STAND UP FOR STEEL IN SCOTLAND

On the 20-22 April the STUC Congress will be meeting in Ayr. The theme of this year's Congress is Decent Work and Dignified Lives. In the run up to Congress this blog will host a series of articles prepared by STUC affiliated unions. These articles reflect the positions and priorities of our affiliates and are designed to give a flavour of the disparate work that the trade union movement is undertaking in pursuit of decent work and dignified lives

MP for Motherwell and Wishaw and former steelworker, Frank Roy MP, summed it up well when he told Parliament "The people who ensure that we have steel are the people who ensure that we have oil rigs are in the North sea; that we have pipes bringing gas and oil from the furthest north; that we have a Channel tunnel reinforced with steel in the south; that we have the ships that sail from our ports, the planes that fly from our airports, the buses and cars that drive on our roads, the trains that go along our rail tracks, the bridges, the buildings and the white goods.  I could go on and on.  That is the steel industry of the 21st century."

Thus Frank demonstrated how steel is still integral to so many aspects of our lives, not least the jobs that steel provides and supports. This is why Community is calling on the Scottish and Westminster Governments to Stand up for Steel.

Scotland’s steel industry, predominantly supplied from Scunthorpe, still remains an integral part of many of the supply chains to which Frank referred. But if Scottish steel is to have a future then it needs the Governments in Scotland and Westminster to act.  There are a number of key demands that Community is making.

Perhaps the greatest impact that the Scottish Government could have would be through ensuring there is effective procurement to support Scotland’s steel industry and its upstream UK supply chain. Unfortunately, steel and procurement in Scotland are synonymous with the debacle of the steel contract for the Forth Road Bridge.  Short‑sighted procurement choices ended up with steel contracts being awarded to companies in Poland, Spain and China, when the Dalzell steelworks, less than 40 miles away, could have supplied thousands of tonnes of Scottish steel for the construction.

Last year’s publication of the Scottish Government’s Third National Planning Framework was another missed opportunity to think strategically about procurement in a way which could have yielded opportunities for Scottish steel.  Although infrastructure is mentioned 127 times and renewable energy 36 times, procurement doesn’t feature once.  Failure to consider the implications and opportunities for industrial supply chains within such major strategic planning will only store up trouble for the future.

But there are opportunities aplenty.  The Scottish and UK Governments could bring together diverse sectors such as defence and renewables with the Scottish steel industry.  It’s clear that if we stand back and let the markets dictate the future of the industry that not only will that threaten job security  it will also undermine the UK’s capacity in these key sectors exposing them to a risky reliance on overseas steel production.

For the sake of steelworkers and their communities from Clydebridge to Corby and Dalzell to Port Talbot we hope STUC colleagues will join our call to Governments to stand up for steel.

Roy Rickhuss

General Secretary, Community

Launch of Scotland Against TTIP

Full version of article written by STUC Deputy General Secretary Dave Moxham for the Herald in advance of the launch of Scotland Against TTIP, 11th April.

The case made by the supporters of TTIP rests on one very bold assertion and one, very shaky, assumption. 

The bold assertion, in a nutshell, is that under TTIP the European economy will grow and that this growth will outweigh any economic negatives such as job losses and job displacement. 

The shaky assumption is that, dazzled by the big  numbers, ordinary citizens will care little for any further loss of democratic oversight of the way their economy is run and their services are delivered, prepared to trust, instead that their governments, the big multi-national institutions and big business, can be trusted with the world’s biggest ever trade deal.

And to be brutally honest, this has tended to be the way of things in the past.  Major trade deals, changes to the international regulation of finance and treaties governing key issues such as environmental protection and labour standards have been agreed with nary a murmur of dissent. But the response to TTIP has been different both because its proponents have been singularly unable to demonstrate its economic benefits and because, post the 2008 financial crisis, they have seriously underestimated the public mood.

The old trick of holding up a large number and hoping it will silence all criticism does not seem to be working this time.  The primary reason for this being that, in the context of the size of the European economy, £130 billion Euros of growth claimed is actually a very small number indeed.  Spread over a twelve year period it amounts to additional annual GDP growth of little more than 0.03%.  Just to be clear, this number is so small that, come 2027, the task of measuring whether additional growth had been achieved as a result of TTIP would be statistically impossible.

