This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/15/tory-attack-unions-work

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
This Tory attack on unions should remind us how much we need them This Tory attack on unions should remind us how much we need them
(2 days later)
Sajid Javid’s announcement on new rules for trade unions – described by the Daily Mail as the “biggest crackdown on union militants in 30 years” – carries with it a strange atmosphere: somewhere between nostalgia and a time warp, like legislating against the IRA, or house music.Sajid Javid’s announcement on new rules for trade unions – described by the Daily Mail as the “biggest crackdown on union militants in 30 years” – carries with it a strange atmosphere: somewhere between nostalgia and a time warp, like legislating against the IRA, or house music.
The original plan was to make strike action illegal, unless the turnout was over 50% and 40% voted in favour. It escaped no one’s notice that many MPs would struggle to demonstrate their legitimacy, subject to rules like these.The original plan was to make strike action illegal, unless the turnout was over 50% and 40% voted in favour. It escaped no one’s notice that many MPs would struggle to demonstrate their legitimacy, subject to rules like these.
Related: Labour leadership candidates attack 'ideologically driven' union crackdownRelated: Labour leadership candidates attack 'ideologically driven' union crackdown
But the proposals as they’ve been unveiled today go much further: picketing will be criminalised, employers will be allowed to hire agency staff to replace striking workers and the financial links between unions and the labour party are to be eroded, with members being asked to opt-in to a party political allegiance.But the proposals as they’ve been unveiled today go much further: picketing will be criminalised, employers will be allowed to hire agency staff to replace striking workers and the financial links between unions and the labour party are to be eroded, with members being asked to opt-in to a party political allegiance.
The Daily Mail reports some bizarre restrictions on the use of the word “scab”, which I have only heard uttered, in my adult life, by people being ironic and Billy Elliot’s dad. It is, say observers, the most profound attack on the unions since Norman Tebbit in 1985: and yet, apart from the sheer hostility of the Conservative agenda, the years 1985 and 2015 have very little in common, industrially.The Daily Mail reports some bizarre restrictions on the use of the word “scab”, which I have only heard uttered, in my adult life, by people being ironic and Billy Elliot’s dad. It is, say observers, the most profound attack on the unions since Norman Tebbit in 1985: and yet, apart from the sheer hostility of the Conservative agenda, the years 1985 and 2015 have very little in common, industrially.
Strike action then was a very real part of life, touching everyone, and therefore everyone had a view on it. At the height of the 1970s disputes, the year Thatcher came to power, nearly 30m working days were lost.Strike action then was a very real part of life, touching everyone, and therefore everyone had a view on it. At the height of the 1970s disputes, the year Thatcher came to power, nearly 30m working days were lost.
It’s very rare now for lost days to top a million – it’s happened three times this century, and hasn’t gone to two million since the 80s. Industrial action is on a completely different scale: and even the 70s couldn’t hold a torch to 1926, which lost 162 million working days in a single year . What’s interesting, when you look at the historical data, is how spiky the line is, even across a period when workers’ rights were static. People don’t just strike because they can; they strike in response to particular sets of conditions. The idea that the unions will, to the limits of their power, disrupt the workplace for a laugh – an idea the Tory rhetoric relies on – simply doesn’t stand up to historical analysis.It’s very rare now for lost days to top a million – it’s happened three times this century, and hasn’t gone to two million since the 80s. Industrial action is on a completely different scale: and even the 70s couldn’t hold a torch to 1926, which lost 162 million working days in a single year . What’s interesting, when you look at the historical data, is how spiky the line is, even across a period when workers’ rights were static. People don’t just strike because they can; they strike in response to particular sets of conditions. The idea that the unions will, to the limits of their power, disrupt the workplace for a laugh – an idea the Tory rhetoric relies on – simply doesn’t stand up to historical analysis.
