John McIlroy

Trade unions in Britain today

Trade unions - what they are and how they developed trade unions - the context trade union organization and democracy trade unions and politics trade unions and the law industrial conflict new technology industrial democracy trade unions in the wider world the state of the unions.

The Enduring Alliance? Trade Unions and the Making of New Labour, 1994–1997

The period of Tony Blair’s leadership preceding the 1997 general election saw a transformation of the Labour Party. This was of immense importance to the political role of trade unions. The emergence of New Labour can only be understood through analysis of developments in both party and unions. This paper discusses the recasting of the party’s industrial politics and reform of party structure, locating its provenance in electoral, representational and governmental strategies. It examines the unions’ response, rooted in their industrial predicament but shaped by political reaction to it. Union politics intersected but did not coincide with the policies of New Labour. Political differentiation in the unions and opposition to New Labour is considered. It is concluded that change represents restructuring rather than termination of the link, but it will be further tested with New Labour in government.

The new politics of pressure – the Trades Union Congress and new Labour in government

The TUC’s political role has been in the forefront of its function for most of its history and has revived with the election of new Labour. This article argues that the TUC’s current political approach is unlikely to contribute towards significant union resurgence in the workplace or politically.

New Labour, new unions, new left

AS THE BLAIR GOVERNMENT completed its second year in office there was limited comfort for those who had predicted that a brief honeymoon period would give way to conflict between New Labour and the unions. Despite some setbacks in the contests for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and the European Parliament, the hoped for ‘crisis of expectations’, stimulating collision between union leaders and New Labour and revolts from below by public sector workers showed few signs of emerging. Union leaders accepted a limited package of employment legislation well below their modest expectations. Inside the Labour Party they reacted to loss of constitutional influence with sustained subservience. For the second year running public sector workers accepted wage increases criticised by their unions. Strikes continued at an all time low. While important struggles, such as that at University College London Hospitals (UCLH), continued to develop, they continued to be limited, localised and restrained by the Conservative employment legislation. This conventional assessment (see for example, Taylor, 1998) was not shared by some on the left. Left journals recorded in the same issue, a few pages apart, that there was ‘unprecedented levels of support for Labour in opinion polls (still running at 55 New Labour, New Unions, New Left

British Trade Unions and the Academics: The Case of Unionlearn

Unionlearn and union learning representatives were developed by the British TUC to match workers with education and training opportunities, strengthen the economy, foster market inclusion and facilitate social mobility. Their contribution to union revitalisation was emphasised. This article questions whether, with unions confronting global crisis, this is a necessary initiative. It stemmed from TUC failure to achieve policy goals, institutional needs, consequent acceptance of a lesser role, and the availability of state finance. Claims by academics that it provides influence over state policy and contributes to revitalisation remain inadequately evidenced. Union resurgence is not immanent. The way forward is through adversarial grassroots organising and socialist education, not through retooling capital, improving members’ marketability and partnership with a hostile state.

Organizing the Militants: the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions, 1966–1979

The Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions has been largely ignored in conventional accounts of the campaigns against restrictive union legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. This article discusses the origins of the LCDTU, provides an account of its activities centred on the union struggles against state intervention, and briefly explores some of the issues concerning rank-and-file movements. It concludes by suggesting that, although the LCDTU merits recognition for the key role it played in defeating the legislation, it can best be characterized as a front organization of the Communist Party rather than as an independent rank-and-file movement

Radical political unionism reassessed

Defections from European social-democratic parties and a resurgence of union militancy have prompted some to diagnose a new left-wing trade unionism across Europe. This comment on the article by Connolly and Darlington scrutinizes trends in France and Germany but primarily analyses recent developments in Britain. While there are some instances of disaffiliation from the Labour Party, support for electoral alternatives, growth in political militancy and emphasis on new forms of internationalism, these have been limited. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that we are witnessing the making of a new radical collectivism.

Unfinished business: the reform of strike legislation in Britain

Employment legislation regulating industrial action introduced to Britain between 1980 and 1993 by Conservative governments has substantially endured under Britain’s New Labour administration. Re‐examining the legislation affirms that it restricts fundamental union purposes and traditional forms of action. A review of the case law and the legislation’s impact on strikes in the late 1990s suggests that its influence continues to be felt. The State and capital remain firmly opposed to the significant changes in the legislation which the TUC demands. Pursuing a strategy of social partnership that requires a posture of moderation, some union leaders aspire to a “strike‐free” Britain. This has substantially inhibited union campaigning for legislative change. Rejecting industrial action on which collective strength ultimately depends and the necessary legal protection may, in reality, sustain rather than transcend the unions’ present lack of power. Alternative approaches to power‐building, calculative militancy and membership mobilization demand attention from trade unionists.

Waving or drowning? British labor history in troubled waters

The vigour of a field of history is usually assessed by reference to the quality of its historiography. Its health may also be judged by its presence in the curricula of educational bodies, public interest, and the prevalence and robustness of journals and societies dedicated to it. This article employs these criteria, sometimes overlooked in diagnosis of the condition of labor history, to explore its predicament in Britain. It documents the weight of labor history in the academy, its fragmentation, the declining numbers of scholars and their diminished sense of common identity as historians of a unified subject. Despite intellectual vitality indicated by the literature, institutional decline and centrifugal tendencies pose questions about the strength, even the reality, in practice, of the definitional field asserted in theory. The position appears unfavourable, compared with countries such as the USA and Australia. Popularization of labor history in the labor movement and among the public, proffered as a path to renewal, also poses problems.

Some Problems of Communist History

Our respondents, North American and British alike, have provided a series of perceptive comments on our essay “A Peripheral Vision”. They are as wide-ranging as they are well argued and provide ample food for thought on the direction of Communist historiography, not only in Britain but in America and beyond. We want to thank all of them for their informed, often argumentative and sometimes critical collaboration, as well as Dan Leab, the editor of American Communist History, who has made this exchange possible.