At the same time, no serious impact analysis has been undertaken (in Scotland, the UK or Europe), on what the effect of TTIP would be on overall employment, and crucially, the impact of job dislocation – the process by which some areas and regions would quite certainly lose employment, whilst others gained.  Derisory gains, enormous uncertainties.

Despite the rhetoric, TTIP is very little about removing tariffs barriers and very much about reducing protections to the environment and employment standards so that multi-nationals can trade with fewer inconvenient restrictions. The buzzwords used are ‘standardisation’ and ‘harmonisation’.  The truth is that corporate power is seeking to limit the intensely troublesome habit of some governments, some of the time, to support public ownership and to protect their citizens and the environment.

Against the general expectation that many standards would be harmonised through reduced protections, in one particular sector, the trend seems likely to be in the opposite direction.  It is entirely predictable that the under TTIP the pharmaceutical giants will be lobbying intensively to make their patents longer, stronger and more far reaching, with the entirely predictable negative impact on the cost of prescription drugs. 

But if the bold assertion of economic gain versus loss looks weak, weaker still is the assumption that citizens will stand idly by whilst the concentration of economic power continues at the expense of democratic accountability.  The coming together of a wide range of organisations, from trade unionists to local food campaigners and anti-poverty campaigners to environmental activists to form the Scotland Against TTIP coalition is part of a growing movement across Europe that aims to prevent a massive corporate power grab taking place at the expense of democratic sovereignty.  More than a million and a half people in Europe have signed a petition calling for TTIP to be scrapped, and next Saturday a day of action is taking place with hundreds of events and demonstrations taking place across the continent.

The reason for this upsurge in opposition seems clear.  Until a leaked draft was obtained last August, the TTIP negotiations were being undertaken in utmost secrecy.  The Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), considered a cornerstone of TTIP by its strongest supporters would allow international corporations to sue sovereign governments, bypassing existing legal procedures.  This culture of secrecy and body-swerving of democratic process feeds directly into a narrative, which people increasingly recognise and suspect.  Whether in Greece or Spain, where the traditional parties of government have been rejected and the diktats of international institutions challenged, or in the wider EU where opposition to the status quo is growing alongside a healthy disenchantment with the role of big finance, it is clear that traditional assumptions about the quiescent attitude of citizens and communities to the shaping of their economic futures cannot be relied upon. 

This is one trade deal that will not be passed on the nod.

G1? - Tip of the iceberg

Tip of the iceberg

At the weekend Sunday Mail contained further coverage of our campaign to bear down on the poor treatment of staff, in the fast food sector, in pubs and club chains and further afield.

Last week, much of the focus has been on the G1 Group, owned by Stefan King, following its naming and shaming as having short-changed its workers to the tune of £45,000 through illegal non-payment of the Minimum Wage.  This is of course entirely reprehensible and its right that it should be reported.

But what has emerged since the start of last week has been a litany of accounts of poor employment practice, beyond the non-payment of the Minimum Wage, which should shock any reasonable person.

Short-hours contracts and non-payment for hours worked


The Sunday Mail, reflecting the general mood, is very focussed on Zero-hours contracts.  They have rightly exposed the very many companies, including Sports Direct and MacDonalds who use them. However simply focussing on Zero-hours does not portray the full picture.

For example, G1 protests that “there are no zero-hours contracts” at the company, however “Staff can be sent home where the bar is not busy enough, where permitted by the contract”.  Quick translation – we issue short-hours contracts and as soon as the small number of contractual hours are fulfilled we can treat the worker just as if they were on zero-hours.

This story in the Daily Mirror today shows how firms use short-hours contracts in almost exactly the way to zero-hours contracts (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/argos-homebase-tesco-exploit-workers-3630972)

So no surprise to hear comments from those who have contacted us such as:

“I would often come into work only to be sent home with no pay”.
 
And of course, when the places are busy, the opposite is true.

“We were never paid past 4am but weren't allowed to leave if they still needed us.”

“We stopped being paid when the bar shut, but we obviously had to stay for longer to clean up and sort everything out.

“I was regularly getting out at 5am when I had stopped being paid at 3am.”

