International Socialists

David Garland

Paul Holmes calls the PPTA a "dinosaur union" – by which he means they’re fighting for better conditions for their members. If only!
What’s wrong with the union leadership? It’s not because they’re bad people – it’s something more fundamental, argues David Garland.

For people new to socialist politics, the experience of trade unions is often contradictory. On the one hand there’s the lack of union presence or activism in their workplaces. For many that glossy magazine that arrives once a month and a reminder to renew their membership at year’s end is the only sign the union exists.

On the other hand there’s the sight of unions picketing during a strike, or mass protests overseas where unions play a prominent role.

Unfortunately, the latter experience is less common than the humdrum of the average working day. Most of the time unions concern themselves, not with grand political issues and militant demonstrations, but with the details of the wages and conditions of their members.

Trade unions, unlike revolutionary socialist groups, don’t exist to overthrow the capitalist system. Their aims are narrower and consist primarily of attempting to improve the terms on which their members sell their labour power to the bosses. They are the basic defensive organisations of the working class.

And it works. Generally unionised industries have better wages and working conditions than non-unionised.

This process of negotiation over wages and conditions is more or less ongoing, and under the current setup is often very detailed. Which brings me to the subject of the union officials. At the lower levels these people are very useful, especially for forgetful delegates. Their role in the union is pretty much to help the members work out what they want and how to get it.

But the higher up in the union bureaucracy they get, the more out of touch with the membership they become. Their conditions of work change. They are often paid more than their members, have better working conditions, and the use of "company" cars.

More importantly, the nature of their work changes. They spend more time dealing with judges, lawyers, government officials and other union bureaucrats than in meetings with their members. Brokering deals with the employers becomes a full-time job. Eventually, settling disputes becomes more important than winning their members’ demands.

There are however, limits to this process. Because union officials are elected, they can’t afford to get so out of touch with their members that they are no longer seen as representing the interests of the rank and file.

Also, the officials’ ultimate weapon is their ability to bring production to a grinding halt by calling for strike action. Therefore, the boss has to believe that the union officials can bring this about at the drop of a hat. They are much less likely to believe this of an unpopular union leadership.

Despite these limitations, unions can play a progressive role, not only in defending workers economically, but also in political campaigns. In fact, some of the first ever battles to bring about a more democratic society were fought by the Chartists, an early form of mass trade union.

In the late 60s and 70s there were important union led struggles in this country too, with workers successfully defeating attempts by employers and the government to lower living standards.

These highpoints of struggle came after years of demoralising periods of inactivity. And they were made possible because activists, often socialists, kept the traditions of basic class solidarity and trade union membership alive.

That is why every worker should be an active union member. And why socialists should be in the forefront of arguing for union membership in their workplaces, even when it seems nothing will ever happen.