| [Education For Tomorrow: No 84, 2005] As teaching unions meet in conference, their debates take place against the backdrop of a much wider trade union argument... "Social partnership" or organising culture?We don’t have to look far to see the reality of social partnership” in education. Whether it be replacing collective bargaining with a pay review body, undermining teacher professionalism, imposing pay freeze and performance indicators, “reforming” pensions, returning to selection through the concepts of “diversity” and “choice” — the Government seek ‘social partnerships” to achieve their ends... and they are successful in getting some unions “on side”.Social Partnership "Social partnership” is a philosophy based on one big fallacy — that in class divided Britain, workers, employers and government share an identity of interest and equality of power. This proposition arose out of the beating the unions took under the Thatcher regime, a resulting sense of despair and wishful thinking. Forgetting the negative effects of previous proposed “partnerships” (Wilson's “In Place Of Strife” and social contract) they determined that it was better to rely on top-down agreements with employers and government — in particular the New Labour Government-in-waiting — than rely on our membership base to campaign for union policy — risking more government hostility. It puts you in mind of hostages who form emotional bonds with their kidnappers. Now, of course we want, in fact we demand positive talks, consultation and negotiations with government and employers. We want positive outcomes from these and will often be able to achieve them. But the ‘social partnership” argument goes beyond that ambition. The long term “identity of interest” notion suggests: 1 The more private profit is made, the more workers will earn. 2 The more “flexible”' workers are, the better their conditions of work. 3 The more trouble-free the economy, the more jobs will be secure. 4 The more public sector workers “embrace” the private sector, the more secure are our public services, our employment, our pay and conditions ... and so on. It suggests that independence from the ‘social partnership” is a bad thing, that all progress springs from “top-down” compromise agreements. That “independent trade unionism” is an anachronism. Could ‘social partnership” deliver our policies? Who are the government's real powerful partners? Well, there's the partnership with the European Union Central Bank to limit public spending and the partnership with the World Trade Organisation to privatise public services through GATS (the General Agreement on Trade and Services) — to which they are signed up. And the partnership with the Confederation of British Industry to deliver wage limitation and workforce “flexibility”. They have a longstanding and generalised policy of “modernisation” (‘school diversity” and “workforce remodelling” for us). They are determined to “reform” pensions. And the employers, local education authorities and governors — always strapped for cash — want to get the most work for the least cost ... that’s employers for you! Where's the identity of interest? To deny this from within our movement is the worst form of deception. Self-deception. The outcomes of the ‘social Partnership” model of trade unionism in education are staring us in the face. A few recent examples... * The right to collective bargaining has been abolished in favour of an “independent” pay review body, to which the ‘social partners” — unions, employers and government — submit evidence. Of course, it always does what the government says — and the government has the final say anyway — that's only reasonable. * In order to get employers” and government agreement on teacher workload reduction, partner unions agreed that people other than teachers could teach whole classes of children. The unions would promote this policy, and the government would make the necessary arrangements to make this “flexibility” legal. * Teachers” pay should have “performance” as a determining factor. The “partners” — unions, employers, and government agreed that, in return for apparent “easier” progression on a truncated Upper Pay Spine, further progression would be by “quota”, that there would be limited “responsibility payments”, and pay protection would be reduced. * In return for “exempting” over 50 year olds, pension entitlements would be reduced for all other teachers. The most established ‘social partnership” arrangements are in Ireland, heralded as providing the foundations of economic growth. What has it meant for workers? This is from Kieran Allen, a lecturer in sociology at University College Dublin writing here in The Irish Times. “Once any group of workers acts like Oliver Twist and asks for a little more, they are told they will destroy social partnership and kill the Celtic Tiger. Those issuing the condemnations never seem to blush at their inconsistencies. Bertie Ahern can lecture teachers on their “outlandish claim” and then enjoy a pay rise of £36,000 — more than most teachers earn in a year. ‘Social partnership is a nice idea. It implies co-operation and sharing. It suggests all sections of society should pull together to look after “the excluded”. Unfortunately, it is also a myth. In reality, the Celtic Tiger has seen a major increase in inequality. According to the United Nations Human Development report, Ireland has the second highest level of poverty in the developed world. Casualisation and low pay have become major features of our workforce. Part-time, temporary and short-term contract employment has risen by 165 per cent. Ireland now comes second to the United States in having the highest proportion of its workforce categorised as low-paid. An occupational pension has become a thing of the past for nearly two-thirds of all private-sector