So it’s very important to recognise that a company which is not using zero-hours contracts can very often find other ways get around it.  It should also be remembered that as soon as someone on the Minimum Wage works for any period of time for nothing, their salary goes below the minimum.  That’s illegal.
 
Unfair, but also dangerous

Stretching the working day into the early hours without notice is unfair and dangerous.  Many G1 employees speak of being forced to work late and then having to walk home in the early hours, sometimes miles, to avoid having to pay themselves for a taxi at significant cost.

“the cost of a taxi would have taken away about a third of the money I made that night”

“No staff taxis when I worked at Cab Vol for them either, finishing between 3.30 and 5.30 in the morning I had to either walk home alone or pay for a taxi myself, which I wasn't about to do. They also clocked us out before we finished a lot, or went back to alter our clock-out times later.”

Working hours and no breaks

Most of the people we have spoken to report an expectation that staff will work through their breaks.

“The worst part is we would work 12 hour shifts on our feet with a 15 minute break, sometimes no break.”

“My main qualm was the fact that we got no breaks in 8-10 hour shifts. And it was the kind of job where you were constantly running around glass collecting, working at the bar or serving – it was a really busy place. I think I could have had a break maybe if I'd really pushed for one, because my manager was a nice guy, but no one did so didn't want to be the only one, y'know how it is (I was 20 at the time and a little less sure of myself”

The regulations stipulate minimum breaks dependant on hours worked. So the latter case breaks the law. As for the first, frighteningly, it is just proves just how minimal legal protection can be.  Individuals working a 12-hour shift are only entitled to one 20-minute break, unless the contract says otherwise.  This is one of very many reasons why, currently, the law cannot be relied upon to provide adequate protection.

But that doesn’t mean we have to accept it.  That’s where trade unions and political and consumer pressure come in.

Paying for uniforms

Every worker and former worker who has contacted us describes having to pay for their own uniform.

“We were told that black top, trouser and shoes were the uniform and that don’t tell them you can’t afford a shirt/trousers as Primark is cheap enough.  We had to pay for our own uniforms and were never told that we could claim it back.  I was working 3 nights back to back at the weekends in a sweaty club so getting home and getting clothes washed at 4 am was not possible so the purchase of multiple tops and trousers was necessary.  Although I only worked part time (20 hours) it was easy to wear out shoes every few weeks.  The consequence of not being presentable or having the correct uniform would result in a dramatic loss in in hours with no explanation.  There would be theme nights a couple of times a month (poptastic etc) and at Halloween if you were on all weekend you would be expected to be in costume.  No one was ever recompensed for having to dress in theme but we were told it was mandatory.  The carrot would be that the best dressed won £50 best dressed prize with a team of 20 bar staff it is easy to see who was actually winning.”

Payment for training
 
“When in the office I scanned all paperwork, including new starts, which meant I soon was asked to process it all too. The contracts for bar/floor staff changed when I was there. The main contract said I agree to sign the attached form about uniform, and I agree to sign the other attached form about staff training. Both of which were agreeing to pay a deposit towards uniform, and one which said staff pay towards their own (compulsory) training. Which, incidentally, was mostly common sense rubbish, or things that don't actually provide any formal certification, and ignored any previous training/experience a person may have had. We had returning members of staff who, if they hadn't left, wouldn't have had to pay for the training, but had to in order to get their jobs back. Some chose not to come back.”

There is no justification for being forced to pay for basic training - although the practice seems fairly prevalent.  We will be contacting a number of major employers in these sectors to establish what their practice is.

A specific example of more general exploitation

All of these accounts, and many more, relate to the G1 Group.  But many of these practices are common throughout the industry.  Low pay is endemic. Zero-hours and short-hours contracts are everywhere. Workers are being routinely exploited and disrespected. Young people are at the forefront but it affects those of all ages.

So it is of course welcome to hear politicians from Labour and the SNP committing to abolishing zero-hours contracts and increasing the Minimum Wage (to £8.00 and £8.70 by 2020 respectively.
 
But the truth is we are in serious danger of creating a false auction of virtue, in which the politicians battle with each other over relatively minimal improvements in employment protection, whilst people in precarious employment are routinely exploited. As well as stronger employment law and minimum wage protection, we need the freedom for unions to operate effectively and the introduction of collective bargaining and sectoral bargaining, particularly in low pay sectors.  We also need consumers, parents, communities, organised groups and others to refuse to accept that this is the way things should be.

