Michael Kelly: Unions must go for the jugular if they hope to win

YESTERDAY was not a sign of union militancy. It was a sign of union impotence. Anyone with any sense of fairness must have sympathy with the public sector workers who went on strike.

The economic crisis has offered this government the opportunity that every Tory government seeks – to reduce the size and change the shape of the public sector. This determination was reinforced in the Autumn Statement, which outlined plans for a doubling of cuts in employment and further severe restrictions on the remuneration of the low paid.

Sure, the public sector needs reform, but this is not reform – this is doctrinaire destruction.

There is no social justice in worsening the conditions of those innocents expected to retire on pensions of less than £4,000 per year while the banks whose criminal irresponsibility started all this suffer an increase in their levy of a derisory 0.088 per cent – further sweetened by a promise from the Chancellor to oppose the introduction of an international tax on financial transactions. This is the promoting of a hard-line right-wing philosophy callously combined with creating market opportunities for the Tories’ private sector backers.

It is the sense of outrage at the injustice of imposing disproportionately the pain of reducing the deficit on cleaners, janitors and dinner ladies that caused the unions to respond with industrial action. Union leaders are sophisticated and astute when it comes to weighing up the chances of a strike winning concessions. And most of the national leaders must know that one day of action will have little impact on the government’s negotiating stance.

The trade unionists who I have asked if they think they can win this strike have replied mainly with silence. “What else can we do?” they ask. Doing nothing is not regarded as an option. And you can understand why. The members whose terms and conditions are under attack pay union dues out of very low incomes. If the unions had not taken action, many members who feel anger at the government’s hostility towards them would be asking if their dues represented value for money.

At the same time, the unions feel it is necessary to remind the public of the essential role their members play in helping society to run smoothly. Of course, this form of reminder is counter-productive. The public doesn’t care. It is much more concerned with the alleged harm strikes might cause – an issue on which the unions are very sensitive. Witness their response to the government’s accusation that yesterday’s strike will cost the economy more than half a billion pounds and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. The unions were quick to condemn the figure as “fantasy economics”. Yet surely the purpose of a strike is to cause as much financial damage as possible in the least possible time? Instead of emphasising the damage they could cause, the unions’ position appeared to be that the strike would not cost much and have no adverse long-term consequences, but give us what we want anyway. That stance undermined what was supposed to be a show of strength. And the perception of powerless unions is enhanced when evasive action can easily be taken to mitigate the worst inconveniences of a token strike.

Those members of the public angered at the inconvenience this day did cause should speak to the workers directly in the line of the government’s attack. Those working 12-hour shifts in boring, often dirty but essential jobs who struggle to generate enough income for any level of comfortable life have a just case. They have a daily struggle that those of us who casually pay out £120 for a supermarket delivery find it difficult to relate to. The fact that these workers were prepared to sacrifice a day’s hard-earned pay indicates the righteous injustice that they feel. That should elicit support.

The strikers feel let down by the public reaction and betrayed by Labour’s leaders. They expected much more than the lukewarm support offered by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. But those two know from experience that the overwhelming majority of the public have no sympathy with strikes. People look on themselves now as consumers, not workers. Anything which interrupts their ability to earn is condemned. Labour knows that overt support for strikes will cost it electorally.

The Winter of Discontent in 1979 cost Labour the next election, and Margaret Thatcher never suffered in England over her willingness to take on the unions. And this is the dilemma for the organised labour. This government wants to take them on. The only way to protect the public sector and to promote the cause of social justice is to work for the return of a Labour government. They cynically point to Labour’s past indifferent record in this regard. But when pressed, they do acknowledge that a Labour government is better than the alternative. That is why they continue to fund the party.

However, it takes more than money to win an election, and the unions have not been very good at supplying anything else. Thus they chose Ed over David Miliband when it was clear that the older brother is the better electoral asset. The same tendency to declare a preference for vested interest over pragmatism is exhibited in Scotland, where the unions are persisting with the Old Labour, leftish candidate Johann Lamont when it is clear that the party needs a new direction if it is to win back its dominant position north of the Border.

But neither industrially nor politically is this militant unionism. Militant unions would be targeting a vulnerable part of the public sector for indefinite crippling strike action and financing the strikers, voluntarily of course, through the rest of the union movement. Win there and move on to the next target: that’s the way to grab the Cabinet’s attention.

It wouldn’t bring down the coalition. In fact, the danger is that it would strengthen the Tories’ hand at the next general election. But it would have a better chance of screwing concessions out of them than the present half-hearted strategy.