Divided we stand on the place of unions in Tory Britain

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/04/place-of-unions-tory-britain-divided-we-stand

Version 0 of 1.

The Queen’s speech should leave nobody in any doubt who the Tories see as the main threat to their austerity plans. David Cameron’s cabinet of millionaires knows that the trade union movement has the potential power to stop the onslaught on working-class living standards. That’s why they want to further shackle our trade unions with yet more anti-union legislation, despite Britain already having the most draconian laws in western Europe.

If the new thresholds, with a 50% turnout and 40% of all those eligible having to vote yes in any ballot involving workers in essential services, were applied to the election of MPs, 270 of the Tories in the House of Commons would remain unelected.

Old Labour-style solidarity is no longer fit for purpose. A super-union needs to discover a new super-consensus

The Tories also intend to offer employers what amounts to a licence to break strikes. They want to make it legal to use agency workers during industrial disputes to replace strikers. With further tightening of the right to picket, this is a package aimed at taking out the most powerful obstacle to the Tories’ plans.

The right to organise and use collective action are basic rights. We won’t stand by and watch them destroyed. We urge all trade unionists to join the 20 June demonstrations in London and Glasgow and to be part of a major campaign of meetings, rallies – and action – to defend the right to strike against austerity.Mark Serwotka General secretary, PCS, Ronnie Draper General secretary, BFAWU, John McDonnell MP, Sean Vernell and Jane Aitchison Joint secretaries, Unite the Resistance, Jane Loftus President, CWU, Christopher Stephens MP, Ian Hodson National president, BFAWU, Liz Lawrence President, UCU

• Andy Prendergast (GMB) rails against the proposed union legislation in the Queen’s speech (Letters, 29 May). “Minimum turnouts,” he argues, “represent the biggest attack on the right to organise for over a generation.” Except the attack is not on the right to organise. It is, essentially, a reasonable challenge to super-unions and their reliance on a democratic deficit.

I have been a member of what is now Unite for almost 50 years. Over a century ago, my grandfather was a union organiser in the Hull docks. He was working-class Liberal. I am white-collar. He would now be in Unite via the TGWU. I arrived via banking and Amicus.

Related: Despair, and a little hope, at the Queen’s speech | Letters

It should symbolise a sweet symmetry of cross-sector amalgamation. In reality it displays a cynical indifference towards the promised inclusivity on which the Unite super-union was originally pitched.

For, despite our diverse political allegiances and social cultures, we have all been subsumed into a socialist convention, where our scarce resources are channelled in the vain hope of securing a leftwing Labour government. But a super-union is, by definition, an administrative confederation. It must accommodate and satisfy its disparate segments. It is not a gift to an executive committee, only in place because they showed up.

My grandfather’s Liberalism, and my own middle-class values, are part of the wide social mix necessary if super-unions are to survive. But old Labour-style solidarity – where the many delegate to the few – is no longer fit for purpose. A super-union needs to discover a new super-consensus. Minimum turnouts may be a tentative start.Mike AllottEastleigh, Hampshire

• Industrial action on low turnouts can have the effect of inflicting “collateral damage” on the reputation of responsible unions like my own. And trade union members have a vested interest in an economy attractive to investment, creating more jobs with full employment as an aspiration. However, in the spirit of one-nation conservatism, trade union legislation should be balanced with clauses making it easier for unions to gain recognition from irrationally anti-union employers and expanding on the role of union reps in fields such as safety, pensions and learning/training. The TUC would be wise to angle for this balanced outcome rather than embark on blanket opposition with nothing in return. John Barstow Member, Usdaw executive council

Democratic accountability is fast being whittled away in pretty well every area of state-funded provision

• The tendency for politicians to favour efficiency over democracy is daily more evident (How far does Cameron want to shrink the state? 2 June). At the weekend, it was reported that Tony Blair’s premiership was marked by his move to a preference for effectiveness of government over democracy, a position he has been consolidating in his international dealings in recent years. Last year, at a conference on school governance in England, the then Conservative chair of the education select committee, Graham Stuart, said he was “less interested in democratic accountability than in quality”. This may be a fine aspiration when you control the definitions of effectiveness and quality, or when there is a clear consensus on what these terms mean in practice. But that is far from the case. Democratic accountability – the capacity of the public to hold their politicians answerable for the provision of tax-funded services – is fast being whittled away in pretty well every area of state-funded provision.

Most public sector workers know this. The message is not getting through yet to the service recipients. Strikes and other direct action seem to be the only strategy open to them.Nigel GannChiselborough, Somerset