For too many young people, this is becoming a normalised experience of work, nothing more than an extension of what they expect in a society which treats them unequally and without respect.

The good news is that many young people are angry, and getting angrier. The STUC recognises that in order to support young people in fighting back against poor employment we might need to campaign in different ways, and most importantly perhaps, to find ways in which young people can lead our campaigns.
 
Watch this space …


Dave Moxham

To report your experience of work, or to receive further information about the campaign, call 0141 3378100 or email info@stuc.org.uk

Stand Up to Racism and Fascism: Why We Need to March on Saturday 21st March

To mark UN Anti-Racism day tomorrow, Saturday 21^st March, a call went out from Keefra- the Greek anti-nazi movement, which had success in tackling Golden Dawn- to hold anti-racist demonstrations. Across Europe anti-racist campaigners have rallied to the call, and in the UK demonstrations are now planned in London, Cardiff and Glasgow.

In Glasgow the March will assemble in George Square at 10.30 am and is likely to be very well attended given the range of organisations that have already pledged their support. This level of support remains essential, however, as questions of identity are currently quite high on the agenda and worryingly signs of racism are ever more present in our political discourse.

How many column inches are given over to rise of Islamic State- a repugnant and in many ways fascist organisation committing unacceptable crimes? But our press coverage doesn't just shine a light on these crimes or cover the deteriorating situation in Syria, but rather contains a sharp edge of fear and suspicion focused at the Muslim community here. This coverage has the effect that the Muslim community must stay on the gerbil wheel of repentance for crimes carried out by others, often half a world away.

This coupled with the sorts of comments that we see around incidents closer to home such as Robert Murdoch’s tweet soon after the Charlie Hebdo attacks where he said ‘Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible’ shows the growth of an unacceptable view that whole communities become responsible for the actions of a few.

This issue is mirrored in the recent rise in antisemitism, with the Community Security Trust reporting over 1,000 incidents this year - the highest they have ever recorded- and Police Scotland are also reporting a rise in incidents in Scotland. Much of this rise came during the Israeli action in Gaza- which was unacceptable and which the STUC campaigned against- but which cannot be laid at the door of the Jewish community more widely.   

Nor is it appropriate that we spend our time demanding apologies or denouncements from Muslim people or Jewish people living in the UK in response to these sorts of incidents. Yes the actions of IS and the actions of the Israeli state both have a religious dimension to them, but this does not mean that everyone who shares that religion believes in them or is responsible for their actions. Equally we get nowhere in our fight against IS or our campaign for a just peace in Israel and Palestine if we spend our time searching for the enemy within, and with that become oppressors in our own country.

With these issues in mind the March on Saturday has been billed with the tag lines: no racism, no Islamophobia, no antisemitism, no to scapegoating immigrants and yes to diversity.

With the election looming large it is important that we send a clear message around the sort of country we want to live in. Austerity politics is hurting workers and communities, but it cannot be used as a vehicle to divide us. We need to ensure that we stand together in our fight against racism and in our fight against austerity and ensure that no one is left behind and no one is demonised or sacrificed in the pursuit of a few extra votes.

The fight against racism is not an easy fight, but it can be won. In many ways, however, it is a fight that begins in ourselves, in our communities and in our workplaces. We need to ensure that we are not tempted by lazy prejudices or assumptions, nor are we prepared to stay silent when confronted with others who are. In this election we have already seen a Scottish elected representative racially abuse a Scottish Minister. These sorts of actions are not acceptable, and we must ensure that people who hold such views find no success in our democracy but we can only do that if racism finds no place in our community.

The March on Saturday cannot be considered a beginning in our fight against racism, nor will it be an end, but it does offer an opportunity to come together and find a collective voice. A voice that says clearly and loudly: No racism.    

Helen Martin STUC

For more information on the march click here  

New Scottish Government Economic Strategy: Corp Tax and Inequality

There’s much to discuss in the 82 pages of the Scottish Government’s new/updated/refreshed economic strategy published today. I’ll try to return to other stuff over the next few days but confine this blog to two specific issues.

