We all depend on trade unions
What is one day of paralysis compared with a lifetime of poorly-funded and under-staffed services?
By Emily Wight Published 20 April 2012 11:43
Who knew that a student blogger with a pet peeve for public sector workers could incite so much anger? Sara Malm, a journalism student at the University of Kent, probably had no idea when she ranted against "disgraceful, selfish and, quite frankly, passé" industrial action.
Her post, published on the Independent's iWriters section on Friday, has inspired 300 comments, as well as a response from blogger Lucy Snow denouncing her "vitriol." And while anyone sympathetic to workers' rights should denounce Malm's insulting article, you have to wonder why people are surprised.
Britain is seething with anti-union sentiment. Be it Michael Gove proposing to abolish teachers’ staff rooms in order to save money, or the right-wing press attacking “Red Len” McCluskey’s call for strikes during the Olympics. Thatcher used all she had in her to curb the power of unions, but the return of a Conservative-led government is reflected in our media, our fellow citizens and, now, our youth.
Criticise the cash-for-access scandal that erupted last month and the ensuing revelations of the power of big businesses over the Conservative Party, and you will be met with claims that the Labour Party is just as reliant on its union funding. Well, yes. But unions speak for thousands of ordinary people who share similar stakes in society – which, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think necessarily appeal to the chairman of the world’s largest interdealer broker (Michael Spencer, who enjoys Downing Street dining so much he paid nearly £4m for the luxury).
But the problem is that many of these ordinary people don’t recognise the beneficial nature of unions – including Malm, who doesn’t seem to realise that she has the right to union support herself. The very fact that Boris Johnson prides himself on his pledge to limit the power of the transport unions shows how far this has gone. If elected next month, he promises to make key underground lines driverless within two years. Rather than arousing concern for the inevitable job losses this will create, the move is hailed as somehow freeing commuters from the constraints of irritating tube drivers and their endless demands; the picture painted of tube unions is not unlike the terrorising hostage-takers that Malm describes. And Boris, saying “I want to be the Mayor who does that” (create more driverless trains), has tapped into the public contempt that his own party has helped to fuel.
A lot of the time, people who moan about industrial action don’t understand the reasons behind it. And this is something that Malm fails even to address. The strikes that the NUT proposes for later this year are about defending national pay rather than a performance-related salary – akin to much of the private sector – that Gove is suggesting. The education secretary wants teachers’ pay to be more “market facing” – a flagrant example of the creeping veil of privatisation with which this government is stifling public services.
But performance-related pay works both ways: bright young graduates should be attracted to a career in teaching with decent salaries, pensions and working conditions. Otherwise, what is to stop the best potential candidates preferring professions that don’t immediately benefit society? Don’t we want our children, Britain’s future, to be taught by people who are intelligent and enthusiastic rather than worn out and grumpy? Ironically and perhaps unknowingly, Malm hints at what the NUT is complaining about, claiming that strikes have “no place in a market economy, especially not one four years into a recession.” But that is the very problem: that the recession is incessantly taken out on people like teachers. It’s no good creating – and maintaining – a consumer-driven society that conditions people to be motivated by success, only to devalue on so many levels the careers that really matter.
Of course a strike across the London transport network is devastating on any day, let alone during the Olympics. Thousands of ordinary people will not be able to get to work, children won’t be able to go to school and the capital’s economy will dip – for a short period. But people strike to make that very point: we are all reliant on public sector workers. We need to stand by them while they protest job cuts, pay freezes and pension reforms. After all, what is one day of paralysis – to borrow from right-wing rhetoric – compared with a lifetime of badly-organised, poorly-funded and under-staffed services?
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















7 comments
magician3all
arabonly
anime3as
animok3a
delegnt3a
mexaty3a
animeta7a
mexaty3a
animes3t
mexa2at
3arb-anime
anim5k
albrqn3t
mexat3an
top3film
z7may
z7mhat
ta7ata
animeyate
mnhosat
mokmsyat
animeca3fe
mazaryte
animeyzo
animesnipat
anime-bnatc
banatm5dern
star5at
monaystat
mal7zat
zol7at
kol7at
animoyat
foxyat
maz7kat
3solaty
kool7at
ta7oy
mal7oy
zalyta
ma7aryat
sokolat
barn7ty
tey5at
d5olat
caloyat
anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3solat
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet
This is quite a good article. Many new questions emerge to the surface, all you need do is to read further information about the issues. Only then one can form a final view on a particular subject. Otherwise everything is seen only in the dimension of cum more black and white. The natural logic of evaluating things before they were properly cognitively processed is a horrible mistake, made by those less intelligent. People should not throw away their common aquaparky sense easily. Anything and everything deserves appropriate time for making judgements.
Personally, I don't think public sector workers should strike in any way shape or form. But I don't think industrial action is "disgraceful and selfish" or past it. ( somebody at work once accused me of being disgraceful, selfish and/or past it when declared that at age 29 I didn't want children).
Industrial action is a valid form of protest, hopefully designed to test everyone's mettle and/or systems appropriately and as necessary.
But I do worry about the kids and workers of today and tomorrow who are so dumbed down and easily brainwashed by the current set ups - it's becoming a job to find anyone who really understands the position of the ordinary member of the public.
P.S We may of course share this message appropriately and/or as necessary. i don't expect a reply.
You complain about the job losses of driverless trains. But that's the progress of technology for you. Are you also going to complain about billboards now being video screens instead of paper? So we've lost one big segment of workers right there. That's what happens to an economy. Technology changes and shifts things. Des Demona, the question is if you're so keen on supporting the unions, they're one of the largest agents against new technologies because somehow we have to justify and protect their jobs against technological change.
Unions have always been about job protectionism, this will in turn lead to stagnation as newer technologies improve and make some jobs fundamentally redundant. The Luddites were a proto union who were against mechanised looms. Would you have honestly said the looms were a bad idea? We must safeguard their jobs? Ironically it's your stance that would have engendered and guaranteed child chimney sweeps not hers.
If it weren't for the Unions that little brat would probably be up a chimney or in a sweat shop 16 hours a day.
As a rule the rich don't give a stuff about the poor other than as an economic asset and given free reign would strip away as many rights as possible. The Unions always have and always will be the only defence the workers have against the rapaciousness of the rich and powerful.
Hear hear Emily. Unfortunately, it is all to often left to outlets such as the New Statesman to make such well constructed defences of the unions. Torygraph readers et al might even toe a similar line in the face of such a well made argument - were they ever exposed to it.
Not certain that BJ's aim of driverless trains can also be spun into the disregard of unions argument but interesting nonetheless.
Great article! The media's demonising of unions since the 1980s (not just under the Conservatives) is a disgrace, and is just one part of the 'divide and rule' strategy that the government is undertaking. Immigrants vs 'Brits', public vs private sector etc. Apologies if this sounds incredibly Marxist, but that is what the rich do-prevent the poor from rising up against them by dividing them and directing their grievances against each other.