From the Times Red Box today:
They went on to gloatingly note that there were fewer days lost to strikes in the last year than in any other since records began in 1891.
I, of course, note that this is an obvious explanation for stagnant wages within the UK economy that are having a massive impact on well-being and poor growth.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This was one of the predictions made by those opposed to the National Minimum Wage ( and its equivalents ). The logic was that in retail, personal services, betting shops and similar jobs most affected by the changes there would be no reason to join a trade union as the main campaigning focus was completely undermined by a government committee deciding they know best what the baseline wage should be across all sectors and regions.
The decline in union membership does coincide rather well with the reduced number of strikes.
I think we need unions in low paid jobs to promote safety as there are still some issues, but the only way back to incentivising union membership is to abolish the minimum wage laws.
So we penalise people and remove an essential social safety net to promote trade union membership
I have to say I am beginning to think I need to hit the delete button rather more often on this blog if this is the standard of comment being offered
Dear Richard,
Please, as a psychologist, I implore you, please see a doctor.
You clearly suffer from cognitive dissonance as both of these are quotes from you today.
“Debate requires an open mind and a willingness to accept there are alternatives”
and
“I need to hit the delete button rather more often on this blog if this is the standard of comment being offered”
Really worried about your mental well-being as we see these as indicators of a problem in all our checklists, especially in writing exercises.
Jen
a) I don’t need to see a doctor
b) I don’t believe you are a psychologist: no professional psychologist would comment in this way
c) My comments are entirely logical: I am suggesting some of those posting comments are not seeking to debate and as such should not get on here. In other words, I am saying I should delete them because they are not meeting the criteria in my first comment. That is evidence of consistency.
For the record, when comments seek to add value I post them. The only evidence of dissonance is in posting this comment by you.
Maybe you should seek some help with logic?
Yo think that unions are only about increasing wages?
Part of the Thatcher anti-labour measures was abolition of wages boards – perhaps they need to be reinstated.
Carol Wilcox says:
“You think that unions are only about increasing wages?”
Hmm….
Certainly they originally had a much wider brief and it included developing parliamentary representation by working to develop the Labour Party which in recent years seems to have gone to some lengths to distance itself from those roots.
Ed Miliband in particular, was embarrassing. Adding insult to the injuries done by Blair and Brown.
There was also an agenda which had a great deal to do with maintaining differentials which led to a great deal of internecine battles which did the movement little credit and paved the way for Thatcher’s ‘reforms’. Which we all know was a euphemism for ‘destruction’.
The net result was that the unions took all the stick for what was to a very large extent the responsibility of appallingly incompetent managements.
The anti-union narrative has taken on the aura of fact in the minds of a generation too young to have experienced the ‘winter of discontent’, let alone bothered to wonder at its underlying causes.
I’ve worked minimum wage jobs in various industries – retail; licensed trade etc and I really don’t see a correlation between wages and union representation.
In reality when you work for a small employer, union membership is of little practical use – you have no bargaining power in that situation. Even in bigger retail outfits, union representation is relatively toothless and many union reps are far too close to the company anyway. Eg, I once worked for a national retailer and after an adverse change to working conditions a strike ballot was held and the members voted to strike. What did the union (USDAW) do? Just ignored the result and meekly accepted the changes.
I have the same opinion, too many times unions have agreed to endless talks ( months or years ) with management and end up with little or nothing for their members, they are cowed and frighten by anti-union laws and people wonder why poverty is growing.
I think this is a complicated issue.
Previously, around ten years ago, I had contracted hours and a union with a large multinational retailer.
I earnt minimum wage and worked 40 hours a week. I had roughly 20 pounds spare at the end of the week. There was still the threat of black marks and official interviews if I was late or my sick day reason wasn’t deemed sufficient by the useless managers. Sick pay after sacrificing three days of pay was close to half my earnings so long term I’d have lost my flat without a crisis loan. This didn’t happen but the fear hangs over you. The only support would have been an unfair dismissal or similar end to my contract. But with sales targets I think the company could find a way to win a case if they wanted.
Now I have a casual contract in another area. I earn over triple my old minimum wage. However there is no safety net for illness or accident and zero holiday pay. I have personally experienced employers dropping me to one day a week when work slows as they can be ruthless when profit is at stake. However I can dictate my availability providing I don’t mind sacrificing paid work opportunities. I also work on the books for senseless employers and allow the most organised and well paying to fill my schedule first. I am very lucky that my skill and experience set is sort after.
I know people who have been offered full time casual work and watched their days drop from five to three to one to not being called in at all.
For a profit making soulless company that’s perfect.
