Title

Recent media coverage has portrayed certain trade unions in a poor light – a disingenuous charge, says Dave Prentis. Many members of the trade union movement would have been disheartened by the recent Channel 4 Dispatches TV programme entitled, ‘What's the point of the unions?' Dave Prentis: media has launched 'sledgehammer' attacks While tuning in to what they hoped would be a balanced piece of investigative reporting, they were, in my view, treated to a rather duplicitous piece of anti-union journalism. This is not to be unduly defensive. I am happy to say publically that we unions don't always get things right. But there is a distinction between fair and balanced journalism and anti-union propaganda, which presents facts selectively – to produce an emotionally charged response – rather than a rational representation of the issues. Anti-union rhetoric is not a new form of political warfare. It has been with us since the birth of the union movement but it is, nevertheless, a damaging dynamic. Thus far, the UK media has attempted to be subtle, but in recent days, subtle words have turned into sledgehammer attacks. Janet Daley, in the Sunday Telegraph, recently wrote that, ‘Seeing the trade unions rise up like the undead has been a salutary experience'. But more bile was to come from Ann Treneman in The Times who wrote, ‘The dinosaurs are back, roaming if not yet the Earth, then certainly the salmon-pink carpet at the TUC conference centre. We watched yesterday as they emerged from the primordial gloop, very much alive and bellowing their hatred of the bankers and the coalition'. Humorous language, but still a barbed and inaccurate portrayal of the intelligent debate and economic analysis, informed by independent research, which had taken place during the course of the TUC conference. Rather than some journalists waking up to today's economic reality, it would appear they have been trapped in a time warp, still wearing flares and nylon shirts, somewhere circa 1970, and listening to the Bee Gees. The harsh facts of today's economic crisis, and today's union movement, are markedly different from their 1970s perceptions. Unison represents more than 1.3 million members, with at least 850,000 working in local government. Almost one million of our members are women, with around 76% of these women earning less than the UK average wage. Most are in low paid, part-time work. The year 2010 sees most households reliant on women's income, and working mothers, in particular, many earning just above the minimum wage but certainly not a living wage. For these people, a family holiday is a luxury that they can't afford. They struggle to provide a decent Christmas for their families, to afford school trips or the mounting costs of utility bills. This is 2010, and yet many of our members will live in fuel poverty. It is not just older people who are scared to turn up the heating in winter. So, should we be apologetic for wanting to defend these workers, and women in local government, in particular, against savage public sector cuts? Should we be apologetic for daring to question the orthodoxy that says we must cut the pay, pensions and conditions of public sector workers to pay for a global banking crisis which was not of their making? The corrosive, anti-union propaganda is not part of a genuine dialogue, but a diversionary tactic to prevent a real debate. The battle ground within local government will centre on keeping public services going. Regardless of political party, I don't believe anyone stands as a local councillor to make their local public services worse, or to attack their own workforce. But there are challenges. The global financial crisis is not the only problem we face. We have an enormous challenge in funding social care. That means investing in the skills of the workforce, better regulation, and personalised care services which work for the individual service-user. Climate change means re-skilling our workers to deal with a green economy and exploiting the opportunities, within local government, for greener waste-to-energy schemes. We have a housing crisis that presents us with the opportunity for fresh investment in apprenticeships, construction and sustainable, low cost housing. We have an obesity time bomb which should provide a springboard for greater collaboration between health and local government, tackling nutrition through school meals and providing integration of physical activity through our leisure services. Local government has already started to implement some spectacular ideas, but to maximise the opportunities, we need to have a dialogue between unions and employers. Our members need to feel valued, not threatened. Not attacked as dinosaurs for daring to dream they can afford basics, such as heating. Not attacked for imagining there is an alternative to a slash-and-burn approach on jobs, pay and pensions. There is a progressive narrative, so far beyond the grasp of the toxic messages from some quarters of the press. One 1970s Bee Gees' hit they should remember is Stayin' alive, because that is the battle that is ahead for local government services. And it is one that Unison will not shy away from. Dave Prentis is general secretary of Unison

Title

WHITEHALL

A fair representation?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING