logo
Unions are in grave place and need help from Labour

Unions are in grave place and need help from Labour

The National21-07-2025
June 6 was the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the statutory union recognition mechanism.
This procedure provides the means by which unions can compel employers by law to recognise them for collective bargaining on behalf of their members' terms and conditions if certain support thresholds are met.
The introduction of the statutory union recognition mechanism was the key part of Tony Blair's 'New' Labour 'fairness at work' policy. It was put on the statute book in the form of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
READ MORE: 'Beyond shameful': Harvie urges SNP to explain secret talks with Israeli diplomat
In both the manifesto, from which Labour won a massive landslide majority of 179 seats, and then in the Fairness at Work White Paper 1998 which preceded the Act, the party pledged to introducing a statutory right to union recognition 'where a majority of the relevant workforce wishes it'.
'Simples', as the catchphrase of the meerkat, Aleksandr Orlov, of the Compare the Meerkat advert has it. Except that nothing is ever that 'simples' with New Labour. The pledge was watered down and qualified in a whole host of ways at the behest of big business.
For example, all the votes for union recognition in a ballot of the workforce bargaining group had to also equate to 40% of all those entitled to vote. In other words, non-voters were counted as No voters. Meanwhile, the bargaining unit chosen by the union had to be deemed to be 'compatible with effective management'.
In the 25 years since June 6, 2000, just 1473 applications had been made for union recognition, an average of only 60 a year.
Many of these were re-applications because some 20% of the applications were withdrawn before being subject to the first part of the adjudication.
The reasons were because the unions had made mistakes in their applications or because employers had deliberately recruited more workers in order to reduce the relative level of support for union recognition.
And, to boot, only a third of total applications were actually successful in gaining union recognition in the end. It's not rocket science to think that a more complex and challenging procedure with more thresholds to be passed has something to do with these poor outcomes.
READ MORE: How long before the 'rebel' Labour MPs jump ship to Corbyn's party?
It's also not rocket science to think that the statutory union recognition mechanism is an inversion of the 'fairness not favours' promise Blair made.
Under pressure from the right-wing media like the Daily Mail not to cave in to the unions – as if that was ever likely – Blair promised 'fairness not favours', hence, the nomenclature of 'fairness at work'.
But the favours were given to big business, and fairness was not given to the unions and their members.
Not doing the Labour thing is what Labour do, as Gerry Hassan put it in the Sunday National at the end of March this year.
Karl Marx's remark that 'history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce' is extremely apposite when it comes to Keir Starmer's Employment Rights Bill. It is the flagship piece of legislation emanating from Labour's New Deal for Working People. The bill is expected to go on the statute book in the autumn after gaining Royal Assent but many of its measures will no be implemented until the autumn of 2026. Again very 'New' Labour.
Where the tragedy of the Employment Relations Act 1999 becomes the farce of the soon-to-be Employment Rights Act 2025 is precisely on the issue of union recognition.
Significant reforms to union recognition and collective bargaining are set out in the legislation but the crucial weakness is that Labour is not also providing a robust right for unions to have access to workers for recruiting and organising.
It simply gives them the right to ask a government body, the Central Arbitration Committee, for this access, but this government body has no powers of enforcement of access rights over employers. The most it can do is fine employers.
READ MORE: Westminster will never feel any heat from the FM's hot air and bluff
This then undermines the significant improvements being made to the right to union recognition through lowering the levels of worker support needed to gain it from an employer.
In other words, the legislation gives with one hand but takes away with the other.
Unions are in a grave position at the moment. The latest data, for 2024, shows that union density – the proportion of all workers in a union – has now fallen to an all-time low of 22%. In the private sector, which is much bigger than the public sector, density is just 12%.
Unions need to be shown favours in order to allow them to perform their historic role of creating fairness in the economy.
Labour has shown itself again not to be the party capable of doing that.
Gregor Gall is a visiting professor of industrial relations at the University of Leeds and author of the 'Mick Lynch: The making of a working-class hero' (Manchester University Press, 2024).
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How is Starmer's government doing? Here's what 'end-of-term' report from voters says
How is Starmer's government doing? Here's what 'end-of-term' report from voters says

