierarchical organisations are popping up everywhere – an alternative to a union-is-the-only-way hegemony that blatantly isn’t happening at the moment) if we were able to have ANY access to trade unions, but we aren’t. We’re in the middle of this problem of the left, trying to organise and support young people, and it’s not our duty alone to figure out an answer – the left in general sidelines those in this position in favour of those in established unions who already have something (a bit shit) to cling to. We don’t want it to be that the older lefties focus only on trade unions while the younger lefties focus only on students. There needs to be co-operation to provide an alternative narrative for the bulk of working class people who have no access to unions, and that won’t happen by writing off our concerns of mis-focusing as “ultraleft” or “anti-union” or “wrong”

John says:

February 17, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Yes, unionised workers generally have better pay, working conditions, job security, etc than non-unionised workers. Because they are organised, because they’ve fought in the past & are in a better position to fight in the present/future than workers who are not organised.

So what should a Socialist conclude from this? That Trade Unionists are “middle-class, middle-aged people”, & not the “real” workers? Or that it would be a good idea to unionise ALL workplaces & industries?! “Middle-class” might be applicable to the leading bureaucrats, but certainly not the members. Getting decent pay because you’re able & willing to strike for it does not make you middle-class.

There are people who have unionised call centres. There are people who are trying to unionise bars, pubs, restaurants, etc right NOW. If you work anywhere like that feel free to join us: Glasgow Bar & Hospitality Workers, a branch of Unite. Help us build it to the point where we can actually start to change this industry. If you work in some other job, contact the appropriate union & ASK them to help you unionise.

Certainly, that demo was pretty poor. Certainly the unions are far from perfect, but it is one thing to critiscise them while working to improve them, & another to simply dismiss them.

Nick says:

February 17, 2011 at 7:52 pm

Excellent, interesting article and debate this. No time for a long post now, think I might try and blog a reply.

Squeak says:

February 17, 2011 at 8:19 pm

That’s not what she said.

Keir says:

February 17, 2011 at 10:10 pm

Clearly SSY is on the sidelines of the trade union movement though (not that I’m saying this is by choice, I appreciate this may as much be the fault of the TUs as it is SSY’s). Sure the TUs aren’t at the centre of anti-cuts stuff, and that’s a bad thing, I don’t think I ever claimed they were though? In terms of wielding power though, being able to stop the cogs of the machine (fuel, transport, power) is very effective, the unions, theoretically at least, have the ability to do this, so the question is, how do we make them?

In terms of the left, the largest far-left group is the SWP who I would say focus almost to the point of exclusivity on students…

I don’t think anyone here is writing off concerns, if they were, why would they post? Personally speaking, as someone who fits the category of “organised socialists who snub youth and student-organised protests and direct actions will put dozens of hours of work in leafletting trade unionists, attending their half-arsed rallies and conferences, and generally trying to woo trade union members” I felt the need to defend myself.

Socialists, in my opinion, shouldn’t be glorified charity workers. We want to fix the underlying, systemic problem, capitalism, if we were only after alleviating the symptoms we would presumably all be in Oxfam or some other charity. So whilst young people and casualised workers may be terribly oppressed, it doesn’t automatically follow that this is where socialists should concentrate their efforts. The problem with the likes of the student movement is that it does not wield economic power in the same way as the labour movement potentially can, and so to me this makes it less interesting in the “big picture” of attaining socialism, ie power for the working class. This is why I think the left is quite justified on focussing its energies on trade unions (sadly I think the left, especially the SSP and SWP doesn’t do this enough), we need to be tactical in where we can get the best returns for our efforts.