The first is the dropping of the Scottish Government/SNP’s longstanding commitment to a deep, blanket cut in corporation tax (see page 80) in favour of a more nuanced approach targeted at encouraging specific investments (e.g. R&D) and sectors (e.g. manufacturing).

Why focus on a reserved, and therefore for the immediate purposes of this strategy, an irrelevant power? Well, by arguing for years that pulling this single ‘lever’ (yuck!) would have a transformational economic impact, Scottish ministers did the ongoing and essential debate around Scotland’s economic development a huge disservice. This difficult, complex process was reduced to a simple, superficially plausible story of how one tax cut could and would dramatically boost growth and jobs. Risible comparisons with Ireland’s Celtic Tiger crowded out nuanced consideration of how policies successful in other nations might be effectively transplanted into the specific economic, cultural and institutional context of 21^st century Scotland.

Now we can hopefully get back to a national debate that embraces the fundamental complexities, difficult decisions and trade-offs intrinsic to economic development policy. For economic development is a tortuous slog – in a modern, advanced economy like Scotland there are no quick big fixes, no single policies that will reliably, significantly and sustainably boost the long-term growth rate. If such policies existed, they would already have been implemented with great gusto across the developed world. 

Politicians are understandably nervous about ‘u-turns’ so the First Minister and her team should be congratulated for having the courage to revisit a once defining policy. It would be pretty churlish to do anything but sincerely and enthusiastically welcome the reversal. It couldn’t have been an easy decision. Let’s just look forward to a better quality debate; one in which fairy stories are eschewed not relentlessly promoted.

The second issue is the scope of measures proposed to reduce inequality. These centre on labour market participation, fair work, childcare, educational attainment and regional development – all laudable and important but in totality insufficient to significantly reduce inequality.

Indeed, reading the strategy today transported me back to November 2013 and publication of the White Paper. While the refrain ‘the UK is the fourth most unequal country in the developed world’ rattled noisily around the campaign, the White Paper singularly failed to address those factorswhich had made it so.

What are the distinguishing features of the UK model? Why did inequalities of income and wealth shoot up in the 1980s and remain relatively high? The explanation is surely to be found in (these are additional to the trends in skill biased technological change and trade which have acted to increase inequality in most of the developed world):

• A relatively low level of collective bargaining coverage – contributing to trends in both low and high pay;
• Very lightly regulated labour and product markets;
• A large and powerful financial sector, a more financialised economy – contributing to inequality through the enrichment of its participants, shifting resources away from the productive economy and by forcing firms to focus on immediate shareholder value;
• A uniquely febrile market for corporate control and poor corporate governance exacerbate the trends embedded in financialisation – the UK model is quite uniquely short-termist;
• A uniquely relaxed attitude to ownership (just think - Germany has had only three hostile takeovers since the second world war and all three only proceeded after significant intervention);
• Tax changes, particularly steep cuts in the higher rate of income tax which have changed incentives at the top i.e. encouraged executives to bargain in their own interests rather than those of the firm; and,
• Privatisation and outsourcing – pursued with more vigour and to a greater extent in the UK, witness the extent of state ownership of transport and utilities in most other advanced economies.

Now clearly the economic strategy, as far as possible within current powers, tries to steer a different course on industrial relations to which the STUC will endeavour to contribute positively. But the words collective bargaining are absent and the mooted partnership approach – although reasonable and a welcome relief from the Coalition’s aggressive approach to both trade unions and employment legislation - will not reverse the fundamental asymmetries in economic power underlying the growth in inequality. And, unfortunately, the strategy is silent on the other issues raised above.

I was fortunate enough to be present when the First Minister’s gave two excellent speeches to (mainly) business audiences at SSE Glasgow in November and the National Economic Forum in December. Her argument on both occasions can be crudely, but fairly I think, reduced to the following syllogism:

• Tackling inequality is good for growth
• Growth is good for business
• Ergo, tackling inequality is good for business.

The propositions may be true but the conclusion is seriously flawed for inequality in Scotland (or the UK as a whole) will not be tackled without challenging the prevailing business culture. Some may object that the Scottish Government doesn’t have the powers to, for instance, implement structural reform of the financial sector, reform corporate governance or reverse anti-trade union legislation. They would of course be perfectly correct. But not currently possessing a power has never prevented Scottish ministers stating what they would do with it once devolved. The point is that factors fundamental to reducing inequality have been ignored, even in the White Paper. The new economic strategy is similarly myopic.

