http://www.economist.com/node/16271975
They cite the recent example of the Unite dispute with BA as another example of how trade unions fail to understand that they cannot win by industrial action in pursuit of narrow sectional interests. Whilst there is a nod towards the incompetence of private sector management - particularly at BA - essentially the argument is that the trade unions face the decline of US trade unionism unless they change to the good old days of being a 'friendly society'.
They even then move on to cite the SEIU as an example of a trade union that is growing because its ex-President recognised the above argument and moved his union into different territory where unions think more about what employers have to deal with in their industries. What this means is that the unions need to be champions of public services rather than fighters for narrow terms and conditions.
The problem is that there may even be people who echo this inside the Labour Movement. The logic of partnership at any price or speaking the language of co-operation is one that has unfortunately already been found wanting for many UK workers whether in a union or not.
Many trade unionists draw very different but much deeper conclusions from the example of the SEIU and Andy Stern. The SEIU focus on industries is not just about looking at employers needs. It is mostly about looking at workers needs and organising the workers themselves to negotiate solutions with their employers, not just on terms and conditions but also on those other things that concern workers the most - the quality of the service they provide, the equipment they need but don't get, the training that they think they should have - which will make the employer a better employer and the service a better service. In other words the union doesn't turn up with an agenda - the workers draw up the agenda and that agenda will cover many of those things that so concern the Economist.
What the Economist doesn't see to concern itself with is what do you do when the employer will not listen? When the employer insists that it has to pay po0verty wages, no sick pay or even strip terms and conditions? In the UK workers rights are so pitiful and constrained by law that individual resolutions are very difficult and expensive to pursue and are not open to those in most need - casualised, low paid, agency type workers. The Economist is silent on the need for stronger workers rights under law.
The law however is an ass when it comes to trade unions - ballots and action called off at the whim of a judge over minor technical 'failings' in the processes are not about union members' democracy. They are about allowing employers to stop industrial action with a gun of sequestration or fines at the heads of the trade union bodies.
The Economist is right - but not in a way it envisages. Trade unions do have to change or face further decline. But the example of the SEIU is best in its Organising techniques, its insistence on making it the union priority to organise and unionise on the basis of trade union power. With that strength we can sit down and talk to employers - and they will have to listen.
