26 July 2002
At one extreme, on the Right, the public sector unions like the rest of the union movement are portrayed as if they are being taken over by old-style hard-Left barons.
The Left, meanwhile, is busy accusing the government and employers of failing to understand the demands on public sector workers in an era where reform and modernisation are paramount.
So, has there been a fundamental change in the mutually supportive relationship the public sector unions enjoyed with New Labour when it came to power? There is a strong argument for saying `no', despite three areas of conflict:
l a series of planned local government strikes on the back of last week's walk-out by 750,000 members of Unison, the GMB and the T&G, the first national strike since 1979;
l more days of disruption to London's Tube network threatened by rail staff concerned about safety under the public-private partnership (now complicated by a pay row); and
l the escalation of the Fire Brigades Union's demands for pay rises of up to £9,000 a year.
These three disputes have coincided with two unrelated New Labour/union battles, raising questions about democracy within the union movement.
One bone of contention is the election of former Communist Derek Simpson as leader of the private sector union, Amicus, which involved the ousting of key Labour ally Sir Ken Jackson. Simpson, who had indicated that he is `no fan of New Labour', has, however, said he will not reduce the union's direct funding of the party and that he `intends to ensure that a Labour government continues'.
Perhaps more significant for the public sector is the unresolved High Court battle to decide who leads the Public and Commercial Services Union, pitting the Left-wing Mark Serwotka, who claims to have been democratically elected, against New Labour sympathiser Barry Reamsbottom.
But where are the echoes of 1979? Then, the social contract between the party and unions had been exhausted, Labour was reaping the whirlwind of International Monetary Fund intervention, inflation was rising, employment levels were falling and prime minister Jim Callaghan had a tiny majority.
The unions, whose membership totalled 13 million, flexed their muscle because they were hugely influential and feared for their members' future.
Today, union membership is 6.7 million, inflation is under control and employment is rising 140,000 jobs have been created in the public sector in recent years. The relationship with the government has been one of social partnership since 1997, often brokered by the moderate Trades Union Congress leadership of John Monks.
Now conditions are rather different. A Unison spokesman maintains that the 1980s' Thatcherite assault on unionism, which depressed public sector wages significantly, has still not been addressed.
`The local government dispute is not old-style militancy, but the expression of opposition to years of neglect in terms of pay,' he says. `We are not threatening to withdraw funds from the Labour party or, indeed, begin a campaign of opposition to all things Labour. But we are saying to the party: see sense and pay your core supporters a dignified wage.'
The Employers' Organisation, which is arguing the corner of employers in both the local government and fire brigades disputes, agrees. A spokesman says: `Clearly, there are other elements at play elsewhere in the union movement, but we see this and the dispute with the Fire Brigades Union as long-running and isolated concerns about pay.'
In the wake of years of extra investment in public sector services by Chancellor Gordon Brown, boosted this year by the £60bn Spending Review, there is a strong argument that employees simply want a piece of the pie.
Following news that the Ministry of Defence had granted a three-year, 7.5% pay rise to 13,000 staff, the firefighters' leaders, local government unions and train drivers all threatened to escalate their disputes unless their members receive similar deals.
As a senior TUC source observes: `If the unions are not going to get a good deal now, when will they get one?'
PFjul2002
