decent article in todays Morning Star
FOR over a year, a heightened debate has taken place within the labour movement over the merit creating a "superunion" from the merger of Amicus, the GMB and T&G.
Union mergers have never been off the agenda. In response to continuing membership decline, TUC reports in 1999, 2001 and 2003 contained proposals concerning union rationalisation and creating "industrial unionism" based on the principle of one industry, one union.
In 1900, Britain had 1323 unions, falling to 732 by 1950 and 238 by 1995. By 2005, there were just 186.
Inside the TUC, its 76 affiliates in 1997 dropped to 67 by 2005 following 19 mergers/transfers, being balanced out by 24 new affiliations and four disaffiliations/dissolutions.
The current proposal to create a superunion by 2007 arguably takes this debate into a different ballpark. With 2.6 million members, it would be twice the size of UNISON and comprise 40 per cent of all TUC membership.
Rather than being an industrial union, the merger would create a super general union and not even a private-sector superunion because of significant membership in the public sector.
Important questions need to be asked about the merger.
The starting point must be to ask whether members will be stronger than before? There are a number of aspects to this, but probably the most significant is whether the merger would make the union stronger in the workplace.
Greater numbers of different workers being in the same union would seem to be a positive development. However, the crux of the matter is whether there is manifest, not paper, unity and unity in action, not unity in passivity.
Would all members in one organisation be in the same branch and, following this, would they be more or less likely to mobilise collectively to defend their jobs, pay and conditions?
Another way of looking at this issue is to ask whether members in different organisations and sectors will be any more able or likely to act collectively by utilising their industrial muscle.
Would we see more examples of Gate Gourmet workers striking to defend themselves, as well as BA workers striking in support of Gate Gourmet workers?
Structural changes like mergers cannot on their own create collective power. And the anti-union laws governing what are legitimate trade disputes and lawful industrial action would still stand in the way of solidarity action and workers acting in concert.
Constructing effective collective power requires higher trade union consciousness, more activists, left-wing ideology, vibrant grass-roots campaigning and collective action itself.
Systems of collective bargaining would need to be returned to national bargaining to allow an aggregation of members' power in different workplaces.
Moreover, union members will have greater commitment to their union if their identity with it is secured as a result of it being a vigorous "fighting back" union.
Certainly, a merged union should be able to exercise more clout in the TUC and the Labour Party. But this assumes two things.
First, that the new union is united in policy. Second, that other unions stay where they are and do not reorganise themselves to counter the new union. In any case, will more clout necessarily bring tangible change in the policies and actions of either the TUC or Labour?
A standard rationale for merging is to achieve economies of scale. What will be the net savings accrued from ending duplication of administration after staff redundancies and restructuring costs are accounted for?
T&G general secretary Tony Woodley has suggested that the new union would be able to spend £20 million per year on organising. Very welcome though that is, it may not be enough to make a 2.6 million-strong union grow significantly.
Crucial to union activists will be the internal structures and processes of the new union. This is not just a question about democracy and accountability but also about effectiveness and efficiency.
Will the new union have the structures that allow not just good policy to emerge but also to ensure the effective implementation of this and the attaining of subsequent policy goals?
Issues concerning the place and influence of annual national and sectoral/trade group conferences, regional committees, regional secretaries and full-time officers - whether appointed or elected - and networks representing women, young, black and minority ethnic members will all need to be fully thought through and debated.
A merger should provide the opportunity to say: "If we were to start with a blank sheet, what would we want a new model union to look like?"
Using this and an assessment of what were the better and worse bits of the constituent unions, should lead to the possibility of a more inclusive, vibrant form of trade unionism.
Previous mergers have been plagued by prolonged periods of introspection and turmoil, with both vertical and horizontal integration of constituent unions taking considerable time.
These problems are likely to be magnified under the superunion, necessitating specific remedies to deal with them and considerable efforts to identify these remedies.
Achieving all these objectives is a tall order. In Germany, industrial unionism after 1945 did not stop decline or further merging.
If members discuss the proposed new union on the basis of more than just the hollow paper platitude of "stronger together" and thinking that having the right formal policies is sufficient, then the merger might have a chance of delivering a fighting, effective union.
• Professor Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire's Centre for Research in Employment Studies.
) - good things.
