💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-why-the-unions-fail-us.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 21:56:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Why the Unions Fail Us
Author: Anonymous
Date: 2009
Language: en
Topics: trade unions
Source: Retrieved on September 10, 2009 from http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090908161359117
Notes: from Direct Action #47 (Britain)

Anonymous

Why the Unions Fail Us

This brings home the crucial failure of the “organising model” favoured

by Unite! and other unions. They are social democratic in nature and

essentially believe capitalism can and should be managed better to

benefit workers.

To do this they have to work with the bosses and get the Labour Party to

provide a legislative framework. A top down model of union recognition,

negotiation controlled by full time officials and a concentration on

“headline” issues like the London Living Wage, not the real concerns of

workers, are their objectives. Unite!’s relationship with Mitie was

always more important to them than the interests of a small, troublesome

group of workers.

Social democrats take the fact that cleaning contractors are rich

multinationals to mean they should be more willing to pay better wages

as they can “afford” it. In fact, they are rich precisely because they

constantly cut costs on existing contracts and win more by undercutting

competitors.

Besides giving investors a greater return, this attracts further

investment and keeps share prices up. Their wealth proves they are

ruthless but makes them attractive “partners” for social democrats.

Winning the London Living Wage has always led first to cutting jobs,

like with the shift changes at Schroders and Willis, then to

victimisation of union activists. These workers are “hard to organise”

due to the level of commitment required from the union to support them.

The “organising model” of reformist trades unionism is based on gaining

union recognition followed by organisation around health and safety and

other routine issues; it can’t cope with the class warfare which arises

from this race to the bottom.

Trouble begins with the transfer to a new contractor, which will have

won the contract by offering the same service for less. To make profit

they cut costs by sacking the better paid workers and not replacing

them, increasing workloads. Contractors rely on convincing workers they

have no rights and can’t organise, or that there will be dire

consequences if they do. The easiest way to do this is to use

immigration controls. Immigration controls don’t keep people out of the

UK; they control them when they’re here creating a “good business

environment” for contractors. Rich companies thrive in this environment.

Mitie lags behind Capita and SERCO in the “outsourcing” and services

stakes, but in 2008 its pre-tax profits were £67.9m on a turnover of

£1.4bn. Year on year increases since 2004 had roughly doubled these

figures. The NPL building management contract was run by SERCO which

also runs immigration detention centres and carries out deportations; it

subcontracted the cleaning to Amey, thus making money both from the

cheaper workforce provided by immigration controls and from deporting

migrants. SERCO is part owned by Ferrovia, a major shareholder in

Tube-lines, which itself subcontracts cleaning on London Underground.

These companies have their fingers in all the pies and are very

powerful.

The layers of subcontracting require research to find and pressurise the

people who matter, who control the money, have the public profile and

can be embarrassed. One reason for subcontracting is to evade

responsibility for the workforce, as well as to hamper solidarity and

cut costs. Our targets shouldn’t be Amey, but NPL with its standing in

the scientific community; not Mitie or Lancaster but the bank that

subcontracts to them and who has a reputation. Our aim shouldn’t just be

to shame capitalists into acting against their own interests, but to

expose their true nature and advocate their abolition. The existing

unions can’t and won’t do this; it is not just the methods but the aims

and objectives of social democrats which fail the working class.