ForeFront

Issue Number  December 05 - February 06

Alive! Alive-O!
What a conference season Unions 21 has just had! We held
three meetings in a month with an average turnout of 90
between the unions and the Labour Government. Amicus
deputy general secretary, Tony Dubbins, gave a thoughtful
trade union activists and political friends. and thought provoking response and correctly demonstrated
the unions’ contribution to Labour’s electoral success.
At the TUC, we debated – in our ‘open space’ – how unions
must grow in the relatively promising economic and political Adrian Askew, general secretary of Connect, the union for
environment we find ourselves in. We talked about mergers, professionals in communications, critically reviewed what
adjusting the union to the potential members’ needs and has become known as the Warwick process. This meeting, as
preferences, and even the personal standards trade union did both the others, drew many questions, overran its time
officials must follow in order to bring credit and reputation to allocation and provided genuine debate for the delegates
the movement. present to get their teeth into.
Our panel was lively and comradely across an ocean of All this has driven us on to our planning for next year. We will
different trade union experience. We heard from Sally look at the different ‘models’ of social Europe with an eye on
Hunt, the general secretary of the Association of University UK unions and Europe and examine and review the content
Teachers, along with NATFHE national official Roger Kline of the dozens of union applications to the Union Learning
– soon, we hope, to be colleagues in Britain’s unified FE/HE Fund. N ext spring, for the first time, we are organising a
union the University and College Union (UCU). They both Unions 21 week with events taking place all across Britain,
emphasised how the movement as a whole must listen to the looking at different aspects of life at work, before culminating
memberships’ demands of us all. in our traditional Saturday event in London on March 4 2006.
Academic and sometime labour correspondent Robert Taylor Most exciting of all, we are confident that more unions are
opened up proceedings with his usual panoramic tour de about to announce they are joining us, or better still, re-
force of our trade union world. Paddy Lillis, Deputy General joining us, to share in our energetic debate, free thought
Secretary of USDAW demonstrated how their union had and total commitment to make our unions build a greater
grown steadily every year despite wrestling with the need movement for us all.
to re-invent itself continuously
in a world full of part-time
employees.
In between the TUC and Labour
conferences, we held a one-
day event on the Information
and Consultation Directive. This
was a serious and thoughtful
examination of legislation and
its impact, with contributions
from UK unions, colleagues
from Europe, employers
and government minister
Gerry Sutcliffe thrown in for
good measure. Some of the
contributions to this event are
posted on Unions 21 website.
On to the Labour Party, where
Secretary of State Alan Johnson
MP reviewed the relationship The one day event on Information and Consultation was a great success.

ForeFront is published by Unions 21 in association with Unity Trust Bank www.unity.uk.com

 Better Regulation Bill
Sarah Veale, TUC Head of Equality and Employment Rights Department
Regulations exist for important reasons: to provide
protection for people, to deliver the legislative objectives
of the elected Government and to give service providers,
employers, public bodies and of course the public
themselves parameters within which to work. It is in the
interests of nobody for regulation to be excessive, or not
fit for purpose, or difficult to understand or apply. It is a
shame that for some, in particular the small firms lobby,
complaints about excessive regulation often mask what
are really objections to the policy intention.
The issue of regulation has become highly politicised over
the past few years. The Government has tried to steer a
sensible course between over-the-top protestations by
the small firms lobby on the one hand and the genuine
need to ensure that regulations comply with the sensible
objectives of the Better Regulation Task Force. The
Task Force says that regulation must be proportionate,
transparent, accountable, targeted and consistent. The
TUC supports those five objectives – though we are
concerned that some aspects of the legislation governing
trade unions does not meet some of those objectives. For
example, why is it still necessary for unions to conduct
re-ballots for their political funds once the initial ballot
to establish a fund has been held, and given that union
members have an individual opt out that they can use at
any time?
Interestingly, in a recent survey by the Chartered Institute
for Personnel Development, two thirds of employers
surveyed believed that existing employment legislation
has helped them to earn the trust of their employees
and helped them to achieve their business goals. The
survey also revealed that many of the “red tape” concerns
associated with employment legislation were caused
by poor consultation, clumsy drafting of legislation and
inadequate guidance. This might well apply beyond
employment legislation of course.
The Government is currently consulting on a Better
Regulation Bill. This would amend the Regulatory Reform
Act 2001 (RRA). The RRA contains a wide power to reform
primary legislation which is thought by Parliament,
following public consultation, to be “burdensome”.
Burdensome is defined as “a restriction or condition found
in legislation, or a limit on statutory powers. It does not
include administrative bother and convenience”. It allows
for wide ranging regulatory reforms without the need
for the full Parliamentary process, using a process known
as Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs). The consultation
document concludes that the current RRO powers in
the Act should amended as they have proved to be
cumbersome and complex to apply and have limited the