employees. “Far from social partnership, there has been a one-sided class war where there has been a determined effort to redistribute wealth to the already privileged. When social partnership agreements began in 1987, the share of the national economy going to profits, dividends, interest and rent — in other words to owners of capital — was 31 per cent. A decade later it had risen to 41 per cent, with a corresponding fall in the share going to PAYE employees and social welfare recipients. “This transfer of wealth has occurred even though Irish workers have shown extraordinary increases in productivity, often at the cost of increased stress and more unsocial hours of work. The main reason for this growing inequality is that wages have been restrained through the partnership deals. “Everything else is deregulated. Rents can shoot up, the price of building land can go sky-high, profits can soar but wages are to be strictly controlled. It is claimed this is done on a “voluntary basis”, and hence regulation is legitimate. But this argument is wearing thin. Some will undoubtedly reply that workers have been compensated for low pay rises with significant tax cuts. But the major tax cuts have gone to those who have shown least restraint. In 1987, when social partnership began, tax on company profits stood at 50 per cent. By 2002 this fell to 12.5 per cent, the lowest in the European Union. Banks making over £1 million a day in profit pay out a lower proportion of their surplus in tax than workers who get up in the middle of the night to clean offices. “We now have corporate welfare as well as social welfare. Each year about £2,500 million is given out in tax breaks and grants to business. While social welfare recipients are periodically scapegoated, there is little discussion on who is paying for corporate welfare. “In the aftermath of the British miners” strike, social partnership was accepted by Irish workers as an alternative to Thatcherism. It was a con-trick. The political establishment changed the formulations but kept the formulas of neo-liberal economics. There has been a type of Thatcherism by stealth where public services are being sold off and a fabulously wealthy Golden Circle enjoys the fruits of an Atlantic tax haven. The aim and achievement of social partnership was to disarm the labour movement by co-opting its leadership.” An organising culture Not only is there no long term identity of interest, there is certainly no equality of power! In education, government has overall economic and policy power and authority. The employers hold the purse strings, and have the right to hire and fire and make local policy. The NUT has... its force of argument and its membership. And that's what we need to focus on. Our strength lies in an informed and active membership prepared to pursue the priorities of the union, just as they are prepared to work so hard in their everyday working lives. But is this “pie-in-the-sky”? The proponents of ‘social partnership” say it is. Certainly at present a very large majority of members are not “active” in the Union. When asked what would encourage them to be active they have said that such activity would need to make a real difference to their working lives. This can be done — but won’t be if we focus on top-down ‘social partnership” agreements such as are presently being imposed on us. We must embed the union in the workplace, in the school, make it relevant to every part of school life, and demonstrate practically the importance of the national and local application of union policy. We must show that we can win if we act collectively. This is “the organising culture”. It is not easy to achieve, but it is essential if we are to make a real difference. Such a member-led culture It is not compatible with ‘social partnership” which assumes a readiness and prior agreement to compromise on the priorities of our own members. To finish, a January 2005 so-sincere sermon from Ian McCartney MP, favourite Government/Labour Party missionary to the Trade Union movement. Hands together everyone, let us pray. “I believe passionately in the need for a strong partnership between the unions and a Labour Government. In fact, this relationship has been central to my political views, values and career. I am also a firm believer in win-win philosophy; the stronger the relationship between unions and the Labour government, the better placed we are to challenge deprivation and social exclusion and provide quality public services across the country. “I believe to achieve this, it's about time we forged nothing less than a new deal between Government and unions. A new stronger, partnership which addresses not just how we improve our public services and welfare state, but also how Government, Party and the Unions relate to each other and to the individuals and communities they serve. “Government has to recognise that our ambitions for our public services will founder without the help and support of those who work in them. We will make better improvements if we do it in partnership with the unions — drawing upon the skills, experience and commitment of public service workers and giving them the freedom to promote quality and innovation. “We will not turn our back on the millions of union members that deliver our vital public services and private goods. Together we must find the best way of helping them meet their aspirations not only as employees, but as consumers of public services and as active citizens in their communities.” Amen and thanks, vicar! And thanks too for the 104,000 civil service jobs to go, the undermining of teachers' qualifications and professionalism, the “work-til-you-drop” pensions proposals, the government's five-year privatising strategy for education, the current pay freeze and blocks on pay progression... that's partnership for you! WG |