The Blacklist Support Group has campaigned for decades for justice for those building workers who were blacklisted from the industry for many years. Today, an inquiry begins work into collusion between past trade union officials and the employers’ blacklisting organisations. It was initiated by the Unite union, which organises most building workers today.
When Unite first announced its inquiry, the Blacklist Support Group issued a statement saying that they “have known for over a decade that some blacklist files record the names of senior union officials as the source of information that led to us being denied employment. Previous General Secretaries even met with Norman Tebbit to discuss the activities of union members”.
“We know for a fact,” the Support Group said, “that some union officials emailed information about union activists to industrial relations consultants and managers working for major contractors up to their necks in blacklisting.”
Unite announced that they had appointed two “heavyweight” lawyers to lead the investigation. The Unite press release continues,“Unite is delighted to announce that Nick Randall QC and John Carl Townsend have been appointed to investigate the possible collusion by union officers in blacklisting. Over the past months, evidence gathering by Thompsons’ solicitors has continued, with many blacklisted construction workers and other witnesses having already been interviewed”.
An unhealthy culture within some predecessor unions
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham noted that the union: “is committed to uncovering the truth about allegations of union collusion with blacklisting…The workers affected and their families deserve to know the truth and I hope that this QC-led independent inquiry will get to the bottom of what really happened.”
The Blacklist Support Group applauded the appointment of these two lawyers, adding that, “It is a clear indication that this investigation will not turn a blind eye to any evidence that exposes an unhealthy culture within Unite or its predecessor unions…The collusion investigation is neither mudslinging, nor a whitewash…this is a robust independent process to uncover the truth. The Blacklist Support Group repeats our call for anyone with evidence of union collusion in blacklisting to make contact with the investigation team.”
Let us hope that the Unite inquiry gets to the bottom of these allegations and publishes the names of any union officials involved, particularly those in the predecessor unions that eventually amalgamated to form Unite. There is more than a suspicion that top union officers collaborated in the past with ‘anti-communist’ organisations – including some sponsored by state agencies like the CIA – and actively connived against their own members. All of that needs to be exposed by the Unite inquiry.
But the issue raises more general questions about trade union democracy and the accountability of officials. In many trade unions, Unite included, the only elected full-time officials are those at the very apex, the general secretaries. In many cases, beneath the elected general secretaries, there are large bureaucracies consisting of scores of full-time officers, none of whom are themselves elected, regionally or locally.
Too many officials isolated from members
That in itself is a serious flaw. But linked to that is the fact that so many union officials are financially remote from the lives of their members, because their salaries are so much higher. It is not a matter of whether or not this or that officer is ‘sincere’. It is simply a fact of life that an official whose salary is five, six or seven times the pay of the members is less able to understand the pressures of everyday life, such as the current squeeze on living standards. By being financially removed, they can become personally and socially removed.
Apart from anything else, paying officials too much will necessarily limit the number of full-time officers available to support union members. It would be a far more effective way to get members involved in the life of a union, including participation in ballots and industrial actions, if the funds available for salaries were spread more thinly, over a greater number of full-time organisers.
It is partly as a result of being removed from their members that so many trade union leaders have so little confidence in their own members’ willingness or ability to struggle to improve their lives. It is a lack of confidence that can transmit downwards – so members are then reluctant to take action, precisely because they have so little confidence in their leadership.
Membership and workplace solidarity are key
The remoteness of union officers from members is also reflected in their different attitudes to the anti-trade union legislation that has been put in place by successive Tory governments. Threats of sequestration of union assets for falling foul of legal regulations pose a huge problem for any full-time trade union apparatus, because it threatens their salaries, pensions and benefits.
But to the membership it poses a different threat; they are more interested in the union’s functions and organisational capacity being hamstrung. We would argue that a trade union is fundamentally its membership and its workplace solidarity and that is not broken by any current laws. When that solidarity expresses itself on a large scale – such as in 1972, when there was a spontaneous national walk-out in support of five imprisoned dockers – then the legal system itself had to give way. Then, the Tories conjured up a little-known legal official – the Official Solicitor – to release the dockers. There is no legal power that will stand in the way of trade union solidarity, properly led.
We should therefore support any step forward by a trade union or its leadership. But socialists need to broaden the discussions and not be limited by what is often a narrow outlook of union leaders. We should fight through the available structures of the unions, arguing a case for them to be completely responsive to members and fully democratic in their make-up. The principle of work-place representatives or shop-stewards – where they are elected, subject to recall, and have the same pay as the members they represent – should apply right up to the top of the trade union and lay members should always have the final say on policies and negotiations.
There should never be a need for inquiries into secretive collaboration between union officers and employers, such as that started by Unite today. The primary function of trade unions is to represent their members and they need to be honed and sharpened to do just that as effectively as possible.
*All officers to be regularly elected, locally, regionally, or nationally, and subject to recall by members.
*All full-time officers to work under the direction of elected lay committees at regional and national level
*All officers to be on the salary of an average skilled worker.
*Negotiating teams to have a majority of lay members from the industry/sector concerned.
*Simplified processes for sanctioning official industrial actions.
