Over the last ten years the face of the British trade union movement has changed significantly, increasingly forced to respond to the demands of the autonomous movements. Terry Conway argues that the left has often failed to understand the significance of these changes, and examines the obstacles to deepening these far-reaching developments.
The first wave of developments towards self organisation took place specifically among women workers, spurred on by the impact of the recent women's liberation movement but in many instances also building on historical traditions. More recently black workers, lesbians and gay workers, and workers with disabilities have also fought for their rightful place within the [illegible] traditionally been excluded from decision-making and influence within the labour movement, mirroring the discrimination they face in society at large. Even where individuals have fought their way through the structures, they have been seen as exceptional individuals, not as representing a particular constituency of interests. It is particularly on the right to self organisation and representation that these different groups are waging a similar battle; sometimes in different ways and in different places and occasionally, consciously as one struggle.
Yet each of the groups does face very different oppression in society and within the labour movement; and each has their own tradition of struggle. It is a crucial part of the politics of self organisation to recognise and respect these differences, to refuse to allow one group to be played off against another. It is vital to acknowledge that none of the groups is individually or collectively free of prejudice against others and that this needs to be consciously combated. Real unity can be achieved if it is fought for, not assumed.
To understand the historical relationship between the trade union movement and these oppressed groups it is useful to look at the initial development of the unions in this country and the particular role played by women.
The early history of British trade unions is a scattered patchwork which repeats a pattern time and again of women's segregation into particular sections of the labour market and the determination of most male trade unionists that a woman's place was in the home. Thus, whether women participated in particular unions very much depended on whether their origins were amalgamations covering occupations in which women were found, or whether they were based on individual crafts and excluded women. Even in the mixed unions things were far from perfect, 'women paid only half contributions and were excluded from management' according to Beatrice and Sidney Webb in The History of Trade Unionism.
Thus excluded from or marginalised within mainstream developments it was left to women to organise themselves. In the 1870s Emma Patterson returned from a visit to New York inspired by the Female Umbrella-Sewers Union, and started the National Union of Working Women and the Women's Protective and Provident League. An example of the prejudice which these women had to fight can be seen in the TUC statement in 1877: 'It is the duty of men and husbands to bring about a condition of things when their wives should be in their proper sphere at home instead of being dragged into competition of livelihood with the great and strong men of the world.' There was also a clear assumption that men would make the running in the battles with the mill and factory owners, and that women, despite the horrendous conditions in which they were employed, would have nothing to contribute to the fight back.
Through the latter part of the 1880s and the early 1890s this illusion was shattered, as women took part in a series of militant and bitter disputes. The most famous incident is of course the Matchgirls strike of 1889, crucial to the overall development of British trade unionism, but there were also strikes of cotton, jute and flour workers, of blanket weavers in Heckmondwike, female cigar makers in Nottingham and women at a tin box factory in London, all of which took place in 1888. In 1891 there was a long strike by women at Manningham Mill and a demonstration in London organised by laundresses with the support of 27 trades councils. At the same time trade unions as a whole were growing and new amalgamations took place. Women were increasingly seen as an integral part of the labour force at least for the present time, and, as such, it was seen as important to organise them.
Thus by 1907 there were 200,000 women trade unionists, double the number in 1890. But the majority of these were still in textiles and there were many areas where large groups of women workers remained completely un-unionised. In 1906 Mary McArthur established the National Federation of Women Workers with 2000 members and built its membership up to 80,000 by the end of the First World War. She recruited thousands of isolated and unprotected women — the jute workers of Dundee, the Lancashire chain makers, and the jam and biscuit workers of the East End among many others. But during the war women were drawn into new areas of the labour force, so that by the end of the war there were 437,000 women out of a total of union membership of 4,145,000. Female membership of the unions trebled during the war, while male membership rose by only 60 per cent.