Sky News

time44 minutes ago

  • Sky News

How is Starmer's government doing? Here's what 'end-of-term' report from voters says

One year on, how's Keir Starmer's government going? We've put together an end-of-term report with the help of pollster YouGov. First, here are the government's approval ratings - drifting downwards. It didn't start particularly high. There has never been a honeymoon. But here is the big change. Last year's Labour voters now disapprove of their own government. That wasn't true at the start - but is now. And remember, it's easier to keep your existing voter coalition together than to get new ones from elsewhere. So we have looked at where voters who backed Labour last year have gone now. YouGov's last mega poll shows half of Labour voters last year - 51% - say they would vote for them again if an election was held tomorrow. Around one in five (19%) say they don't know who they'd vote for - or wouldn't vote. But Labour are also leaking votes to the Lib Dems, Greens and Reform. These are the main reasons why. A sense that Labour haven't delivered on their promises is top - just above the cost of living. Some 22% say they've been too right-wing, with a similar number saying Labour have "made no difference". Immigration and public services are also up there. Now, YouGov asked people whether they think the cabinet is doing a good or a bad job, and combined the two figures together to get a net score. John Healey and Bridget Phillipson are on top, but the big beats of Angela Rayner, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves bottom. But it's not over for Labour. Here's one scenario - 2024 Labour voters say they would much prefer a Labour-led government over a Conservative one. But what about a Reform UK-led government? Well, Labour polls even better against them - just 11% of people who voted Labour in 2024 want to see them enter Number 10. Signs of hope for Keir Starmer. But as Labour MPs head off for their summer holidays, few of their voters would give this government an A*.

Why is UK preparing to recognise Palestinian statehood?
Why is UK preparing to recognise Palestinian statehood?

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Why is UK preparing to recognise Palestinian statehood?

Keir Starmer is preparing to recognise Palestinian statehood as soon as September unless Israel meets key conditions, including reaching a ceasefire and committing to a long-term peace process. The prime minister's announcement on Tuesday marked a significant shift in the UK's longstanding position that it would recognise Palestine as part of a peace process at the point of maximum impact. Downing Street said Starmer would decide the extent to which Israel and Hamas had met his conditions before he made a decision beforethe UN general assembly in September. This is the first time the government has set concrete conditions and a timeline for recognition of a Palestinian state. Recognition is a symbolic step but one that would infuriate the Israeli government, which argues that it would encourage Hamas and reward terrorism. It is in effect a formal, political acknowledgment of Palestinian self-determination – without the need to engage in thorny practicalities such as the location of its borders or capital city. It also allows the establishment of full diplomatic relations that would result in a Palestinian ambassador (rather than a head of mission) being stationed in London and a British ambassador in Palestine. Advocates say it is a way of kickstarting a political process towards an eventual two-state solution. Out of the 193 UN member states, about 140 already recognise Palestine as a state. These include China, India and Russia, as well as a majority of European countries such as Cyprus, Ireland, Norway, Spain and Sweden. But until Thursday, when France announced it intended to recognise Palestine, no G7 country had committed to it. Two major international factors and heavy domestic pressure have played a role in the timing of Starmer's announcement. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, set the ball rolling last week when he announced that France would recognise Palestine at the UN general assembly in September. Starmer has now set himself the same deadline, though unlike Macron he has set conditions for Israel and Hamas. The other international factor was the tacit green light that Donald Trump gave to Starmer on Monday. Asked whether the prime minister should bow to pressure from MPs to recognise Palestine, the US president told reporters: 'I'm not going to take a position, I don't mind him taking a position. I'm looking for getting people fed right now.' Trump's reaction to France's announcement was similarly low-key – he said Macron's position on a Palestinian state 'doesn't matter' or 'carry any weight'. Starmer, who has himself expressed horror at the images of starvation in Gaza, has also come under heavy domestic pressure to act. Several of his most senior cabinet ministers – including Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper – support immediate recognition. Some influential ministers, such as Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood, have raised the issue in cabinet meetings. More than 250 cross-party MPs have signed a letter calling for immediate recognition, including more than a third of Labour MPs. Polling suggests that the public also backs action. In a poll commissioned by Ecotricity, the company founded by Labour donor Dale Vince, and carried out by Survation, 49% of people said the UK should recognise Palestine as a state compared with 13% who said it should not. An official government statement issued on Tuesday night said the UK would recognise Palestine at the UN general assembly unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire, makes it clear it will not annex the West Bank, and 'takes substantive steps' to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza including by allowing the UN to supply aid. This effectively requires Israel to revive the prospect of a two-state solution, an idea that Benjamin Netanyahu has long rejected. The UK government's statement also reiterates its demands for Hamas to immediately release all the hostages, sign up to an immediate ceasefire with Israel, commit to disarmament and accept it will play no part in the government of Gaza. Starmer will assess the extent to which the two parties – Israel and Hamas – have met his conditions in September. The government said that beyond recognition, it was working on a 'credible peace plan' with allies to establish transitional governance and security arrangements in Gaza and ensure the delivery of UN aid. It said this plan must involve the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the removal of Hamas leadership from Gaza as steps towards a negotiated two-state solution. The government's statement paves the way for the UK and France to jointly recognise Palestine in September. Several other countries are taking part in UN talks on this subject brokered by France and Saudi Arabia in New York. France expects several Arab countries to condemn Hamas and call for its disarmament for the first time in an effort to encourage more European countries to join in recognising Palestine. European countries that do not already recognise Palestine could reassess their positions in the coming weeks – the Belgian government has said it will determine its policy in September. Some countries, including Germany and the US, say they will recognise a Palestinian state only as part of a long-term political solution to the conflict in the Middle East.

