C5 Trade union membership
Composite of motion 8 and amendments
Congress notes with concern that in 2008 trade union membership levels and union density in the UK both declined. Private sector union density fell by 0.6 per cent to 15.5 per cent and public sector union density fell by more than three times this rate – declining by 1.9 per cent. Less than half of UK employees are in a workplace where a trade union is present, and unionisation of younger workers has fallen over the past decade.
However, union membership levels and density are higher for women than for male workers and there continues to be a wage premium for union members.
Congress is further concerned that the recession will continue to intensify pressures on current and future membership levels and calls on the General Council to:
i) investigate the scope for a TUC gateway to union membership to facilitate recruitment of non-members and support membership transfers when individuals change their employment
ii) continue to publicise the practical value of trade union membership (higher pay, safer employment) to potential members, particularly those entering the workforce for the first time
iii) convene discussions with affiliates on a sectoral basis to determine the scope for co-ordinated recruitment and organising campaigns
iv) work with unions to build and share knowledge and capacity to organise and to improve density in the private sector and public sectors
v) enhance work with the National Union of Students and with schools and colleges to raise students’ awareness of the value of union membership
vi) investigate the scope for incentivising students to join unions following their period of study
vii) raise the profile of policy work that demonstrates the value of unions to civil society e.g. on climate change and quality public services.
The General Council is instructed to report back to Congress in 2010 on progress made in relation to each of these objectives.
Mover: Prospect
Seconder: Society of Radiographers
Supporter: FDA
< Previous motion Next motion >
Robert Anton WIlson once famously said: “If we can get them asking the wrong questions, we don’t need to worry about the answers they come up with.”
Bearing this in mind, we need to get this whole ‘membership decline’ thing in perspective. In 2000 there were 7,897,519 members. At the beginning of 2009 there are 7,656,156. That’s a 3% drop over 9 years. Check for yourself: http://www.certoffice.org/annualReport/.
The Certification Officer’s 2008-9 report noted: “The number of trade union members recorded in the Annual Returns
received… is… an increase of 28,463 or 0.37% over the membership recorded in my last Annual Report.” Indeed, raw membership has increased, rather than decreased, for 3 years running.
SO.. given the churn involved in this decade’s a shift to a service-based economy. shouldn’t we be celebrating the fact that union officials and stewards have been doing a fantastic job? This motion risks compounding the movement’s general demoralisation.
The real question we need to be asking is one which takes us beyond business unionism and its quasi-commercial approach to head counting. ie How do we build members’ INFLUENCE in the workplace? Such an approach (eg pushing for workplace democracy) includes the numbers game, but also takes us all far beyond it.
The continuing decline in trade union membership over recent years has been very disheartening, and the fact that the pace of decline slowed after 1997 is little consolation. I wonder whether the trend towards ever fewer, ever larger unions makes if more rather than less difficult to organise new groups of workers in new occupations and industries. Centralisation has been a long-term trend supported by TUC policy over the best part of a century, and has doubtless produced many advantages – not least that larger unions have more resources and are better able to provide professional services to their members. At the turn of the 20th century there were 1,300 unions where today the number barely struggles into three figures. Were those small unions, often created out of local or sectional disputes, more attuned to their members’ needs? It is worth considering whether the advantages of scale have long since been outweighed by the disadvantages.
I tend to agree I think the current trend to so called super unions is a mistake though I understand the logic behind it to counter the large multi nationals. The problem however is when they get this large the leadership can become detached from the membership and it gets increasingly hard for workers to relate to the leadership of there union as what’s happening at grass roots level if. Often the complete opposite of what the leadership are putting out this in turns makes it increasingly harder to recruit one of the biggest recruitments tools is for workers to identify with there leadership and union the classic case in being is Unite the union (irony please).
The other problem I touched on is what the members want and what the leadership think they want (Unison) the leader ship of this union for exampled failed to deliver a serious fight back over pay terms and conditions even though they were called on by other more fighting unions to conduct joint strike action. The members in my own union see this as a rather spineless approach by the above motioned leadership simply taking a lets not rock the boat attitude when the boat is already sinking is not what we should be about.