The original basis for the self organisation of women was their total exclusion from male organisations and their treatment as second class citizens. As the patterns both of employment and membership of trade unions changed, the rationale for separate organisation began to fade. Thus, this period of women's organisation did not share the analysis developed by feminists in the 1970s of women's oppression in areas outside the labour market, nor was there any recognition that organising together as women could be positive in its own right. In 1920, Mary McArthur herself argued at the Federation's National Conference that it should merge with the National Union of General Workers to become, 'a great industrial organisation of men and women, in which women are not submerged, but in which they take as active a part as the men'. Presumably she thought that the experiences women had been through in the previous five decades of fighting bitter battles against the bosses and struggling for the vote, and in running their own unions, would protect them from being submerged and silenced. But sadly this hope was not to be fulfilled. At first the federation operated as a district of the NUGW and kept its own executive and special officers. But within 3 years the separate district and the National Women's Committee were abolished and the number of women officers swiftly fell from 16 to 1. So bad was the situation that by 1930 the NUGW did not send even one female delegate to the TUC.
Remnants of these early forms of women's organisation did persist in weakened form. In particular individual unions may carry the hallmark of amalgamations between unions based on women's trades and those based on men's. So the white collar section of the engineering union TASS for example has had a network of women's subcommittees since 1922 when the all-female tracers union merged with the engineers and draughtsman's union. It was perhaps more likely that separate organisations would survive here than in the NUGW because of the craft nature of the union and the fact that women themselves represented a specific trade. Whatever the reason it has undoubtedly been the case that the existence of such networks made it much easier for feminists within TASS in the '70s to start to organise within the union.
In 1931 the first TUC women's conference was held, perhaps in some ways taking over the function of McArthur's Federation. The conference which is held annually has undoubtedly allowed discussion of many issues that would otherwise have been ignored. But the problem lies in the fact that the conference itself has no power; resolutions are passed to the General Council of the TUC which is at liberty to ignore them and indeed frequently does!
It was not until the development of the women's liberation movement that the question of the organisation and needs of women workers was again raised in a concrete way. Initially much of this activity was focused around the question of pay; both in terms of struggles around the implementation of the Equal Pay Act and around low pay. But slowly, as the impact of feminism grew, other issues were taken up. The public employees' union (NUPE) negotiated maternity pay agreements for two large groups of public sector workers which went far beyond the statutory minimum. The local government union (NALGO) has produced a series of negotiating guides: Negotiating for Equality, Workplace Nurseries, Rights for Working Parents, and one on Adoption, as well as a leaflet on Sexual Harassment at work, all of which show strong feminist influences. In 1974 the Working Womens Charter Campaign was set up with a list of 10 demands of crucial significance to working women. Within 18 months it had won the support of 12 unions at their national conferences. The TUC Congress of 1975 however voted against it, mainly because it contained a clause on abortion, but perhaps also because it was a grass roots campaign which called for a national minimum wage. But the Charter Campaign did force the TUC to revamp its own 'Aims for Women at Work' and to begin to do some campaigning for it. Perhaps the biggest victory for feminism came in October 1979 when the TUC was finally forced to call a demonstration against Tory MP John Corrie's anti-Abortion Bill which brought 80,000 women and men marching through the streets of London. This was both the biggest pro-choice march ever, and also the largest trade union demonstration ever held for a cause which lay beyond the parameters of traditional collective bargaining.
Alongside these debates and advances on policy the question of self organisation was stirring anew. While often the pressure came from women outside the trade union movement, the impact of feminism on existing trade unionists and the involvement of more committed feminists within the unions began to lead to organisational changes. In TASS for example the existing structures of women's subcommittees began to take on new importance. The union began to run annual weekend schools for women and has produced an impressive array of material on women's issues. In 1975 NUPE commissioned a study of its structure from the sociology department of Warwick University which argued: 'We do not believe that the under-representation has anything to do with 'women's nature' or lack of interest in the affairs of NUPE... It has to do first with the position of women in the wider society and at work... The structure of the union can either be designed to alleviate the effects of such disadvantages or it can operate on the basis of accepting subordination as a 'fact of life' which is only confirmed by the low degree of female participation in the union at all levels'. On the basis of recommendations made in the report NUPE reserved 5 seats on its National Executive for women from 1975 onwards.