The Scottish Government claims that ‘increasing competitiveness’ and ‘tackling inequality’ – the ‘twin pillars’ on which the strategy is built – are ‘mutually supportive’. But what does this actually mean? Haven’t the supply side reforms implemented over the past four decades in the name of boosting competitiveness directly exacerbated inequality? Boosting competitiveness has usually been code for deregulation of labour and product markets, tax cuts for business and wealthy individuals and anti-union legislation.

This isn’t the Scottish Government’s agenda and it would be ridiculous to paint the new strategy in this way. But it will be impossible to tackle inequality effectively without implementing measures which have for a long time now been regarded as bad for competitiveness. So big challenges for the Scottish Government, and those organisations like ours that want to see the strategy work and for employer representative organisations who have tended to pursue a very narrow agenda on competitiveness. I'll try to explore some of these issues in future blogs.

Finally, while the Scottish Government has failed to produce a compelling inequality reduction strategy it’s probably worth pointing out that the opposition has hardly covered itself in glory on this issue. If Jim Murphy wants to ‘end inequality’ (an outcome irreconcilable with any functioning economic system ever devised) he might start thinking about how Labour will start to address the issues neglected in today's strategy.

 

Stephen Boyd, STUC

Where are our unions in Scottish Labour’s policies?

WITH only 10 weeks until Britain’s general election the main parties are setting out the territory on which the campaign will be fought.

Inevitably, the economy (or more likely it’s fallacious surrogate, “the deficit”), the NHS, immigration and Europe will be key battlegrounds. However, it would seem — if the recent pre-election skirmishes are anything to go by — that Labour’s focus on the cost-of-living crisis and union campaigning on fair work and fair pay will mean that workplace protection policy will receive more than just superficial attention.

The Tories have already called on employers to increase the wages of their staff and pay the living wage for lower-paid workers as they enjoy record profits in the wake of the fall in oil prices. They have also advocated a £7 minimum wage. This, I suspect, has more to do with reducing welfare payments to the working poor rather than any real concern over the fact that two-thirds of children living in poverty come from working families.

While the level of inequality in Britain should be enough to provoke action by any government that has not mislaid its moral compass, it is more likely that the pronouncements of the likes of the IMF and the OECD on the economic impact of inequality are what is focusing political strategists’ minds. It is difficult to ignore the 9 per cent GDP lost between 1990 and 2010 as a result of inequality in Britain.

Redressing Britain’s disgraceful record on the inequality level — the fourth worst of 340 OECD countries and the worst Europe — has, in part, motivated Ed Milband’s advocacy of “pre-distribution.”

Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish government has put reducing inequality at the heart of its programme for government and alongside innovation and internationalisation as the main driver of its refreshed economic strategy.

New Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy, in a recent speech to the David Hume Institute, identified inequality as Scotland’s single biggest challenge.

In the next few weeks we will discover how this translates into party manifestos and, in particular, into proposals for enhanced workplace protection.

In addition to raising the minimum wage, the Tories have flagged their intention to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, to end the use of exclusive zero-hours contracts (ones which tie workers to just one employer) and to tackle trafficking through a modern slavery Bill.

Labour has committed to raising the minimum wage to £8 per hour by 2020, to using public procurement and tax incentives to encourage more employers to pay a living wage, to banning “exploitative” zero-hours contracts, to reform the tribunal system so affordability is not a barrier to justice, to set up a proper inquiry into the blacklisting and to double the length of paternity leave and increase paternity pay.

While Labour’s proposals in particular should make a difference, they fall far short of the demands the Scottish TUC will publish early next month. However, of more significance is how little of substance Labour has had to say about the role of unions and about the need for a positive approach to union rights.

We already know about Tory proposals to introduce thresholds for strike ballots in the utilities and public services. Labour’s national policy forum report, on which its manifesto will be based, contains some warm words about the importance of the union voice for people at work and in wider society. But, aside from welcome commitments to support union learning and to repeal the Lobbying Act, it contains no firm proposals.