John says:

February 17, 2011 at 11:05 pm

“the SWP who I would say focus almost to the point of exclusivity on students”

Not at all. Yes, we try to recruit students & organise at the colleges & unis, but we also have plenty of active trade unionists. The SWP encourages its members to join trade unions & be active in them. I’d have thought other left parties do the same? And several SWP members are heavily involved in trying to unionise precisely the “casualised workers” who get the lowest pay, stupid hours, who are fucked about & ripped off by their bosses. Also, of course, most of the students who join us are workers as well.

john l says:

February 18, 2011 at 3:48 am

Even though I’m going to be critical of what was written in the article I am glad the issue has been raised, it is obviously important one however

A trade union is a contradictory body by its nature.

1.A given union organises workers of nearly all levels of political consciousness from the most advanced to the most conservative or even regressive.

2.The basic role of a trade union is to negotiate for pay and conditions, not to destroy capitalism. TU leaders are therefore in a compromising position – they are a kind of buffer, trying to reconcile the interests of bosses and workers. It is this role that makes TU leaders conservative, not so much their fat union salaries (although it still helps of course).

3. TU leaders are influenced by a number of pressures. They are afraid of radical action because if workers become confident they will take away the power of the TU leaders to negotiate. On the other hand no fight at all means declining membership which erodes the social and economic base of the TU leaders.

4. This problem will not go away. Reformism is engendered and endlessly reproduced by the wage relation. At the same time the conservative pressures on TU’s and their leaderships can fluctuate wildly depending upon the level of confidence of its rank and file amoungst other things.

5. Trade unionists remain the most politicaly advanced section of the working class, even today with unions degenerated by the decades of defeats and low confidence amoungst workers in their ability to resist. I need only say RMT FBU NUT PCS to demonstrate that by no means are better of workers less likely to fight back. Often having better living standards makes you more willing to fight, not less. Similarly the most oppressed and imiserated workers are not in the best position to fight. Oppression can have the effect of reducing combativity – even if at other times it can lead to explosions of anger.

6. How do socialists overcome this problem? by entering into agreements for unity in action with TU’s and even their leaderships. This tactic is an agressive one, designed to break trade unionists from the conservative hold of the leadership by demonstrating that socialists have the ideas that can help workers win. Socialists will fight without compromise, demanding radical action even as the TU leaders start to back away from the fight. This is the only way to demonstrate to the most advanced sections of the working class that anti-capitalist ideas are better than liberal and social democratic ones.

Just about Kier and John’s discussion above – I know the SWP organises in supermarkets – where many of their younger members are stewards in USDAW – and in UNITE especially in call centres – so its not the case that they are ignoring worse payed or organised workers.

There is much more that needs to be said on this subject and I hope the discussion continues.

Abe says:

February 18, 2011 at 9:03 am

I think the basis of the article if I have read it right, and I admit I may have misread it as I’m having to do this in a hurry, is socialists should not place the majority of their energies on pandering solely to trade unions. This in itself I would say is not that controversial as I think most people recognise the majority of the working class are not unionised. What I think needs to be remembered though is in many countries the majority of the working class have never been unionised and even during the period of time of 60%+ unionisation in the UK there were still a huge number of unrecognised and uncounted working class women working at home. Trade unions though through enabling working class organisation have rightly been seen as effective for socialists to encourage collective class action in the workplace. As you say though this should not mean we should forget those who are ununionised or in situations where unionisation is not possible.

Saying that “pandering to trade unions and their members and bureaucrats, the organised left is wooing middle-class, middle-aged people with homes and cars – and ignoring the real oppressed working underclass” I would argue is slightly incorrect. The majority of unionised workers have pretty much always been the more privileged members of the working class, and as Keir pointed in during the Red Clydeside these privileged members of the working class were actually heavily involved, but to say there are now somehow middle-class and equating middle-class, even if you didn’t intend to, with homeownership and a car is to subscribe to the embourgeosiement thesis. Class I would argue is a relational concept and although to be middle class and have a car may have been key characteristics of the middle class in the past in a time where many working class, albeit again the same privileged members, have bought their own council home under the Right to Buy this has not transformed their class membership.

