Does Trade Union Democracy favour the Moderate over the Militant?

national | worker & community struggles and protests | feature

Thursday April 02, 2009 18:35

by A.R

Challenging the 'top-down' consensus.

Who You Calling Conservative?

The purpose of this article is to challenge the assumption that it is the 'leaders' who sell out rank and file members, and to highlight that 'leaders' reflect the median moderate worker within Trade Unions. It therefore favours a more bottom-up grassroots focused analysis of Trade Union activity over a top down hierarchical 'leadership' focused analysis. It is my argument that constantly talking about the ICTU 'leaders' is disempowering and a more actor-worker-centered focus is better suited to Libertarian politics.

Related Links:
An article by Andrew F. concerning how the Governement attacks workers through hiring freeze in public sector | A second article by Andrew F. telling us Employers retreat but ICTU talks are not a victory| Sean Matthews argues that the "outburst of condemnation" against the bankers is legitimate class anger | Pat C reports on a call for the resignation of David Begg by a teachers' union. | Paddy Hackett does not like the bad leadership at IMPACT

According to many amongst the left In Ireland it is the 'leaders' of ICTU in Ireland that enter national socio-economic pacts, and that this is at odds with what their rank and file members want. However, most evidence indicates the complete opposite. Most empirical research (Bacarro, 2002, Geary, Roche 2005) concludes that rank and file members tend to be more conservative than their Trade Union leaders, and overwhelmingly support 'partnership' or 'dialogue' over militant industrial action. Furthermore, detailed research has found that greater internal trade union democracy actually favours the moderate over the radical. In countries where Trade Unions support national social-pacts (in wage bargaining and other socio-economic policies) there tends to be more democracy within Unions i.e. Ireland and Netherlands. In countries where Unions have been more militant and opposed to social pacts there tends to be less internal democracy within Unions i.e. Korea.

The rise of the PDs (who received 11.8%) of the vote in the 1987 election, coupled with the rise of Thatcherism in the UK (and her effective undermining of Trade Unions) was obviously a key variable for ICTU’s decision to support the initial programme for national recovery in 1987. The Union movement in this context favoured an institutional framework that gave them direct access to national policy making (particularly labour market policies and tax reform). The alternative was a FF-PD government adopting a Tory approach to labour markets.

However, there was obviously divisions within the trade union movement to enter into a concerted social pact. The conflict between ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ factions is an interesting story and occurred in every country that adopted a social pact as a response to an exogenous economic crisis. In Ireland, unemployment was @ 17 per cent, and the country was in dire straits. Baccarro (2005) highlights how increased democratic procedures within Trade Union confederations (and he uses Ireland as a case study) favour the median voter and therefore the moderate factions. In countries where there is less internal democracy within Trade Unions (Korea) militant factions successfully blocked all attempts at union involvement in national policy making. More democracy within unions favours moderates not radicals. It tends to block a more militant ‘vanguard’ from monopolising strategic decisions. It also fits well with political science literature that highlight the importance of the median voter for center-politics.

This hypothesis is at odds with the popular perception amongst some elements of the Left that it is the union ‘Leaders’ who are the moderate vanguard blocking rank and file militancy. It would appear that it is rank and file moderates who strengthen the legitimacy for social pacts such as social partnership. This also fits well with recent survey data (of 3,500 employees) by Geary, Roche et al in UCD that found most employees support a partnership approach to employee relations and not a militant approach. It also fits well with a more ‘bottom-up’ approach to understanding the strategic perspective of structural actors. In the Union movement , greater democracy replaces the logic of mobilisation with a logic of representation (one person, one vote). A logic of representation empowers the moderate. These are interesting arguments and empirically refute the argument that it is the ‘leaders’ who are conservative. In this respect the ICTU leadership and their preference for dialogue over industrial action is a reflection of rank and file preference, not an undermining of it.

This perspective may appear to support the status quo but it need not neccessarily do so. A libertarian analysis of trade union activity ought to focus upon the activities of workers on the ground. It should prioritise what workers actually do, and what they actually favour rather than taking the easy option of simply blaming the 'leaders'. The leader-focused perspective would have us think that the false consciousness of workers simply needs to be shaken off so we can all focus on our real interests. The Irish Labour force is extremely diverse. The labour force in Ireland is not an Eighteenth-century mass manufacturing male bread winning worker which most analysis (whether conscious or not) is based upon. If the progressive left is to be successful during this critical juncture in Irish politics then we need to modernise our analysis and our method of organisation. A grassroots worker-actor-centered approach is more capable of doing this than a top down structural leadership focused analysis.

The Diversity of Labour