31 August 2011    I open the debate

 It is important to understand that since 1979, membership to trade unions have continually fallen year on year.

Ironically, when there was near full employment some four years ago, membership still fell.

Trade unions have then to question why this is happening and the only way we can do this is to remove ourselves from a protectionist stance. That is, looking outwards rather that inwards.

I open the debate by posing one of those questions: ballot and voting system.

Let’s take a ballot on conductors pay for instance. A company will only talk to one union over pay for conductors, end of story. Now, let’s say that company has 400 conductors in total and the union which the company talks to only has 100 conductor members. Only 100 conductors will get to vote on the pay deal because that is what the trade union act says!! This means 300 conductors will not get to vote on that years pay deal because they are not members of the negotiating union.

If out of the 100 members that did get a vote 51 voted in favour, this means that a staggering 349 employees out of 400 in that the company either did not have a say in the deal or voted against it. The result means that the pay deal was voted in by just 51 employees of that company. We could argue that this is a means of recruiting new members. If you want a vote, then you have to be part of that union. However, as I have mentioned, this is not happening.

Atcu feels that the present trade union act is divisive. Trade unions have to take a progressive review of the voting system; a system that is a fair one whereby every employee gets a vote on their pay. This would also apply for local reps elections and company council elections as they represent all employees, not just members of their own unions. That way, the right people would be elected for the jobs they do around the workplace.

If you take a parliamentary election for example, everybody in the country gets a vote but if it was under the rules of the trade union act, only those who were actual members of political parties would be able to vote and let’s face it, this would be hardly anybody.
 
I put it to you that trade unions should be forward thinking and innovative. They should be seen to fight for the right for everyone to vote on a pay deal or local representatives and not take a protectionist stance. Becoming all inclusive would, in my opinion, be a great recruiter for new members because unions would be then able to reach out to those non members when elections take place. I also put it to you that it would unite all workers at their place of work which is the objective of all trade unions.

Steve Gomersall

Regional Organiser