TUC 2003
THIS YEAR’S Trades Union Congress in Brighton was billed
by the media as a turning point where the new ‘awkward squad’ of left-wing
union leaders would come to the fore to give the New Labour establishment a good
kicking. So, did the Congress live up to these expectations, and what did it
mean for the direction of the British trade union movement?
The last time I attended the TUC was in 1996 as a delegate
for the old Civil and Public Servants Association (CPSA) union. Every union
leadership was in favour of everyone keeping their heads down, avoiding anything
controversial, and waiting for a Labour government. Collaboration with big
business was advocated as the way forward by the TUC bureaucracy and Tony Blair
got a lengthy standing ovation for his address to congress. The only union
leader to stand out from the right-wing crowd – Arthur Scargill – was
extremely isolated.
TUC 2003 was quite a contrast. It is true that the TUC
bureaucracy is still powerful. Motions from unions were merged into 23 giant
composites designed to iron out differences to the extent that they could be
passed unanimously. Nevertheless the frustration of workers that has led to the
election of left leaders was reflected in many of the resolutions and debates.
The first debate was on rights at work which carried a
composite which included the demand put forward by the Transport & General
Workers Union (TGWU) for the right to legally take secondary action. Bob Crow,
general secretary of the Rail, Maritime & Transport union (RMT), pointed out
that the bosses legally take secondary action by shipping scabs from one end of
the country to the other, so ‘if it’s good enough for the bosses it’s good
enough for us’, he said to thunderous applause. Jeremy Dear, general secretary
of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), rightly pointed out that after six
years of Labour government ‘British workers are still the easiest and cheapest
to sack in Europe’.
The debate on pensions was a good example of how the TUC
bureaucracy attempts to water down resolutions from the unions. PCS had put
forward an amendment to a First Division Association (FDA) motion on pensions.
Our amendment called on the TUC to organise a demonstration, a rally and a day
of action in response to the attack on public sector pensions in the government’s
recent green paper. In the end, the large composite involving 13 unions called
for the demo and rally but only ‘consideration’ of a day of action. Had we
stayed out of the composite we wouldn’t have got any of our demands carried.
Nevertheless, the motion goes much further than the TUC general council would
have wanted. Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS, clearly caught the
mood when he said of action on pensions: ‘If Austria, France and Italy can do
it, so can we’.
In addition to debating motions, the Congress was treated to
hearing some guest speakers. Much of the media coverage before and during the
Congress concentrated on the appearance of Digby Jones, Director General of the
Confederation of British Industry (CBI), and the chancellor, Gordon Brown. Digby
Jones had spent most of the previous week attacking unions in the media,
particularly those that dare to stand up for their members instead of
collaborating with the bosses he represents. He appeared as part of a ‘stand
up panel’ along with Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry, and Brendan Barber for the TUC.
They each did a little speech and were then interviewed by
TV journalist Sheenagh McDonald. Digby Jones didn’t get a particularly hostile
reception because he had clearly been told to cool it and made a grovelling
speech. According to Digby the bosses only want to make profits to pay more
taxes so that more hospitals can be built, literacy schemes run, etc. The
biggest round of applause of the session went to the journalist when she
suggested to Hewitt that if the minimum wage was paid to young people more of
them might bother to vote. Hewitt looked stumped and waffled a meaningless
reply.
Gordon Brown also tried to be popular. He repeatedly
referred to the Congress as ‘friends’. His speech was littered with populist
soundbites. The minimum wage was ‘a tribute to Tony Blair’s premiership’,
and ‘John Smith’s promise fulfilled’. He was working for the 1944 Labour
dream of full employment, we were going to remove every BNP councillor, have a
national childcare strategy, and new rights for 16/17 year-olds. However all the
real substance in the speech, on privatisation and public sector pay for
example, signalled no change from their pro-big business, pro-capitalist
policies. At a congress where virtually every debate reflected frustration at
the failure of New Labour to carry through measures to benefit workers, while
they continue to do favours for the bosses, delegates were not going to be
fooled. He got 15 seconds of fairly muted applause, in stark contrast to the
standing ovations enjoyed by Labour leaders in the past.
The international debate was dominated by the war in Iraq.
Delegate after delegate condemned the invasion by US/UK forces and called for
withdrawal. Tony Woodley moved the composite for the TGWU condemning ‘US
warmongers’ and calling on Blair to ‘apologise’. The previous night at the
‘Stop the War’ meeting he had called on Blair to ‘apologise and resign’.
The resignation call had made the headlines the following morning. Despite
Woodley’s slight toning down of the attack, as the resignation call
mysteriously disappeared, delegates spoke of ‘Blair’s lies’, the ‘illegal
war’ and ‘the government imploding’. There couldn’t have been a greater
contrast to the stage-managed, pro-Labour leadership TUCs of the 1990s.
Debate throughout Congress was dominated by the huge gap
that has opened up between the policies of the TUC and the programme being
pursued by the Labour government. Underlying this, and fiercely debated at the
fringe meetings of congress, was the question of how organised workers can now
regain a political voice. The so-called ‘awkward squad’ have been elected
because workers in the unions are rejecting Blairite candidates. Some, like Tony
Woodley, are calling on trade unionists to ‘re-claim our party’. However, it
is obvious that they have no strategy for achieving this even if they could
overcome the disgust most workers now feel for what was once ‘their party’.
Other leaders like Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka are clearly interested in the
alternative consistently advocated by the Socialist Party – building a new
workers’ party. After six years of Labour government these are the issues
central to the debates in the unions.
The need for a real alternative to Labour was best summed up
for me by Diana Holland, new chair of the Labour Party National Executive
Committee, sent to give sororal greetings to congress. Why should the unions
support Labour after six years of disappointment? Because, she explained, New
Labour’s first six years were better than Thatcher’s first six years (from
1979-1985). Well worth all those millions of pounds of workers’ money you are
given by the unions then, Diana!
Actually, I don’t think so and most PCS members I meet are
glad that PCS isn’t affiliated and doesn’t pour money down that particular
drain.
Rob Williams
Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union national
executive committee member (personal capacity)
|