The EconomistFebruary 22nd 2020 Britain 231I
n a north londonsupermarket, rival
trade-union officials are caught in a bit-
ter feud. A representative from Usdaw, the
shopworkers’ union, has been running up
against Unite organisers, whose despera-
tion for members has reached boiling
point. “I was recently asked by a Unite rep
to not come into ‘their’ store to help out an
Usdaw member,” says the Usdaw shop
steward. “I just laughed and gave out a load
of membership forms—apparently we got
about 50 people to sign up!”
For a sector that prides itself on solidar-
ity, competition between trade unions has
become downright uncomradely. There are
now 6.4m union members in Britain, rep-
resenting less than a quarter of all workers,
and down from a peak of 12m in the early
1980s. Tougher rules on organising—in-
cluding a 50% turnout requirement for
strike ballots—make it harder to win the
goodies that attract new members. Many
workers do not see the benefits of unionis-
ing, and competition for those that do has
become increasingly fierce.
Feuds usually remain behind closed
doors. When one goes public, it can take
longer to resolve. Last year, Unite-backed
bin workers in Birmingham went on strike
over allegations that secret payments had
been made to non-striking staff represent-
ed by gmb, a rival outfit. As rubbish piled
on the streets, the unions did battle
through frantically typed press releases.
gmb argued that the accusations about
payments were “nothing short of a gro-
tesque slur”.gmb, the country’s third-biggest union,
faces competition on numerous fronts. It
claims the National Education Union
(neu) is poaching teaching assistants
which it has no ability to negotiate for. “We
are concerned that our members are being
used as cannon fodder by the neu,” says
one official. “There has always been a de-
gree of intra-union conflict,” he adds, but-
“now some unions are getting desperate.”
The Trades Union Congress, which arbi-
trates disputes, admits it is buckling under
the weight of petty squabbles. Calming
down infuriated officials has “become a
full-time job,” sighs a senior bureaucrat.
The organisation’s guide to disputes is a
44-page document, of which two pages are
devoted to disputes with employers and
the rest to disputes between unions. The
Usdaw shop steward complains that the
problem for the labour movement, “is the
overzealous reps that don’t realise we’re on
the same side.”
In theory, the “Bridlington Principles”,
drawn up by union bosses in a Yorkshire
hotel in the 1930s, are supposed to restrain
overzealous types. In practice, “greenfield
organising”—the recruitment of entirely
new members—is expensive and time-
consuming. Poaching members from other
unions is more straightforward, since the
work of selling them the benefits of trade
union membership has already been done
and, best of all, someone else has paid for
it. As a result, few pay much attention to
rules drawn up 80 years ago. One union of-
ficial explains that rivals will watch indi-
vidual branches for signs of division so
they can then step in and recruit en masse.
“If there is a ballot and it’s a 60-40 split,” he
says, “then the 40% who voted against that
might be open to switch sides”.
Competition has only increased as the
sector has become more concentrated. A
series of mergers has blurred traditional
boundaries between job-specific unions.
In education two of the previous three bigplayers combined in 2017 to form the neu.
Unite, Britain’s largest union, was formed
by a merger of the Transport and General
Workers’ Union and Amicus, which repre-
sented high-skilled workers. Like many
“super-unions”, its revenue has flatlined
over the past five years despite growing
spending. And these behemoths now wor-
ry about disruption from smaller, tech-sav-
vy outfits like the iwgb, which was found-
ed in 2012 and recruits members working
in the gig economy.
The hope was that politics would come
to the rescue. Trade unions poured money
into the Labour Party before the general
election. Unite alone gave £3m ($4m) dur-
ing the campaign, and regional branches
were told to get door-knocking. Union
bosses expected that Jeremy Corbyn would
make their life easier once in Downing
Street. Indeed, the Labour Party manifesto
promised looser restrictions on strikes and
a new ministry responsible for “employ-
ment rights”, which would roll out collec-
tive bargaining across the economy. But
the British public failed to deliver a Labour
government, and the socialist nirvana was
put on hold. Unfortunately for exhausted
union reps, that means there are probably
many more feuds to come. 7With money tight, competition
between unions is getting dirtyTrade unionsUncomradely
behaviour
United against the common enemy—UniteT
he big story of Boris Johnson’s first
ministerial reshuffle on February 13th
was the unexpected loss of his chancellor,
Sajid Javid. But another feature is the accel-
eration of the ministerial merry-go-round.
The Institute for Government (ifg), a
think-tank, calculates that the average
length of service of a senior minister in the
past decade has fallen to less than two
years—closer to that of a football manager
than of a company boss (see chart). Junior
ministers typically last even less time, fre-
quently moving on after only a year.
Government suffers from such rapid
turnover. There have been five justice min-
isters in the past five years, and ten hous-
ing ministers in the past decade (Esther
McVey, the ninth, was sacked last week
after serving six months). It is hard to recall
policy successes in either department, and
easy to spot failures. Nor is political churn
offset by official stability. The ifgreports
that the turnover rate among senior civil
servants has risen as well.
The absence of training for ministerial
office exacerbates the problem. A recentMinisters change jobs too much—and
the talent pool is too shallowReshuffle revisitedRevolving doors