Labour Party gives little ground to unions in policy review

At a meeting of its national policy forum in July 2008, the Labour Party agreed a series of policy proposals for inclusion in its manifesto for the next general election. The proposals include lowering of the age threshold for the national minimum wage and the extension of flexible working rights for parents. However, party leaders rejected a range of other trade union demands, such as abolishing the ban on ‘secondary’ picketing and simplifying strike balloting procedures.

Over three days from 26 July to 28 July 2008, the ruling UK Labour Party’s national policy forum met at the University of Warwick to discuss the content of the party manifesto for the next general election. The forum enables party leaders to consult local party members and representatives of affiliated trade unions as part of the policy development process.

Prior to the meeting, trade unions had reportedly drafted 130 points that they wished to see adopted as party policy. In the weeks leading up to the policy forum, many commentators had emphasised that some 90% of Labour Party funding came from trade unions, and some had suggested that the party’s financial reliance on trade unions would lead to the party adopting a more pro-union stance. The meeting took place in the shadow of the Brown government’s domestic unpopularity. Moreover, some persons on the left of the party had suggested that a political shift to the left was needed in order to reinvigorate disillusioned traditional supporters.

Key policy proposals

In the area of employment and working life, the forum’s outcome was that party leaders adopted several new commitments, reiterated some prior commitments and promised that certain measures would be considered.

• In terms of new commitments, party leaders agreed to lower the age threshold of the adult national minimum wage from 22 to 21 years (UK0803019I). They also stated their commitment to limiting the number of hospital cleaning services to be outsourced to the private sector.

• The forum also reiterated the party’s commitment to a series of existing policies. These included: an increase in the minimum level of statutory redundancy pay; more apprenticeships in the public sector; the extension of the right to request flexible working time arrangements for parents with children up to the age of 16 years (UK0806049I), and the requirement for private sector companies working on public sector contracts to provide information on their equality policies (UK0807059I).

• Finally, party leaders promised to ‘look at’ non-profit making companies becoming involved in the operation of trains, and to consider an inquiry into working conditions in the construction sector.

However, of the original list of 130 suggestions put forward by the trade unions, the great majority were turned down by party leaders. More ambitious demands, such as calls for the repeal of the law outlawing ‘secondary’ picketing and for new rules to make strike balloting procedures easier, were simply rejected.

Social partner reaction

Publicly, trade unions were generally optimistic about the agreement. The General Secretary of the public sector union Unison, Dave Prentis, said: ‘We have moved forward on a package that covers a wide range of areas that the British electorate wants to see addressed. Importantly for us, it affirms the central role of the public sector in delivering public services.’

Business groups, however, reacted to the agreement with relief. They emphasised that they were glad that government ministers had rejected most of the trade unions’ proposals. The Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Richard Lambert, welcomed that the government had ‘resisted the worst of the union demands’, while the Director-General of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), David Frost, highlighted that ‘everybody appears to have seen some sense and understood the current economic climate ... the business community must be heartened by this’.

Other observers also dwelt on how few of the trade union’s original demands had been met. A Labour Member of Parliament (MP) on the left of the party, Bob Marshall-Andrews, reportedly remarked: ‘The unions went in with a shopping list and came away with a bag of sweets.’

Commentary

Despite trade unions winning a number of concessions from Labour Party leaders, the overall ground won at the forum by unions does not appear particularly substantial. More radical demands were rejected and much of the agenda agreed on by the parties entailed a restatement of existing commitments. The steadfastness of Gordon Brown’s government in the face of trade union demands also demonstrates that the government is unlikely to react to their current unpopularity with voters by moving to the political left.

Thomas Prosser, IRRU, University of Warwick