For a real live human with rent and responsibilities it’s next to fatal.
Specifically in the UK I worry about the effect of Labour’s policy of doing away outright with ‘zero hours’ contracts but only because they work so well for me and I can’t be alone. Don’t get me wrong sick pay and holiday pay or TOIL would be great as I feel like I deserve of as a hard worker.
Currently I am in month two of a four and a half month backpacking venture between summer casual contracts.
Mandated hours would destroy that freedom as I’d be confined to the four weeks or whatever it is a propper job gets in a year’s holiday entitlement. Two weeks here two weeks there or whatever.
But that’s just me.
I’m not convinced unions are the key.
See the glorious backwards tumbling ol’ USA and their teacher strikes.
They went against their unions and came together and won amazing concessions that helped spur on other red states to win.
Where would they be if they simply relied on unions fullstop?
There has to he some form of societal recognition of work.
It doesn’t matter in my eyes if you have employment on contract or zero hours
or you’re a volunteer or a carer or a single parent. All that time and energy drives our society.
In my opinion Universal Basic Income is that first step.
Redistribution of wealth via efficient taxation that lifts up those who have least.
Removing the stigma and suffering from the social safety net.
And vitally it gives power back to the worker to choose their preferred avenue of employment and employer because they aren’t desperate and destitute living right on the breadline.
It has been shown in studies to empower women, to increase the health of communities and families and to stimulate entrepreneurship which are all lacking on our current atomic neoliberal economy.
That’s where my logic points when unions didn’t really have a huge positive impact on my personal circumstance.
I’m aware other people may have different experiences.
Thanks for your contribution
At several points in the last few years I’ve done research for Unite and UNISON – the two biggest trade unions in the UK – arguing for increases in the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is such a barrier to growth in trade union membership, why on earth would these trade unions pay good money to commission work on why the minimum wage should be increased? And why would they lobby govt for an increase? Richard is right – sometimes hitting the delete button is the best thing one can do…
Really? You don’t think there might be macroeconomic factors involved?
Such as?
Gerald Tasker says:
“Really? You don’t think there might be macroeconomic factors involved?”
I guess that depends whether globalisation on exploitative, neoliberal economic lines, and state capture by the financial ‘community’, counts as a macroeconomic factor (?)
With the UK’s productivity/h worked continuing to fall and well below that of DE, FR, US, the mantra that Trade Unions and the workers were the cause of all our economic ills should be laid to rest. Could the problem instead lie in weak labour legislation and a social security system that promotes low pay (and for self-employed, low declared pay) and insecure employment such as zero h contracts, allied to extremely poor management? On the latter point, the Great British Manager is a rare breed nowadays, given most of the City’s financial institutions and much of the manufacturing sector are foreign owned following the failure of British Management.
“Great British Manager” It never existed !!.
Thatcher very cleverly, through legislation, gave control of the unions to the TU leaders. who not having anything personally at stake when wages fall or conditions worsen have more and more over the last thirty years have put the interests of the organisation over those that it organises. Though some of the single industry unions such as the RMT have fought and consequently recruited more members.
Along side that there has been a ‘waiting for Labour’ mentality which applied even when Labour was in Government.
The big general unions, Unite and Unison have marched us up and down(wages, pensions, austerity etc) letting off steam whilst maintaining a non aggression stance with employers and the various governments and in the process becoming increasingly irrelevant. What is the point of a union that won’t fight?
I wonder if it would be possible to draw a graph of average wages v days of strike action to illustrate your point?
I’ve had a trawl around but am unable to produce one with the resources at hand.
Anyone?
Tory governments have always attempted to limit the power of Trades Unions, with considerable successes under and since Thatcher. Long before records began the fight was always between ‘them’ and ‘us’, with the ‘them’ wielding the greater power to subdue the ‘us’. So, yes, there’s a logical correlation between lack of strike action and stagnant wages.
Not until the actual generators of real wealth control their own destiny will there be socio-economic justice. Unfortunately the spread of global capitalism in the past 40 years has concentrated ever more power in ever fewer hands, with their political puppets in tow, sowing seeds of fear to exert ‘soft’ control.
Of course it’s not the 1850s – and materialism has replaced religion as the more addictive opiate of the people – but liberty, fraternity and equality will remain at the heart of all members of any society. I recently watched this quite good docudrama which identifies the nature of struggle and leadership required to overcome injustice in the workplace. Today it’s a different kind of class war, but it’s still a war that is yet to be won. Right now it does seem that the ‘them’ are winning the battles but hopefully not the war : ‘The Young Karl Marx’ – https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1699518.