I would completely agree with you however on the second half of the point in that in chasing after the support of the trade unions we are ignoring what you call “the real oppressed working underclass” but I do so with reservations. I know it has already been argued over but I believe we should refrain from the use of the term underclass. I do not think anyone is implying by using the term someone is subscribing to the right-wing views it normally suggests – however, the term is so tied into the moral debate of deserving and undeserving poor that it serves to conjure up images when mentioned which you do not intend. Underclass additionally serves to lump all of those who are no longer in relatively stable full-time work together and is not that great therefore for analysing the situation. Indeed at the beginning of the capitalist epoch unstable work was the norm in many places for example people would all head down the ship yard in the morning and the foreman would pick out the 50 or so men they wanted for that day and the rest had to head home. It was through class struggle as well as due to increased employment it was harder to do this and have enough workers each day that a more stable labour force came about. The shifting balance of this is captured in Marx’s concept of ‘the reserve army of labour’ used when high to keep competition between workers up and therefore working wages and conditions down. Wacquant in examining the contemporary era argues a new class structure is needed. He puts forward now instead of a traditional reserve army of labour there exists through the structural unemployment arising from market liberalisation and welfare retrenchment an absolute surplus population who can never expect to find work in their lifetime. Additionally to this, backing up a long call within class analyses, he argues the main division is not necessarily anymore between mental / manual but rather stable / unstable forms of employment and therefore there is what he terms a new ‘precariat’ of people who work precarious jobs. What is the main benefit then of this over a term such as underclass? I think it manages to capture what the result of the ‘Welfare Reform Bill’, which I may write something about if I find the time, will be. The increased conditionality upon receiving benefits and making it easier to force people into jobs (refuse 1 job and you lose ALL benefits for three months, rising to six months if another is turned down and three years for a third) will result, as already happened in other countries, of although lowering unemployment in the short term it helps facilitate the increasing precarious jobs on offer with lower conditions and research has shown those who do get jobs continually return to unemployment because of this. Effectively it turns many of those in the absolute surplus population into a modern reserve army of labour leading to an increase of the precariat and a further erosion of the stable jobs, and the traditional proletariat, left.

As I mentioned above I think there is also an assumption of unions in the past were good and today that has diminished. Trade unions have pretty much always been mediators between the classes, the role socialists have taken is to try and revolutionise this situation. Looking back again at the period of high unionisation this came about due to the nature of capital accumulation at the time as much as working class organisation. There is a brilliant and often ignored mainly French group of Marxism theorists called “the regulation school” who offer a means of understanding this. They contend that for the long-term ability of capitalist reproduction stable means of capital accumulation arise which are aided by the state regulation of the market. Taking up this idea Chris Howell showed that there was an active effort by the state from roughly 1890 for there to be wage boards and means of collective bargaining (such as unions), increasingly at the national level which helped stabilise the growing monopoly capitalism arising from the previous period’s competitive capitalism. Unions then served as the perfect mediators where any demands for wage increases the employers / state would try and only allow if the workers agreed to increased productivity. This is not to remove the role of working class organisation as Howell shows how the shifting balance of class power alongside the development of capitalism served for this system to arise as well as its eventual decentralisation from the 40s and then the decolletivasation under Thatcher. Additionally he argues the reason behind why the UK trade unions have suffered more than those in France is because in the UK unions had exemption from the law rather than rights which made it easy for the right-wing to present them as in fact above the law and needing brought down.

I would put forward then that it is dual nature of the move towards precarious employment and the attack on the structures in place which gave unions their strength during the high period of unionisation that have resulted in decreased membership. Within already existing industry union membership has actually remained fairly stable and it is rather on new employment sites and the new forms of employment, mostly taken up by women and youth, where unions have not been effective at organising. There are definitely issues here with how do you organise those in unstable forms of employment – but as someone else already mentioned there have been moves by some unions to make an active effort in this. Furthermore the new rules on organising brought in under Thatcher create massive difficulties especially in retail because of the fuckers at UDSAW. To get recognised now the work-place (with there being a tone of court cases arguing what this is) has to have at least twenty people and I think fifty percent in a union to try and force the employer to recognise it. However, at any point before a union manages to achieve official recognition the employer can choose any union it likes to represent the workers and UDSAW with its no strike policy has led to sitatutions where at any new Tesco UDSAW is immediately recognised and the manager will be the union rep putting people off from joining plus limiting the ability to organise.