The idea that unions will disrupt the workplace for a laugh, which Tory rhetoric relies on, doesn’t stand up to analysisThe idea that unions will disrupt the workplace for a laugh, which Tory rhetoric relies on, doesn’t stand up to analysis
The other plain conclusion from any depth of vision is that, as union power decreases – coming under attack from rightwing governments, and seeing a decline in membership – the productivity split between profit and wages shifts, in the direction of profit.The other plain conclusion from any depth of vision is that, as union power decreases – coming under attack from rightwing governments, and seeing a decline in membership – the productivity split between profit and wages shifts, in the direction of profit.
The workforce received between 58% and 64% of output all the way from the end of the second world war until the late 70s, since which time it has gone down to its current 51%: but that includes in “pay” the wages of the chief executive, which are often immense and should, realistically, be classed as profits. A £5m salary can’t really be taken as an index of how hard a CEO worked. There aren’t enough hours in the day. His wage can only really be understood as a cut of the profit, a spur for him to prioritise shareholders over employees.The workforce received between 58% and 64% of output all the way from the end of the second world war until the late 70s, since which time it has gone down to its current 51%: but that includes in “pay” the wages of the chief executive, which are often immense and should, realistically, be classed as profits. A £5m salary can’t really be taken as an index of how hard a CEO worked. There aren’t enough hours in the day. His wage can only really be understood as a cut of the profit, a spur for him to prioritise shareholders over employees.
Concomitantly, politicians from both the Conservative and Labour party have started to understand “wealth creation” as something that only the employer does; no wealth, no productivity gains at all, come from the people who do the work, in the modern narrative.Concomitantly, politicians from both the Conservative and Labour party have started to understand “wealth creation” as something that only the employer does; no wealth, no productivity gains at all, come from the people who do the work, in the modern narrative.
Indeed, work itself is no longer a process of production, of which one can be proud, but is instead something precarious, for which one should be extremely grateful. With that has come the additional surveillance culture where employers search your bags when you leave and count your paces to make sure you’re moving fast enough, or time your toilet breaks.Indeed, work itself is no longer a process of production, of which one can be proud, but is instead something precarious, for which one should be extremely grateful. With that has come the additional surveillance culture where employers search your bags when you leave and count your paces to make sure you’re moving fast enough, or time your toilet breaks.
Related: The Tories, trade unions and British democracy under threat | Letters
Simultaneously, people have started talking about the “hourglass economy”, with a lot of unskilled jobs at the bottom, highly skilled jobs at the top, and nothing in the middle. I used to accept that as the shape of the modern world, until a trade unionist pointed out to me that the economy, in terms of skill level, was more the shape of a flowerpot – care work actually requires a lot of skills, both soft and hard; so does construction; so does retail and hospitality – you name it. These jobs have been repackaged as low skill in order to justify their low wages. But anybody who thinks they really are low skilled should spend a morning doing one, and see how that works out.Simultaneously, people have started talking about the “hourglass economy”, with a lot of unskilled jobs at the bottom, highly skilled jobs at the top, and nothing in the middle. I used to accept that as the shape of the modern world, until a trade unionist pointed out to me that the economy, in terms of skill level, was more the shape of a flowerpot – care work actually requires a lot of skills, both soft and hard; so does construction; so does retail and hospitality – you name it. These jobs have been repackaged as low skill in order to justify their low wages. But anybody who thinks they really are low skilled should spend a morning doing one, and see how that works out.
This, in the end, is the problem with inequality – not that one person has a more comfortable life than others, but that it fatally alters your bargaining power. While this attack on unions seems dated in its language, that central fact is timeless: without collectivism, the richer party wins, and the more they win, the richer they get, ad apparently infinitum.This, in the end, is the problem with inequality – not that one person has a more comfortable life than others, but that it fatally alters your bargaining power. While this attack on unions seems dated in its language, that central fact is timeless: without collectivism, the richer party wins, and the more they win, the richer they get, ad apparently infinitum.
So this move is cynical, sure, but it could serve a purpose: the Conservative determination to undermine the unions reminds us how vital they are, how irreplaceable, how timeless, how empowering.So this move is cynical, sure, but it could serve a purpose: the Conservative determination to undermine the unions reminds us how vital they are, how irreplaceable, how timeless, how empowering.