Starmer must declare war on the unions, or they’ll destroy him

At some point Mick Lynch’s forces will collide with the immovable object of Labour’s commitments to fiscal prudence and economic growth

It is not always wise to take trade union leaders seriously, especially when they are grandstanding in front of an audience of adoring supporters at a Labour conference fringe event.
And in fact, the rhetoric of militant railway union boss Mick Lynch is to be expected: many of his predecessors and fellow union leaders have long yearned after the glory days of the 1970s, when the unions could, with just one show of hands in a crowded car park, bring a factory to its knees by strike action, celebrating such “working class solidarity” even as it led directly to those same workers being handed their P45s a few weeks later when the factory closed.
That is the prize for which Lynch and some of his more extreme associates are grasping. The return to power of a Labour government that looks more inclined to do the unions’ bidding than the Blair and Brown governments of the ’90s and noughties were, has brought a new degree of optimism to the Brothers and Sisters.
Amid Labour conference, Lynch told supporters that the “prize” that unions had to keep their eyes on was universal union influence across the United Kingdom. “The complete organisation of the UK economy by trade unions – that’s our aim.”
He bemoaned the fact that trade union influence is no longer as strong as it was in the past. “The problem at the moment is that the unions are not in every sector, effectively.
‘We’re not in every workplace. We’re not able to influence non-union recognised workplaces, whereas up to the 1970s and 80s, we were.”
The most obvious response to which is: why on earth should you have influence in places where you have no presence?
And whose fault is it that unions have no representation in so many workplaces, Mick? Despite legislation brought in by the last Labour government that gave employees a chance to vote on whether they wanted to be represented by a union, and have their employer legally forced to negotiate with a union of their workers’ choosing, trade union membership has continued its downward decline in membership and influence – a decline that began with the Thatcher government, whose election was in itself at least a partial response by voters to the industrial anarchy that unions had created in the economy in the 1970s.
But the unions failed to capitalise on that Blair-era legislation. Barely 22 per cent of workers are now trade union members – hardly a vote of confidence in Lynch’s aspiration for unions to organise the entire economy. Fundamental to the drop in membership and influence of the unions in Britain was the scrapping of the closed shop – the archaic and discredited rule that forced every worker to join whichever trade union was most dominant in their workforce whether they wanted to or not.
As soon as the closed shop was abolished, workers voted with their paycheques, abandoning trade union membership to those who chose willingly to pay for it. This remains, for some union leaders, a grave injustice.
The notion that Britain would willingly return significant industrial muscle to organisations that represent less than a quarter of the workforce is fanciful to say the least. And even Keir Starmer is unlikely to give much credence to Lynch’s rant.
Yet the sentiments expressed by the RMT leader (and bear in mind that the RMT, which represents railway workers, is no longer affiliated to the Labour Party), are shared by many in the broader Labour movement, not least by some MPs. It was noteworthy that Lynch singled out leading cabinet members Angela Rayner and transport secretary Louise Haigh as worthy of union support in order to help them deliver the government’s planned package of new workers’ rights.
Like the administration’s plans to improve tenants’ rights, even at the cost of private landlords’ leaving the sector and reducing the overall availability of homes for rent, Labour’s plans to extend workplace rights are aimed solely at employees, irrespective of the impact they may have on employers’ ability to afford creating and sustaining jobs. Employers, like private landlords, are seen as the villains of the piece, and all new rights must be seen as a good thing, whatever negative impact they may have on the jobs market.
Assuming that this package, promised in Labour’s manifesto, is delivered, the unions’ attention can be expected to turn to their next priorities. These will always include inflation-busting pay awards, which Labour have so far signalled they are more than willing to concede, and further legislative changes, perhaps along the lines that Lynch has outlined.
At some point this irresistible force will collide with the immovable object of Labour’s commitments to fiscal prudence and economic growth. A party whose majority was achieved from what Professor John Curtice accurately describes as a “loveless landslide” will be given very little wiggle room by disillusioned voters if it seeks to roll back the clock to the bad old days of the ’70s. Yet seeking to govern without a willingness to confront the unions, either over unrealistic pay demands or their own absurd economic and political ambitions, would be disastrous for Labour’s electoral prospects.
It is still too early to judge whether Starmer or his cabinet are up for the fight.