How Ed should handle McCluskey

Miliband should condemn McCluskey's Olympics threat but he can't "rein him in".

On one level, Unite leader Len McCluskey's threat to disrupt the Olympics is unsurprising. If you oppose all of the cuts (as McCluskey does), why not strike at the moment of maximum inconvenience? The trade union head tells the Guardian:

The attacks that are being launched on public-sector workers at the moment are so deep and ideological that the idea the world should arrive in London and have these wonderful Olympic Games as though everything is nice and rosy in the garden is unthinkable.

It's important to note, as few have, that this was not an unprompted intervention. McCluskey was asked by the paper if he had "talked about" the possibility of strike action during the Olympics and it's unsurprising, at this stage, that he's not willing to take any options off the table. That is standard negotiating practice.

What make his intervention significant is his standing in the labour movement. As general secretary of Unite he leads the country's biggest trade union and Labour's biggest donor, responsible for a quarter of all donations to the party. And, lest we forget, had it not been for his union, among others, David Miliband, not Ed, would now be wearing the crown.

Nick Clegg, a long-standing critic of the unions, has already called on Ed Miliband to "rein in" McCluskey, something that is neither possible nor desirable for the Labour leader to do. As the democratically-elected head of a trade union, McCluskey should answer to no one but his members.

What Miliband can and should do is simply condemn the Unite leader. Unlike Tony Blair, Miliband has never sought to define himself by picking fights with his own party. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't respond when union leaders speak out.

Tessa Jowell, Labour's shadow Olympics minister, has already issued an unambiguous statement:

No one in our country looking forward to the Olympics, no athlete preparing, and none of our thousands of potential visitors, would understand or sympathise with any disruption to the Olympic Games.

If this is a negotiation it should take place in private. Unions and employers should get together and sort it out without threats or disruption to Britain's Olympics.

Those who say that Miliband cannot afford to alienate Unite, his party's biggest paymaster, should remember that, even at the height of Blairism, the unions continued to pay the bills.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.