Today I attended the Institute of Employment Rights conference launching the campaign to secure the passage of the Trade Union Rights and Freedom bill.
Whilst I won't repeat any of the arguments as I wouldn't do them any justice I will make an observation on some of the comments.
It was noted by one speaker that frequent reference is made in the media and by commentators to British trade unions representing only 6 million members, which actually puts the movement at the top of heap in terms of membership based organisations.
John McDonnell then commented that the campaign is now at the point whereby the movement could begin to look towards the wider civil society to generate even broader support for the Bill.
This brings me to one of my observations.
Whether the reference to 6 million members is framed positively or negatively I believe it fails to accurately describe the impact trade union members have on society.
For example if every trade union member has at least one dependent family member then 6 million translates into 12 million people on whom the labour movement has an immediate impact.
When we also consider that according to findings in Inside the Workplace (2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey) 35% of all British employees have their wages set through collective bargaining, and that the present workkforce is 29 million, then this translates into just over 10 million workers who have their pay set through collective bargaining.
Now some might question whether all those agreements are negotiated with unions, but I suspect any deviation would be minor, so we could safely estimate that at least 3 million workers are benefiting from the collective strength of 6 million trade union members, a figure similar to other estimates.
Again if these 3 million have at least one dependent then it doubles to 6 million people affected by the collective strength of trade union members.
So when we assess the real impact of trade union members, especially on pay and wages, arguably it actually numbers anywhere from 15 to 18 million people, which is a much more realistic perspective on the impact of trade union members on society.
I suspect that some people may tend to disagree, so perhaps it will be a useful starting point for the broader debate in the community and wider civil society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yes, unions have a bigger impact than some commentators would make out. However, what concerns me is that - of the 10m you state have their wages set by collective bargaining - almost half are not members of unions. They seem to be freeloading off previous union achivements - perhaps those made when unions were stronger in the 60s and 70s. What are the best ways to get these people to join? Should we re-introduce a post-entry closed shop, should the law ever change to allow this?
Vino, you raise difficult questions about the role of the State and the level of industrial relations regulation.
For example if you asked 100 people if they individually would choose to pay taxes or keep their wages I reckon most would choose their wages, despite the benefits they derive from taxation.
However the community broadly acknowledges the collective benefits of taxes, which in turn allows the State to levy taxes on citizens - what I would describe as a form of mutual obligation between the citizen and the community.
The question this raises is should this 'mutual obligation' be extended by legislation to workplaces?
I believe that answer is the subject of a separate post in itself, as there are many aspects to the debate that can't adequately be covered in this reply, but I think that viewing the questions you pose through this construction gives the debate some perspective.
Post a Comment