Murphy referenced STUC evidence on zero-hours contracts in his recent speech on inequality, but had nothing at all to say about the role of unions in reducing it or what a future Labour government might do to support union organisation or to extend the scope and reach of collective bargaining.

Labour’s strategists may consider it an electoral liability to display too positive an attitude to unions. Such an approach is unlikely to work in Scotland. Labour faces a formidable challenge from the SNP which is certain to make much of its support for the recommendations of the Working Together review, instigated by the Scottish government to highlight the positive role played by unions in Scotland, in direct contrast to the Westminster government’s Carr review on the conduct of industrial action.

The Scottish government has already started to implement some of the 30 recommendations of the Working Together review, conducted by academics and an equal number of union and employer representatives.

This includes establishing a post of cabinet secretary for fair work, training and skills, supported by a fair work directorate and the creation of a fair work convention. This would promote union and employer leadership on workplace issues and explore the potential to extend collective bargaining in Scotland and increase levels of workplace democracy.

Under its new leader, the strategy of Scottish Labour appears to be concentrated on winning back the support of working-class men, mostly in the west of Scotland, who voted Yes in the referendum.

This strategy is likely to focus on a narrow range of issues that opinion polls suggest appeal to this particular group — the NHS, youth employment and standing up for Scotland. It is also responsible for Labour’s blatantly populist and cynical campaign for the sale of alcohol at football matches. While this is something that might be attractive to Labour’s target voters, it is less so to those who have to deal with its consequence, particularly the victims of the domestic violence with which the combination of football and alcohol is related.

Politics must be about more than parroting the findings of focus groups. It must be about ideas, about values and about ideology. It must be about winning support for policies that might be unpopular with some groups of voters but for which the evidence is sound. The evidence, presented in the report of the Working Together review and published elsewhere, is that high levels of union membership and extensive collective bargaining coverage are not an impediment to economic success and are central to the reduction of inequality.

If Labour is serious about reducing inequality and about tackling the cost-of-living crisis, it must not shy away from a positive policy agenda on union rights, signal this in its manifesto and campaign on it.

The recommendations of the Working Together review would be a good place to start, not just to match the commitments of the SNP, but because it is the right thing to do.

Grahame Smith is general secretary of the STUC

---

The Value of Ethical Trade

Pamela L’Intelligent will be attending the Fairtrade Fortnight event at the STUC centre on the 23^rd February. To register for this free event email Helen Martin on hmartin@stuc.org.uk

Pamela is a 44 Year old woman from Mauritius who has worked in the manufacturing industry since the age of 13. She started working at Entansia where she was a helper before being trained on sewing machines and starting as a machinist. Entansia made products from wool which could irritate the eyes, skin and the respiratory system. She left because she was being exposed to such unnecessary risks. After this she joined an established textile company in Saint-Pierre. During her time there she was blessed with a beautiful daughter who is now 19 years old.

Pamela then joined a fair trade company named Craft Aid. Joining Craft Aid has seen her develop her skills further. Initially she worked on different segments of a shirt, but now she works on different garments from start to finish. During her career at Craft Aid, she has managed to find a balance between her work life and her personal life, something that was hampered during the early parts of her career.

She is looking forward to telling you more about her story working at Craft Aid in Mauritius when she attends this event.  

Scottish Fair Trade Forum                              

The Right to Strike is a Human Right

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) have called for a day of action on the 18th February in support of the right to strike. Currently employer organisations, including the CBI, are opposing the accepted consensus- that has functioned well for the last 60 years- that the right to strike is implied by the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and that the ILO should be able to rule on whether government restrictions on that right are fair or reasonable. The effect of this dispute has been to throw the normal workings of the ILO into disarray and to sabotage its ability to criticise many of the world’s worst regimes, leaving working people and trade unions vulnerable to brutal oppression.

For more information on this dispute see Stephen Russell’s excellent blog, available here.

In Europe the right to strike is covered under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In a landmark case Wilson and Palmer V the United Kingdom (yup you can always rely on the UK to provide the landmark rulings!) the court ruled that:

“the Convention safeguards freedom to protect the occupational interests of trade union members by trade union action, the conduct and development of which the Contracting States must both permit and make possible. A trade union must thus be free to strive for the protection of its members' interests, and the individual members have a right, in order to protect their interests, that the trade union should be heard”.

