NOTHING TO LOSE BUT OUR CHAINS : WORK & RESISTANCE IN
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY BRITAIN
By Jane Hardy
Pluto Press. 248 pages. £19.99. ISBN 978-0-7453-4104-0
Reviewed by Jim Burns
These are not good times for trade unions, nor for the majority of
workers by hand or brain. Union membership is low when compared to
earlier years, and is mostly concentrated in mass terms in areas
such as the National Health Service, local government, and similar
bodies. But even there the practice of contracting out services has
meant that agency workers and the like are often not organised in
unions. And changes in what Jane Hardy refers to as “the economic
structure of Britain” have resulted in a decline in industries
requiring large numbers of people and which were once central to the
role of unions in representing the interests of at least a
substantial part of those in employment. And they often also set the
pace for improvements in the working conditions of many of those who
didn’t belong to a union.
Hardy points out that “traditional areas of the economy have been
replaced by innovative forms of production and changing ways of
consuming”. This may have been beneficial in some ways for certain
employees, but it has also brought about the creation of what is
referred to as the “precariat” who “experience unstable work and
Zero Hours Contracts (ZHCs)”. These are people often employed in
what is known as “the hospitality sector” (pubs, clubs, restaurants,
etc.) but also cleaning, deliveries, home care, and any situation,
in fact, where there are few, if any, guarantees of regular hours
and long-term conditions of employment such as sickness and holiday
pay, and pensions. There is evidence that even in a middle-class
occupation such as university education there is a growing body of
part-time lecturers with few assurances of any forms of permanent
work and a steady income.
It’s true to say that there is little or nothing new about the
“casualization” and “on-call” arrangements in the labour market. My
father had served twelve years in the Royal Navy and when he
returned to civilian life in 1925 he worked at a variety of jobs,
including as a steeplejack, docker,
labourer, and more. He could tell tales of lining up outside
the dock gates, hoping to be chosen for a day’s work, and of working
all night on a railway bridge in the pouring rain with nothing in
the form of protective clothing and no health and safety
precautions. To question the conditions was to invite the response
that “There are a hundred others waiting to take the job if you
don’t want it”. During the dark days of the Depression he would walk
miles in search of any kind of work. It was thanks to the onset of
war in 1939 that he obtained a regular job when, too old for
military service, he was directed to work in a factory.
The difficulties of organising workers in the “gig” economy will be
obvious. And it’s open to question whether or not the established
unions have been, and perhaps still are, unwilling to take on the
role of persuading people that it could be in their own best
interests to join a union. If there is a large concentration of
workers in a factory or similar location then organising might be
relatively easy, even in the face of management intransigence.
People may feel that they have skills they ought to be properly paid
for. And they may see themselves as having interests (security,
pensions, etc.) in common with their work colleagues. So, they will
be more susceptible to the notion of joint action through a union.
But with groups of workers who often don’t have a fixed location
(home carers, for example moving from one address to another and
rarely encountering fellow-workers for any length of time) it needs
imagination and perseverance to persuade them to unite to improve
their pay and conditions. Would-be organisers will also be faced
with the fact that part-time employees, which many are in the gig
economy, may be reluctant to pay union dues. And there is often a
high turnover among those employed on part-time or ZHC terms.
Someone working in a low-paid agency job in the home care sector may
find it more advantageous to stack shelves in a supermarket. A
floating work force is difficult to organise from a union point of
view.
There is an interesting historical reference when Hardy mentions the
IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), formed in 1905 in the United
States with the intention of organising workers who were ignored by
the established craft unions. The IWW burned brightly for a few
years, primarily in America and Australia, and it’s relevant to take
note of the difficulties the organisation encountered with regard to
recruiting and retaining members among transient workers who
followed the harvests or moved from job to job for one reason or
another.
To be fair, Hardy does indicate that the established unions are
slowly waking up to the fact that, if they want to build up a
healthy membership, and exert any kind of influence in the
workplace, wherever it is, or on the economy, they will need to
broaden their tactics and their appeal. She also points to the
appearance of certain new unions such as the Independent Workers
Union of Great Britain (IWGB) and United Voices of the World (UVW),
and that they have had some success in organising among what have
sometimes been seen as the unorganisable.