UCLA agrees to $6.5m settlement with Jewish students over pro-Palestinian protests
UCLA agrees to $6.5m settlement with Jewish students over pro-Palestinian protests

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

UCLA agrees to $6.5m settlement with Jewish students over pro-Palestinian protests

The University of California, Los Angeles, will pay nearly $6.5m to settle a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor who said the university allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place on campus during last year's pro-Palestinian protests. The lawsuit alleged that with the 'knowledge and acquiescence' of university officials, protesters prevented Jewish students from accessing parts of campus, and made antisemitic threats. Under the settlement agreement announced on Tuesday, the university admitted it had 'fallen short' and agreed to pay $2.33m to eight groups that support UCLA's Jewish community, $320,000 to a campus initiative to fight antisemitism, and $50,000 to each plaintiff. 'We are pleased with the terms of today's settlement. The injunction and other terms UCLA has agreed to demonstrate real progress in the fight against antisemitism,' the parties said in a joint statement provided by the University of California. On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced the US Department of Justice's civil rights division found UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students'. 'UCLA failed to take timely and appropriate action in response to credible claims of harm and hostility on its campus,' said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the justice department's civil rights division. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and will continue to implement recommendations. UCLA was the site of massive protests last year amid a wave of campus demonstrations nationwide in response to the war in Gaza, in which Israeli forces have killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, which experts say is probably an undercount. The protests at UCLA attracted national attention, particularly after counter-protesters staged a violent attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. UCLA also faces a lawsuit from more than 30 pro-Palestinian protesters who say the university was negligent during the 'brutal mob assault' on the encampment and that officials did not intervene. 'This was four-plus hours of unmitigated violence while UCLA private security stood sometimes feet away and did nothing to protect the faculty, students and community members protesting genocide,' Thomas Harvey, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said earlier this year. The lawsuit that was settled this week was filed last year. This spring the Department of Justice announced it would investigate the University of California system for possible antisemitic discrimination and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university said it had taken 'substantive action' to combat antisemitism, including publicizing information about campus bans on encampments, opposing calls to boycott Israel and publishing a systemwide anti-discrimination policy. 'Antisemitism, harassment and other forms of intimidation are antithetical to our values and have no place at the University of California. We have been clear about where we have fallen short, and we are committed to doing better moving forward,' said Janet Reilly, the UC board of regents chair. 'Today's settlement reflects a critically important goal that we share with the plaintiffs: to foster a safe, secure and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensure that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store