I’m pretty sure we have had a labour government since Thatchers reign – its lazy to continue to blame thatcher for everthing
@ anthony
I did say ‘under and since …’
She was wholly responsible for importing Neo-liberalism to the UK. And part of that agenda was to diminish worker representation & collective bargaining in order to suppress wage claims. Systemic mismanagement within some of the larger Trade Unions made it all the easier, with general public approval.
In 2002, when asked what was her greatest achievement she replied ” “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.” (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/making-history.html).
The rest is history, as they say.
John D says:
“@ anthony
I did say ‘under and since …’”
You did, John, I heard that. Your reply saved me some time, thanks.
If Anthony and his his ilk wish to worship at the shrine of St Margaret, and pretend she was in some way ‘a good thing’ and a ‘great leaderine’ of a golden age their delusion will be difficult to shake off.
Still there is hope. After centuries, the Irish people have, just last week, democratically declared their contempt for the doctrine of papal infallibility.
We can hope the tyranny of the Thatcher cult will not last quite as long.
I do recommend this paper, JohnD: http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Alternative-Models-of-Ownership.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-274,848.
Thanks Carol. Agreed. Good doc 🙂
Carol Wilcox says:
“I do recommend this paper, JohnD: http://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Alternative-Models-of-Ownership.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-274,848.”
Thanks Carol. I agree well worth reading. We have a total of four people read it now (if you count in the Author)
“Increasing the role of democracy and representation
in governing our economy would serve as a means
of broadening the range of voices involved in making
economic decisions,….”
So No.1 Item on the manifesto is PR. The alternative is shortermism because next session the other lot will reverse polarity. Labour have reneged on every promise of being interested in voting reform every time they have sneaked in under FPTP.
” To remedy a lack of public funding
A decreased tax take ….”
Having read Richard for a prolonged period you at least know this is mince. Confusing cause with effect is not inspiring of confidence.
I wonder what proportion of the PLP support the basic thesis? Quite a lot of ’em I hope.
You don’t think immigration from low income countries over the past decade or so hasn’t had an impact?
Up here in the north east (Tyne and Wear), I personally know of tradespeople (eg bricklayers) who have seen their rates halve due to competition from eastern Europeans willing to do it for less.
Not against immigration or against any group, but the ‘supply-demand’ thing must have an impact on price (ie wages).
There is a desperate shortage of skills in that area
Are you sure?
I’m not a tradesman myself, so am only hearing this anecdotally.
And if there are shortages as you suggest, why would you need strikes to push up prices? Wouldn’t there be a competition for the scarce workers, pushing up prices? Surely mother nature takes her course???
Tradespeople are almost entirely self employed
Next question?
So everyone in the building trade is self employed? There are no employees in this industry whose wages will be reflected in these figures?
There are shortages in a lot of industries where the majority are employed – nursing, the care sector, parts of teaching, various technical skilled occupations.
You referred to tradespeople
Most in building are self-employed
I answered the point you made and now you change the subject
You are time wasting and I don’t have time to waste on that
Employers consider training locals as an cost and not as an investment, so we have immigration from low income countries and local unemployment.
tony says:
“Employers consider training locals as an cost and not as an investment, so we have immigration from low income countries and local unemployment.”
Well, yes that picks up on a little bit of the narrative. The Brexit mob certainly made hay out of it whilst simultaneously prescribing an alternative future in which other parts of the narrative enjoy free reign.
A bigger influence has been the export of jobs along with industrial plant to cheap labour regions for undistributed profit to corporate interests. The transparency of borders to the movement of capital under the umbrella of ‘globalisation’. And the rentier financialisation of everything nailed down or not.
The move to keep labour firmly captive so it is unable to follow the money is so far incomplete, but well advanced.
PS.
Employers baulk at paying for training ANYbody. These promoters of the free market ethos expect the state to pick up the tab for training and education. Or for the workforce to pay for its own training.
……Complete with comprehensive brainwashing.
I think Richards point is that it’s almost impossible to strike these days – legally. That doesn’t mean people don’t want to.
Not quite
Lecturers managed it
there have been many strikes on trains over the past year.
Trades Unions are seen by most young workers as irrelevant to their lives. I remember the 1970s when the TUC leaders had real political clout. Vic Feather, Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon were giant figures in the Labour Party but were swept aside when the “full employment” consensus ended under Thatcher. The Unions’ response was to set themselves up as glorified travel agents and insurance brokers, instead of engaging in real political and economic debate with the neocons. Many so called union leaders in the 80s and 90s sold their membership lists and became non-exec directors of finance companies.