NALGO set up a National Equal Opportunities Committee, urged its districts to do likewise, and began to publish a national bulletin. The office workers unions, APEX and ASTMS, established similar networks or regional and national committees in the mid-'70s and by 1980 both the transport union (TGWU) and the manual workers union (GMWU), had begun to set up regional equal rights committees. While these bodies were often a recognition by the union leadership that issues of particular concern to women were not being dealt with, they had their own problems. Many were mixed committees and because they were organised at national and district level women already had to be fairly confident and experienced in the workings of the bureaucracy to be able to participate. They undoubtedly made the lives of those women more bearable, and by providing a channel for debate did lead to crucial initiatives being taken, but they didn't necessarily affect the mass of women at branch or steward level. Perhaps more significant was the spread of women-only meetings and courses pioneered notably by GMWU and TASS but also by the TUC. These courses have not necessarily been organised around 'women's issues', but in the case of many of the TUC courses have provided training for new women stewards to discuss issues of relevance to all trade unionists, but in a situation where women feel able to ask questions that they would be reticent to ask in front of men.
In 1979 the TUC endorsed a 10 point charter, 'Equality for Women within Trade Unions', which urged unions to take definite steps to increase women's participation at all levels. It recommended special seats on national and local bodies where women were under-represented, special advisory committees, paid time off for union meetings in worktime, creches, encouragement for women to go on training courses and non-sexist union material. Despite these advances, clearly we are a long way from putting all these measures into operation in even one single trade union branch, let alone one union nationally. Nor is it correct to suggest that these advances have not met with significant opposition, in many cases from people with all shades of political opinion. The objections are often similar to those faced by other groups fighting for self organisation. For the struggle to be extended it is necessary to name and confront these different objections.
The objection that women's place is in the home, the hoary old prejudice that has dogged women since the beginning of wage labour, is of course still with us. It operates today both in keeping women out of specific trades, for example the print industry, and with rising unemployment in notions that women's jobs are less important than men's. A second argument is that it is fine for women to have jobs, even to be active in the unions so long as they do so within the terms laid down by men. So, fighting around women's issues is seen as a diversion from the 'real' class struggle not as a way of broadening its scope and bringing in new and militant participants. Such arguments fly in the face of history and deny the crucial role that women in struggle have played in the development of the labour movement. A more sophisticated version of this argument has been to accept certain, primarily economic struggles as legitimate but to baulk at taking up other, more political issues. This tendency has been particularly pronounced in Britain where the trade unions have historically been more economist than their European counterparts. Indeed in raising issues such as abortion, sexual harassment and childcare, women in the unions have been able to redefine what is a 'trade union issue'. For women this redefinition is particularly significant because without raising these issues it is neither possible for women to participate in the unions or to see them as organisations which defend their interests. In this crucial sense women's organisation has begun to break down the negative traditions of the British labour movement of the division between the unions as the fighters on the economic front and the Labour Party on the political. And it has to be said that in the same way as sections of the far Left were sectarian in the extreme towards campaigns such as the 'Reclaim the Night' initiatives taken by the women's movement, so many of them have not been particularly supportive of raising these issues within the labour movement.
But above all the reaction to women-only meetings and courses has revealed the greatest backwardness. As with the attitude to the women's movement itself the roots of this come from profound ignorance of the real extent of women's oppression. So instead of understanding that the purpose of women's separate organisation is to draw in more women, the cry is always 'but you are excluding men'. This represents a failure to accept that women are already excluded in so-called 'mixed' structures. Often it is combined with a complete disregard for women's commitment to the overall aims of the labour movement, an idea that women are not 'real' trade unionists and will come up with proposals that will be trivial, irrelevant or 'extreme'. Behind these expressed feelings there is perhaps the glimmer of unconscious understanding: that sometimes the road followed by the union has not been in the interests of women and that by women meeting together we will begin to demand that they pull back from this path.