Finally then to return to my initial point your main argument of unions having lost some of their relevance and we should not see them as be all and end all of socialist organising is uncontroversial (indeed, I’d argue it should have always been the case and takes on greater importance with the turn to structural unemployment and precarious work)- however, it is left to be decided if unions can become more relevant again and I’d say through renewed means of organisation, which are currently underway, there is still room for many of those in precarious work to be unionised and the ability for collective class action in the workplace restored. As socialists, and people within this very situation, we should be at the front of this move. Furthermore, we should be pushing, and I think we already do in the SSP policy (?), for the removal of the constraints put on unions so they can become more effective. Additionally, I agree with you for those who are currently ununionised or in a situation where they face long-term unemployment we need to find a means of contacting and organising them which isn’t necessarily best done in the immediate circumstances in unions. Resisting the attack on benefits, and the wider cuts, I believe, which will affect those within traditional employment alongside those in precarious employment and unemployment, offers something for the working class to rally round and overcome its divisions. How exactly to do this I’ll admit I do not know but the student movement, especially the free Hetherington and its solidarity with the university workers who’s jobs are at risk, is a step in the right direction. Spreading this out with the universities is the issue at hand (which I think you correctly point out is hampered if we focus only on the unions)…

Apologies for any mistakes / misreadings in what I have written, unfortunately do not have the time to double check / read over everything.

Abe says:

February 18, 2011 at 11:50 am

On seeing my post I’d now also like to add an apology for length!

James says:

February 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm

Sarah I know the term underclass can be used not only by right wingers but speaking personally the use of the term for me brings up the horrible the image of Charles Murray and New Labour’s focus on “inclusion”.

I agree with most of the article as how could anyone not be angry at the betrayal that is trade union bureaucracy. But I think this anger coupled with the rage at the horrible conditions of having to work in non unionised low paying jobs has been aimed at the wrong people when you refer to ALL members of trade unions as the priviledged few. It’s simply not accurate and does create unneccesary division to refer to those working in non unionised jobs as the ‘underclass’ and those with slightly better conditions in unionised positions as somehow being in a different category. They have far more in common than this suggests.

Colin says:

February 18, 2011 at 9:25 pm

Yestrday I was approached for help by one of these car driving middle class middle aged privileged trade unionists. She wanted me to help her fight for the right to work a 57 hour 7 day week. She has two permanent contracts – a weekday 35 hr one, and one for 2x 10 hr shifts doing homecare at the weekend. The employers are trying to privatise the latter so want to reduce their own workforce. I explained at length as sympathetically as I could that the union were not really in the business of fighting for work arrangements like this. She seemed to accept what I was saying but said that it was a case of ‘needs must’. I asked her why and she told me that she was a single parent trying to fund her daughter through university without leaving her in debt for the rest of her life. She had been working these hours for the last three years.
Sure she wasn’t in George Square the other day but would you have noticed if she was? Dont confuse trade union bureacrats with ordinary members. Without unions we are all fucked wherever we work, and the task with burger bar workers etc is to get them organised too, not chant anarchist fashion from the sidelines.

Sarah says:

February 19, 2011 at 1:27 am

The words ‘fashion’ and ‘sidelines’ are really quite offending me in this context. ‘Reality’ and ‘experience’ are more accurate terms.

fresh job says:

March 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm

fresh job…

[...]Scottish Socialist Youth » Being in a trade union isn’t the same as being working class.[...]…

Being in a trade union isn't the same as being working class.

25 Comments

Recent Comments

Archives

Authors

Being in a trade union isn't the same as being working class.

25 Comments

Recent Comments

Tags

Archives

Authors