The IWGB union was formed by cleaners breaking away from Unison and
Unite who felt “frustrated that their action was being undermined
and their participation in union structures sabotaged in their fight
for better working conditions at the University of London”. There
was a feeling that, with Unison in particular, a too-cosy
relationship existed between the union leaders and management. My
own experiences as a one-time Unison member would incline me to
believe that this was probably true. UVW members are “mainly migrant
cleaners and workers in other outsourced or low-waged industries and
have strong associations with the Latin American community”.
The successful campaigns by the IWGB and UVF are not often reported
in the press, with the exception of the
Morning Star. They are
admittedly mostly small-scale and don’t have the impact that
industrial action by railwaymen or local government employees can
have when their strikes affect day-to-day life for a large
proportion of the general public. But they do demonstrate that
workers can fight back against low wages and poor working
conditions. I’ve recently read of inroads made into supposed
anti-union establishments like Starbucks and Amazon in the USA. I’m
not sure what the situation is in the UK with regard to those
employers, but one hopes that if they don’t currently recognise and
negotiate with unions then they soon will. Hardy refers to the
notorious example of Sports Direct and the struggle to organise
there. Those trying to recruit members were faced with a hostile
management, and a less-than enthusiastic response from the
well-established Unite union. It was reported that some officials
had been overheard saying that recruiting at Sports Direct “was more
trouble than it was worth”.
The impact of the current conditions in the labour market ought to
arouse a sympathetic response from those, like myself, who spent
most of our working lives in relatively benign employment
circumstances. When I came out of the army in 1957 there seemed
sufficient jobs to choose from. I lost the first one after a few
months when I was sacked for “industrial misconduct”. I was young
and after three years hearing officers and sergeants barking orders
I wasn’t much inclined to listen to more from a bullying
section-head. But I easily walked into another job in a couple of
weeks and at a higher rate of pay and with less-travelling involved.
Later, when I was made redundant from an oil company, I took time
off to re-think my life and got along for a few months on the
redundancy pay and the dole. Benefits were better then and easier to
come by.
And when I quite easily found employment again I opted to work
part-time in a low-grade administrative job in local government and
do some part-time teaching in adult education (though it wasn’t
regular or guaranteed in any way) which, along with earnings from
free-lance writing, provided enough to live on. The point I’m making
is that, even if my income was somewhat up-and-down at times,
personal circumstances, and a more-flexible economic situation,
enabled me to choose to get by in this way. The precariats now don’t
have many choices. They take low-paid, insecure and sometimes
temporary jobs because they have to. And to “get by” doesn’t mean to
live cheerfully and satisfactorily in a modest, but intellectually
fulfilling way, but to worry from week-to-week about paying the
bills and eating or heating.
Speaking from a personal perspective I’m convinced that more than a
few members of the current government, along with many employers,
are happy to have this situation continue. It’s a handy way of
ensuring that a workforce worried about sliding into the abyss of
the precarious will inevitably be afraid to venture too near the
edge. There will always be
doubts about what an employer can do (fire and re-hire, for example)
when faced with any demands for improvements in pay and conditions.
And those doubts will inhibit action.
Jane Hardy has written a thoroughly informative and in many ways
inspiring book. She gives numerous examples of the ways in which
groups of workers have come together to fight back. Sometimes their
actions have been spontaneous, sometimes they’ve been organised
through a union. It always made sense to me to join a union, even if
I never called on its support, no matter whether I was working full
or part-time. She also has a great deal to offer in terms of
outlining general economic conditions and the prospects for unions.
The UK has some of the most-restrictive legal barriers to industrial
action in Europe. These, combined with the precarious nature of many
sources of employment, might explain both the poor level of union
membership and the relatively low activity in terms of industrial
action taken to obtain better pay and conditions. But that struggle
does go on, as Jane Hardy clearly indicates in her very readable and
well-researched book.
|