Sometimes men are prepared to accept that there is a need for one-off women's meetings, perhaps for things like shop stewards' educationals. But this understanding may well be based on patronising assumptions that women are not able to understand the complexities of trade union structures and struggles, but once they have had their special treatment if they are worth their salt they should be able to keep up with the boys... Thus there is hostility to any ongoing organisation of women within the trade union structure. This represents a failure to understand that the people with the direct experience of a particular oppression are best placed to elaborate the strategy and tactics for its erosion.
Clearly some men fear that the granting of self organisation will lead to demands being made on the oppressors to change their behaviour, both in terms of demands on the union to change its priorities but also demands on individual members to confront their own oppressive behaviour. The amount of uproar that a challenge to sexist language often brings you would think a man had been asked to give away half his pay packet!
Finally it is important to recognise that even where all these hurdles have been jumped, even among those who seem committed to allowing women the privilege of on-going organisation, there will almost certainly be a vitriolic reaction if it is ever suggested that these groups should have decision-making power. In my own NALGO branch for example we have achieved a high degree of self organisation: we have four subgroups that are subcommittees of the branch executive for women, for black workers, for workers with disabilities and for lesbian and gay workers. These groups have co-opted members on the executive, but they don't have voting rights. We tried to change this at the branch AGM, pointing out that these groups of workers are not adequately represented through the stewards' system, not necessarily because of individual prejudice but because of the way oppression works. In particular there is no other mechanism for us to have our collective views as members of a particular oppressed group represented. We were opposed primarily not by ordinary members of the branch but by crucial sections of the branch leadership including some who had been supportive of the existence of the groups up to this point.
In some unions women have responded to these obstacles by setting up informal networks outside the official structures. These groups, for example within the teachers union (NUT), and in Telecoms, have been a vital way in which issues can be discussed and for women to gain confidence and support to take on battles within the union. In general this form of organisation has taken place in those areas where there was no previous tradition of women's structures.
The progress that has been made over the last decade has been enormous but uneven. The road has been a hard one and the victories won have been small in comparison with the battles that lie ahead. Even where formal rights to self organisation have been achieved, lack of other provisions such as child care and meeting in work time seriously limit the numbers of women who will be involved. Often there is inadequate opportunity for women to learn from each other's experience even within one union let alone across the unions. The Women's TUC, which perhaps has some potential to do the latter, remains an ineffective body and there are still significant divisions among women in the unions as to whether it should be disbanded or given greater power and status. In 1984, faced with the Thatcher Government and its drive to strengthen the family, and with rising unemployment the need for women to be centrally involved in the unions has never been greater. It is vital that the Left, and indeed the trade union movement as a whole, understands this and fights to deepen and extend the self organisation of women and other oppressed groups.
Perhaps the greatest gains on the question of self organisation have been made within NALGO. In 1982 the London District set up four area groups for women, black workers, workers with disabilities, and lesbian and gay workers. Each group is open to any member of the district who experiences that particular discrimination and has the right to send two delegates to the discrimination committee (a formal subcommittee of the district council). In comparison with other unions this may seem like utopia, but there are still problems. Perhaps the most striking thing about the structure is that all four areas of oppression have the same provision. But for the day to day operation of the union to be changed this has to be replicated at branch level. So far this is only the case in a very small number of the larger local government branches. Others have groups for one or two of the oppressed layers or discrimination committees which only deal with some of the issues, and indeed others do nothing on equal opportunities at all.
There is also the problem that the groups as such have no decision making power. The way that the district leadership has dealt with this, and the fact that it is very difficult for the discrimination committee to deal with all the issues raised, has left a lot to be desired. First, there has been an attempt to divide the groups by arguing that women and black members should have formal committees of their own but that this wouldn't be appropriate or possible for the other two groups. So it seems that the understanding of the leadership is rather skin deep. When this is combined in some instances with racist comments about the way black members have dominated the discrimination committee then it's rather easy to wonder if we have really achieved anything at all. Fortunately the four subgroups have vigorously resisted falling into these divide and rule traps, but have argued for full consultation with the members affected, and in principle the same structures for each area of oppression. The discussion has also forced us to analyse the thin line between maximum involvement through open meetings and access to decision-making, which means being delegated and accountable. It is crucial to fight for structures which enable us to fulfill both roles.