It also stated that

"The grant of the right to strike, while it may be subject to regulation, represents one of the most important of the means by which the State may secure a trade union's freedom to protect its members' occupational interests."

It went on to say:

"The Court agrees with the Government that the essence of a voluntary system of collective bargaining is that it must be possible for a trade union which is not recognised by an employer to take steps including, if necessary, organising industrial action, with a view to persuading the employer to enter into collective bargaining with it on those issues which the union believes are important for its members' interests. Furthermore, it is of the essence of the right to join a trade union for the protection of their interests that employees should be free to instruct or permit the union to make representations to their employer or to take action in support of their interests on their behalf. If workers are prevented from so doing, their freedom to belong to a trade union, for the protection of their interests, becomes illusory. It is the role of the State to ensure that trade union members are not prevented or restrained from using their union to represent them in attempts to regulate their relations with their employers."

In this way the Court makes a very clear ruling that trade union freedoms are not simply about the freedom to exist or the freedom to recruit members, but genuinely turn on the ability of trade unions to defend their members’ interests. A trade union that is prevented from doing so, is prevented from accessing one of its fundamental freedoms under a democratic society and every trade union member within that organisation has suffered a breach of their Human Rights.

It is useful to consider the status of trade union freedoms within international law and to remember that trade unions are recognised at an international level to play a key role in defending the rights of vulnerable people, and are key to making the economy work for those at the bottom.

A quick glance across our own economy tells us that: wages have been stagnating for a decade; foodbanks are growing and low paid workers are the second largest group using them; use of zero hours contracts is widespread and growing; and the minimum wage falls quite far short of a living wage. All of which stands in stark contrast to the fact that the richest fifth of households have increased their share of total income from 35% in 1979 to 42% in 2011 and if this trend continues we will be back to Victorian levels of inequality within 20 years.

Our economy does not function well for those at the bottom and trade unions have a key role to play in reversing this picture, as institutions that help to balance out the power differentials that exist between employers and workers.

Yet rather than seeing a championing of trade union rights at a political level, we are often seeing regressive action and further restrictions on trade union freedoms, and the painting of trade unions as anti-democratic or suspicious organisations.

Just consider the recent debate about ballot thresholds for trade unions which the Prime Minister has declared ‘on the table’ for after the general election as he wants to see ‘fewer unnecessary strikes’ (whether the strike being necessary or not clearly being a matter for the Tory party rather than the workers affected by the industrial issue). The 50% turnout threshold, with no precedence in any other part of our democracy from General Elections to decisions taken by boards within companies, would have the effect- explicitly desired by the Prime Minister- of limiting the right to strike and thus further limiting the rights of trade unions to defend their members.

At what point do these actions become Human Rights breaches? Well that is for the court to decide but what is clear from the above judgement and many others taken by the court is that trade union rights and freedoms are considered in the round and if the right to strike is curtailed there would need to a compensatory increase in collective bargaining rights in order to protect the Human Rights of workers.

Given the state of our economy and the crisis that exists in living standards these rights seem ever more crucial. Currently the situation in Scotland seems better with the Government’s Working Together Review and the creation of a new Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work. While this is certainly positive there is still much to do to make the recommendations of the Review a reality, much a which may well run up to the sort of employer response which is having such a devastating impact at the ILO.

Whatever lies in front of us, however, it is important to remember that the right to strike is a Human Right but more than that the right of trade unions to defend their members’ interests is a Human Right and should not only be respected but facilitated.


Helen Martin- STUC

Bandwagon?

Last week, David Torrance accused the STUC of effectively jumping on a 'grievance' bandwagon for criticising the watering down of Smith Commission proposals on welfare. He also (ridiculously) suggested we didn't spend any time making proposals for tackling inequality.

Scottish Labour has now recognised that the Command paper unnecessarily precludes the creation of a range of new benefits and Gordon Brown has made reference to the 'nailing down' of Section 54 of the Smith recommendations. And guess what, it's now being identified as an important means of promoting social justice.

The STUC has welcomed this in a press release. I wonder if David categorises this action as another example of us jumping on a (different) bandwagon or if he will be prepared to concede that we might have had a point in the first place and continue to pursue our policy positions on a more consistent and considered basis than he implied.

Dave Moxham