Red Tory: Gove on his union days

The Education Secretary "was an active striker" at the <em>Press and Journal</em> during its bitter

As teaching unions and the Department for Education go head-to-head over a proposed strike this Thursday, it is worth looking at Michael Gove's past involvement in industrial action. In an interview with the New Statesman in 2010, the education secretary discussed his role in the National Union of Journalist's fight against the Press and Journal in Aberdeen in the late 1980s. Gove's former union activities certainly gives the recent dispute an interesting context.

Gove was a trainee reporter at the Press when the industrial dispute broke out, which, he argues, tied his hands when it came to whether or not he should take part.

"I didn't think the dispute was a good idea. I was against going on strike, but I'd only just arrived. The majority of friends and colleagues felt very strongly about this. I was the new kid. There were people whom I liked and admired who felt they were being mistreated. I had joined the union. I felt that if you were in an organisation, you should generally respect the rules and the quirks of decision-making. I thought it was wrong to go on strike but I didn't feel that the principle was an ignoble one.

Critics have levelled charges of hypocrisy at the Education Secretary. This amusing photo of a young, bespectacled Gove on the picket line adds to that feeling. Gove, however, defends NUJ's strike as it had - he claims - legitimate grievances, something which he appears to think that the teachers lack.

"We weren't striking because we were demanding a massive pay increase at an inappropriate time. There was an issue. The strike ringleaders were victimised. We can argue whether this was provocation on the management's part or the union's naivety. We were all dismissed and it became a very bitter dispute. And in the end most people never worked for Aberdeen Journals again. Some chose to cross the picket line, some were selectively re-employed."

Gove's days as a rabble-rousing, unionised hack are, however, well and truly over. He left the NUJ in 2007 - two years after he entered parliament - because of the union's stance on Israel. "Tory leaves union" is not exactly headline news. But, as Francis Beckett points out in the excellent profile, going on strike for union recognition as a trainee journalist in 1989 "required. . . courage". It is somewhat surprising, then, that Gove has taken such an aggressive stance on the teaching unions. Rather than using his own experiences to try and reach a compromise, Gove has gone in looking for a fight. He'll certainly get one. Whether anyone will win remains to be seen.

Getty
Show Hide image

Junior doctors’ strikes: the greatest union failure in a generation

The first wave of junior doctor contract impositions began this week. Here’s how the BMA union failed junior doctors.

In Robert Tressell’s novel, The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, the author ridicules the notion of work as a virtuous end per se:

“And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of the gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order.”

Tressell’s characters are subdued and eroded by the daily disgraces of working life; casualised labour, poor working conditions, debt and poverty.

Although the Junior Doctors’ dispute is a far cry from the Edwardian working-poor, the eruption of fervour from Junior Doctors during the dispute channelled similar overtones of dire working standards, systemic abuse, and a spiralling accrual of discontent at the notion of “noble” work as a reward in itself. 

While the days of union activity precipitating governmental collapse are long over, the BMA (British Medical Association) mandate for industrial action occurred in a favourable context that the trade union movement has not witnessed in decades. 

Not only did members vote overwhelmingly for industrial action with the confidence of a wider public, but as a representative of an ostensibly middle-class profession with an irreplaceable skillset, the BMA had the necessary cultural capital to make its case regularly in media print and TV – a privilege routinely denied to almost all other striking workers.

Even the Labour party, which displays parliamentary reluctance in supporting outright strike action, had key members of the leadership join protests in a spectacle inconceivable just a few years earlier under the leadership of “Red Ed”.

Despite these advantageous circumstances, the first wave of contract impositions began this week. The great failures of the BMA are entirely self-inflicted: its deference to conservative narratives, an overestimation of its own method, and woeful ignorance of the difference between a trade dispute and moralising conundrums.

These right-wing discourses have assumed various metamorphoses, but at their core rest charges of immorality and betrayal – to themselves, to the profession, and ultimately to the country. These narratives have been successfully deployed since as far back as the First World War to delegitimise strikes as immoral and “un-British” – something that has remarkably haunted mainstream left-wing and union politics for over 100 years.

Unfortunately, the BMA has inherited this doubt and suspicion. Tellingly, a direct missive from the state machinery that the BMA was “trying to topple the government” helped reinforce the same historic fears of betrayal and unpatriotic behaviour that somehow crossed a sentient threshold.

Often this led to abstract and cynical theorising such as whether doctors would return to work in the face of fantastical terrorist attacks, distracting the BMA from the trade dispute at hand.

In time, with much complicity from the BMA, direct action is slowly substituted for direct inaction with no real purpose and focus ever-shifting from the contract. The health service is superficially lamented as under-resourced and underfunded, yes, but certainly no serious plan or comment on how political factors and ideologies have contributed to its present condition.

There is little to be said by the BMA for how responsibility for welfare provision lay with government rather than individual doctors; virtually nothing on the role of austerity policies; and total silence on how neoliberal policies act as a system of corporate welfare, eliciting government action when in the direct interests of corporatism.

In place of safeguards demanded by the grassroots, there are instead vague quick-fixes. Indeed, there can be no protections for whistleblowers without recourse to definable and tested legal safeguards. There are limited incentives for compliance by employers because of atomised union representation and there can be no exposure of a failing system when workers are treated as passive objects requiring ever-greater regulation.

In many ways, the BMA exists as the archetypal “union for a union’s sake”, whose material and functional interest is largely self-intuitive. The preservation of the union as an entity is an end in itself.

Addressing conflict in a manner consistent with corporate and business frameworks, there remains at all times overarching emphasis on stability (“the BMA is the only union for doctors”), controlled compromise (“this is the best deal we can get”) and appeasement to “greater” interests (“think of the patients”). These are reiterated even when diametrically opposed to its own members or irrelevant to the trade dispute.

With great chutzpah, the BMA often moves from one impasse to the next, framing defeats as somehow in the interests of the membership. Channels of communication between hierarchy and members remain opaque, allowing decisions such as revocation of the democratic mandate for industrial action to be made with frightening informality.

Pointedly, although the BMA often appears to be doing nothing, the hierarchy is in fact continually defining the scope of choice available to members – silence equals facilitation and de facto acceptance of imposition. You don’t get a sense of cumulative unionism ready to inspire its members towards a swift and decisive victory.

The BMA has woefully wasted the potential for direct action. It has encouraged a passive and pessimistic malaise among its remaining membership and presided over the most spectacular failure of union representation in a generation.

Ahmed Wakas Khan is a junior doctor, freelance journalist and editorials lead at The Platform. He tweets @SireAhmed.