Searchable article text
RMT helpline 0800 3763706 :: october 2008 :: RMTnews
26
Given that the enormous decline
in the level of trade union
membership in Britain since
1979 has barely been reversed
serious questions should be
raised about the adequacy of
current union organising
strategies. Particularly
noteworthy is the evident failure
of the official TUC approach,
adopted by some unions, of
attempting to rebuild union
membership and influence
through the avoidance of strike
action and establishment of so-
called ‘social partnership’
arrangements with employers.
By contrast, RMT’s
alternative pathway to the quest
for union revitalisation –
involving the rejection of
‘partnership unionism’ in favour
of collective resistance and
strike mobilisation - has been
much more successful in terms
of leveraging significant
collective bargaining gains, the
recruitment of thousands of new
members and the reinvigoration
of union organisation.
It is true that some other
unions, like Unite (T&G), have
stressed that organising should
not be based on growing
membership by grovelling to
employers, but by building
strong workplace union
representation that relates to
workers’ specific grievances and
is prepared to marshal their
collective strength. However,
even this more ambitious
approach is not necessarily
enough to ensure that a union’s
presence is effective in
influencing managerial decision
making so as to improve
workers’ terms and conditions of
employment.
The nature and extent of
workplace union power, and the
ability and willingness of
grassroots members to engage in
collective resistance and
struggle (including the threat
and/or use of strike activity) so
as to extract concessions from
management, are likely to be a
crucial factor in the equation.
On one level this can be seen
by looking back in time. Thus
the strong historical association
between high levels of nation-
wide strike activity and periods
of rapid and large union growth
in Britain, notably between
1910-20, 1935-43 and 1968-75,
underlines the manner in which
unions have in the past been
built through conflict and
struggle, as opposed to
partnership and compromise.
Likewise, on a more micro-
level, the experience of the RMT
during the period 2002-08
provides clear evidence of a
direct relationship between
union militancy, effectiveness in
‘delivering’ collective bargaining
gains and membership growth.
Ironically, many academic
studies have shown that one of
the principal reasons why
British workers generally are not
joining unions in greater
numbers is that they are often
viewed as simply too weak to
‘make a difference’ to the
solving of workplace injustices.
As a result, many employees do
not think they have anything
tangible to gain from
membership.
DELIVERING AT THE WORKPLACE
By contrast, RMT’s experience
of significant membership
growth in recent years suggests
that what has attracted workers
to join has been the union’s
ability to ‘deliver’ in terms of
obtaining real improvements in
pay and conditions, as well as
in providing some insurance
against arbitrary employer
actions.
Yet it is important to
acknowledge that in order to be
in a position to extract
concessions from employers, the
RMT has often had to adopt a
combative stance, sometimes
involving collective mobilisation
and the threat/use of strike
action. Indeed per thousand
members, the RMT has probably
organised more ballots for
industrial action and more
individual days of strike action
than any other union over the
last few years.
Of course employers,
government and others have
condemned such strike activity.
For example, the London
STRIKE MOBILISATION AN
Ralph Darlington argues there is a direct link
between the RMT’s strike mobilisation approach,
membership growth and union revitalisation
DONCASTER: Members on Network Rail picket line
SWANSEA: Members on strike during a
recent dispute involving ISS cleaning staff