The left has a massive job to persuade young people to engage in politics. The Indy debate in Scotland showed that the young can be motivated to so engage. The naysayers, with Project Fear, tried to lower the level of debate to the “Yaboo” politics so prevalent at Westminster. They won the 2014 Referendum but lost the trust of young voters.
Those with a reasonable level of economic literacy must gain an understanding of MMT and engage on whatever fora they can with the apologists for neoliberalism; in the Scottish context this means that an independent Scotland must have its own sovereign currency from day one.
Trade Unions must get away from their current “SNPbad/no to indy” mentality, or they will become even less relevant to our young people.
Your earlier article on how tax can be used, in conjunction with MMT, to promote more environmentally friendly economic activity, highlights one policy which should attract progressively minded young folk.
A closer look at the dystopian world of low-wage jobs would show you why trade union membership is so low.
The jobs are structured so that communication is difficult – an atomised workforce of subcontractors and individual contracts and zero-hours conditions – and *everything* is at the whim of the manager, who can cut your hours to zero, for any reason or none.
For the avoidance of doubt, that’s a literal power of life and death in a workplace where everyone knows someone who uses a food bank: sometimes they run out.
At the very bottom of the the market, a worker can and will be threatened with a phone call to the immigration authorities: even if they’re ‘legal’, they can still be detained and deported. Safer to leave quietly and get work somewhere else, hope you’ll get another job before you’re forced to eat cardboard and beg and miss your rent, if you hear any hint that your manager will do that.
Above that level, and across employers, blacklisting is universal.
No-one who looks like the kind of ‘troublemaker’ who would speak up about anything at all, let alone become a union organiser, lasts long in that environment.
However, there’s another side to this: the TUC have been largely indifferent to the workers in the low-wage, low-skill sector – often women, mostly not native English speakers – and it is very telling that the high-profile successes in the education sector have come from grass-roots activists with very little support from the wider Labour movement.
Not all jobs are like that; but any job that can be, will be. De-skilling has been a consistent trend across all sectors, in a deliberate policy since Keith Joseph’s day; and the economic objective of neoliberalism is that the individual worker, who must sell their labour in order to live, does so in a buyers’ market with an insurmountable imbalance of power working against them.
The chart you’re looking for – wages vs bargaining power – looks the way it does by design, and by decades of policy from successive governments.
Note, also, that the chart will have no natural ‘zero’ on the wages axis; there is no ‘economic rent’ on labour and the price on offer to the lower decile is already dipping below the level required to provide shelter and an adult’s daily calorie intake.
There are already parts of the labour market where the line is below zero in monetary as well as calorific terms – paid-for internships and, arguably, the need to take on massive debts to work in companies with a graduates-only hiring bar – and I fully expect to see a return of ‘training loans’ and indentures in my lifetime.
People will not and cannot speak up or organise in the workplace with that hanging over them.
But, mostly, it’s about labour force fragmentation: the heavily-unionised retailers I worked in as a teenager are now all zero-hours and agency staff, and no possibility of collective bargaining exits – let alone the threat of industrial action.
Thanks
So true
The good news is that the effects of labour force fragmentation can be neutralised by legislation: both France and Germany have done quite well here.
What is so frustrating about this statistic is that it could, in theory, be explained by wildly different real-world scenarios:
1. Fewer strike days because unions have no power to call strikes (either as a result of restrictive legislation, poor membership figures, or insurmountable employer power, or some combination of all three);
2. Fewer strike days because unions are so powerful they do not need to use the ‘nuclear option’ of strikes to effectively get improvements for their members;
3. Fewer strike days because employers and unions know that a strike is a failure of negotiations that hurts everybody and so, as negotiations have become more professionalised and constructive over the past decades, they rarely fail to the point of a strike happening.
It seems to me that the evidence points mostly to (1), but there will be some employers that might have a bit of (2) or (3), so the same statistic could be the result of a quite varied power-balance landscape.
Both dystopian and utopian futures might have zero strike days.
Just because you have learned the term cognitive dissonance doesn’t make you a Psychologist.
Try cognitive consonance for size Richard, I think it probably fits a bit better. I really hope you don’t let people who spout nonsense like this get to you Richard.
They don’t….
In the 1970s unions were much more democratic and shop floor led, now the the likes of Len McCluskey and Dave Prentis are firmly in control and by and large are making an appalling job of it. In the public sector which has a high union density we have experienced an unprecedented fall in wages, pensions cut and terms and conditions attacked. The response from the TU leaders has been timid and knowingly inept. The willingnes of the workforce to strike underpins everything in industrial relations and this is the lesson we need to relearn, that and be willing to act independently of crap leaders, like the teachers have in USA.