At the same time we are conscious that the Metropolitan (London) district is not all of NALGO, and that the rest of the union is a long way behind. Positive action for black members was debated, and defeated as part of a debate on racism at last year's union conference. But it is significant that the NEC's own, white-dominated Race Equality Working party, which organised black members have boycotted, has nevertheless been forced to make recommendations which support self organisation. Earlier this year, the Metropolitan District Lesbian and Gay Group organised a conference for all lesbian and gay members in the union which Geoffrey Drain, then National Secretary, urged all branches to support. It was only after his letter had been sent that those of us organising the conference realised what a coup we had made — official endorsement for a self organised conference! These significant achievements at national level do not mean that there are no severe difficulties on the ground. Several branches refused to sponsor delegates to either the lesbian and gay conference or the women's conference last winter because they were 'separatist', while others heaped abuse on us for organising them at all. This year's annual conference will see the whole question of self organisation discussed as part of the debate on racism, and also as part of an extensive motion on lesbian and gay oppression. There will also be a specific motion which deals with the right of self organisation for all oppressed groups. In this way I hope that there will be a principled debate on the floor of conference to allow us to realistically assess what support we have won over the last year, and to begin planning what is needed now to achieve more extensive discussion and understanding. Even in the union where the most gains have been won there is a great reluctance on the part of the majority to face up to the way in which the union does not represent the interest of its members and to change both structures and practices accordingly.
More progress has been made towards the self organisation of women than of any other groups. In 1980 the TUC Congress passed a charter of 'Equality of Opportunity' for black workers, which takes up discrimination in employment and within the trade union movement. In terms of the latter the issue of self organisation is fudged. Thus the Charter talks about examining the structure of the unions 'to ensure the removal of barriers which can prevent black workers from reaching branch office and decision-making bodies...' and also calls for the setting up of advisory committees within the union machinery to ensure that equal opportunities are actively pursued'. But it does not specifically suggest that members of these committees should be black. Given the fact that there is no tradition of black self organisation in the British labour movement this omission makes it unlikely that such groups will be set up. In Liverpool in recent years the GMWU, ASTMS, the Liverpool Teachers Association, and the Trades Council have all set up Race Relations Committees, several have put out material to their members on fighting racism, and organised special day conferences to discuss how to take it up with employers in terms of discrimination in recruitment, training and conditions. In the GMWU this local initiative followed a national conference within the union in May 1981 which recommended setting up regional committees. But what is clear reading material produced by all these groups, as well as the codes of conduct produced by the NGA/NATSOPA, is that they fail to tackle the question of racist practice within the unions themselves. So despite the fact that in relation to the population as a whole there are more black shop stewards than white that is certainly not reflected at higher levels: executives, delegates to conference, to TUC, full time officials, etc. Nor do initiatives taken on a national level mean that racism among the workforce has been tackled in anything like a serious way. Thus Bernie Grant, one of the very few black full time officials who worked for NUPE in the Islington area, together with a number of other black trade unionists, decided to set up the Black Trade Unionists Solidarity Movement (BTUSM), which encourages the formation of black caucuses within trade unions, runs courses for shop stewards on anti-racism, speaks to branches and deals with individual case work where a worker has faced discrimination either from the employer or within the union. Bernie has been working full time for the organisation for the last year. While working for NUPE he became increasingly aware of the treatment black workers faced but did not have time within the constraints of his other commitments to take the matter up as effectively as he felt necessary.
The relationship between BTUSM and different trade unions varies enormously. Some like NUPE and GMBATU have been very supportive, but many others have been overwhelmingly hostile. The fact that such an organisation is necessary, outside the official structures of the unions is an indictment not only of individual racism but of the failure of the TUC Charter to be effectively implemented; for clearly the structures do discriminate against black members in extremely serious ways. On the other hand the work being done by BTUSM is extremely valuable, and follows the pattern of some trade union women's groups such as in the NUT and the POEU, who despite the historical tradition of women's organisation within the official structures in some unions, in others on an unofficial footing.
