Workers of the World (Part Two)

I'm sure that I was planning to post something profound today.  But I'm damned if I can remember what it was.  So, picking up from where I left off on Friday, organising labour internationally so as to more effectively counter the threat posed to us all by international capital, is jut one of the steps we have to take if we are to be able to fight the establishment more effectively.  The reality is that traditional forms of industrial action - strikes - just aren't effective in the world we currently have to live in.  As I tried to argue on Friday, such direct confrontations with employers and the government are simply not productive - particularly when it is a single union involved.  This isn't the 1970s, we can't bring the overwhelming force of the entire union movement to bear any more.  Not that we have much collective force any more, we're so weakened by anti-union legislation and lack of membership.  Indeed, strike action these days runs the risk of exposing just how weak our position is if, as in the case of my union, pro-strike ballots are based on a less than thirty percent turnout of the membership.  Poorly supported strikes with picket lines either non-existent or, worse, ignored, simply undermine our legitimacy.

Whilst I know that it can be argued that low ballot turnouts simply reflect a wider apathy toward voting (as in the PPC elections), and we can always point to the fact that the current Prime Minister couldn't actually manage to get a majority at the last election, this issue needs to be addressed more seriously.  We really need to ask why it is that our own membership feels so alienated that we can't move them even to vote in a ballot, let alone actually take industrial action?  Speaking personally, I'm convinced that it is, in large part, down to the union's failure to properly engage with its own membership in the workplace.  They need to be seen more actually intervening to try and resolve everyday workplace problems and disputes.  Sadly, in my experience, union reps seem reluctant to get involved in anything that might risk conflict with local management.  But even if we can motivate the membership to vote in a ballot, is it reasonable to expect them to lose money by engaging in ineffective strike action?  The reality is that, in our currently weakened state, the union movement has to be smarter in how it handles disputes.  Personally, I've always favoured the strict work to rule.  This has many advantages, particularly against the current background of 'down sizing' the work force.  What, in reality, this means, is that the workplace becomes overly reliant upon 'godwill' in order to function, with many of us performing tasks well outside of our normal terms of employment.  A work to rule in many workplaces, especially mine, would see them grind to a halt.  But there's little employers can do about it - they certainly can't dock our pay as we're still fulfilling our contractual obligations.

However, from the point of view of union leaderships, a work to rule is difficult to organise, implement and maintain.  Most crucially, they aren't as high-profile and don't usually get your face on TV.  They also take time to work.  In this age of instant gratification, it seems the leadership prefers the less effective, but more photogenic, one-day strike.  Ultimately, the only way to effect real positive change with regard to pay and conditions is through political influence.  Sadly, we allowed the 'New Labour' project to effectively bundle us out of the mainstream of Labour Party policy making, (whilst still taking our financial support).  Moreover, public sector unions like mine which disavow any form of political affiliation, have completely forfeited any chance of directly influencing the political process.  Nonetheless, this is where we should be focusing our energies -  on trying to achieve lasting political change that improves the lot of the working man and woman.

There endeth today's sermon!