Even less progress has been made towards official self organisation for lesbian and gay workers. Indeed this has only happened within the Metropolitan District of NALGO. Further there has been little material produced by trade unions on the harassment and victimisation faced by lesbians and gays. NALGO again is the exception; in 1983 it produced an official pamphlet. There have been two instances, the sacking of Ian Davis, a social worker in Tower Hamlets, and John Warburton, a teacher, when local trade unions in particular have offered important support. The 1970s and 80s also saw the development of a number of unofficial groups within particular unions: in the NUT, NATFHE, the Civil Service Union and the NUR for example, and also the more general 'Gay Rights at Work' campaign. The fact that lesbians and gay men are generally invisible at work and face serious discrimination up to and including sacking if they are public about their sexuality makes any form of self organisation difficult in the extreme.
However toothless the legislation on sex and race discrimination is, and however prejudiced the courts, it is also significant that there is no legal redress for discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. In 1980 when John Saunders, a gay youth worker who was sacked, took his case to an Employment Appeals Tribunal, the finding of the original tribunal was upheld. This stated that it was 'reasonable' for an employer to dismiss someone because they were gay if they had any contact with children.
Despite these obstacles, the experiences of the Metropolitan District NALGO do show that if lesbians and gay men can achieve self organisation as part of general moves within a union, then that organisation can be sustained. The group has begun to look at ways in which various local and national agreements discriminate against lesbians and gay men. We have argued that the union should be negotiating 'parenthood leave' or 'nominated carers' leave so that every woman when she gives birth, has the right to support rather than the more restricted concept of 'paternity leave'. We have begun to negotiate equal opportunities clauses which accept that lesbians and gay men have the right to be public about their sexuality whatever job they do. We are looking at discussion among the whole trade union membership; we were involved in running a national school on sexuality and hope there will be future schools at district level. We are beginning in a small but significant way to challenge the notion that sexuality is a private, moral issue to uncover the way that the notion hides prejudice and discrimination, and to take on the unspoken divisions that heterosexism creates in the labour movement as well as in society as a whole.
Workers with disabilities face very particular battles for any real participation in the basics of trade union life let alone for self organisation. How many trade unions provide material on tape, or in braille? How many union meetings are held in smoke-filled pub rooms into which you can't get a wheelchair? How often, even in circles which in theory at least accept that sexism or racism, and maybe even heterosexism are political issues, do those with disabilities get a mention? People with disabilities are more likely to be seen as a group to be pitied, maybe to be helped through charity rather than as a political constituency. And this is perhaps particularly true in the world of work, for it is often assumed that those with disabilities (well anything serious) can't work anyway. In this sense NALGO is again breaking new ground by setting up the London group. However it is clear that it hasn't faced up to its real responsibility when time after time meetings are still organised in inaccessible venues. Members who have been excluded from the trade union movement so completely will rightly take more than the formal permission to meet to believe that the union really has their interests in mind. The sheer lack of material and experience of self organisation in this field severely restricts how much can be discussed at this stage on the issue.
My premise in this article is that each group of oppressed workers is as important as the other and that the trade union movement has to face up to its responsibility to represent and fight for each and every one of its members. This can only be done by tackling head-on the prejudice that is rife in its own ranks. My experience within NALGO confirms the belief that I held as a feminist that in the long term it is only where oppressed groups are given the right to self organisation that this will happen in anything other than a purely tokenistic way. Self organisation is the only way to create true democracy within the unions, because it is only then that the voices of all its members will be heard. And developing self organisation, far from diverting the unions from the real issues, will bring thousands more trade unionists into active participation, making them stronger in the fight against Thatcher. Divisions exist now in the working class, only if they are recognised and fought can they be overcome.
TERRY CONWAY is a lesbian feminist active in Islington NALGO and Islington North Labour Party.