scope of reforms that can be delivered.
The Government is now proposing to extend the powers
of RROs so that they can focus on the benefits and
outcomes rather than on the individual “burden” and
can be processed more quickly and efficiently while still
guaranteeing extensive and thorough consultation and
effective safeguards. In our response, the TUC opens by
saying that clear, simple, relevant and effective regulation
is in the interests of working people. Nonetheless, we
have to remain vigilant to the possibility of simplification
meaning reduction in protection.
Our chief concern about the proposals is the use of the
term “uncontroversial”: the current Government is to
undertake not to use RROs for measures that are “large
and uncontroversial”, but the term “uncontroversial” is
subjective and will necessarily be a matter of judgement
at the time. Future Governments may use different
standards to judge what is “uncontroversial” and may
not be detained for long by safeguards that are tested by
matters of judgement. Parliamentary scrutiny of the use of
RROs may not always be as “thorough and effective” as the
consultation document says.
We would also want to see a reference to the social impact
of any regulatory reform; this is essential to safeguard
vulnerable groups in society and ensure that there are no
unintended consequences, for example, in provision of
public services. Neither do we believe that all RROs should
receive the same level of scrutiny as proposed – size or
complexity do not necessarily relate to impact.
The TUC made a number of proposals during the
Hampton review which concentrated on health and
safety regulation. These proposals were recalled in this
submission. They included: working in partnership with
all stakeholders when reviewing regulation and ensuring
that all stakeholders were represented in the governance
of regulators, and an acceptance that regulators should
operate to the highest ethical standards. On the risk
assessment approach to enforcement we argued that
it is reasonable to concentrate limited resources where
they will do most good but this is a matter of rational
use of resources, not principle. We would certainly not
accept the elimination of routine inspection of lower risk
organisations. Finally, we would not wish to see penalties
for breach of health and safety, or employment law,
reduced – indeed we are campaigning for penalties that fit
the crime, including a corporate killing law with penalties
including jail time for the most serious offences.

The ‘Social
Europe’
debate – a veil
for Europe’s
failings?
Adrian Askew, General Secretary of Connect, the
union for professionals in communications.
Perhaps it’s because Europe has spent so long in a state
of war that the future of the EU is always seen in terms
of being a battle between two opposing forces. A war of
ideology which is fought, not in the muddy fields of the
Somme but in anonymous corridors in Brussels. Two-
sided, polarised debates almost always dominate in the
UK. Should the EU be a Christian club or secular society,
do we pin our allegiances to an EU army or NATO and, of
course, do we want a social Europe or one built on a neo-
liberal US economic model?
The problem, is that whilst debate in the UK and perhaps
some other European countries may be polarised around
two diametrically opposing arguments, the debate in the
European institutions is often far more complex.
One of the great differences between policy-making in
the EU and the UK is that in Europe outcomes are almost
always achieved through intricate negotiation. For trade
unionists, this is familiar territory; our day-to-day work is all
about negotiation. However, many British politicians and
most of the media reporting EU issues in this country are
far more familiar with the Westminster way of life; a way
of life in which the government makes a proposal, a noisy
polarised debate ensues, followed by the government
getting basically what it wanted in the first place.
This is one of the reasons why this particular debate is so
often positioned as a choice between a European social
economic model or one based on US style neo-liberalism.
The problem with such a polarised debate is it isn’t always
going to be easy to decide the exact ground on which we
are debating.
We need to start with an understanding of what we mean
by the European social model. Despite various pieces of
EU legislation, different European countries deal with their
citizens’ protection and their workers’ rights in different
ways, so if there isn’t a single methodology, is there at least
a single outcome around which EU policy revolves? There
are perhaps a few basic principles which can be instructive.
In most European countries policy-makers recognise the
economic benefits that come from protecting citizens
and providing workers with a voice in their workplace.
Whilst vested interests may try to denigrate the role that
social protection and employee representation plays in a
strong economy, the benefits in terms of productivity are
significant. There are, of course, other economic benefits
which flow from the type of employment legislation we
find in European countries. For example, health and
safety legislation keeps people economically active, whilst
providing employees with a better work-life balance which
means that they are able to participate in the economy as
consumers as well as workers – increasingly important in
today’s consumer-driven economies.
So, one element of the European model is that the
state recognises that social protection and employee
involvement are important parts of economic policy.
However, there is a more basic principle involved. It’s not
just about economic benefits. Across Europe there is an
acceptance by both government and society at large that
we have a moral and social responsibility – a responsibility
that is shared between the state, citizens and business.
It is from these basic principles that the idea of a European
model emerges, but like many things that are hard to
define, it is easier to see it when contrasted against
something very different. Which is where the polarised
debate comparing Europe and the USA is particularly
instructive.
The US model certainly does offer a stark contrast to the
European way of dealing with the weakest in society.
Take an example. Much has been said of the American
response to the impact of Hurricane Katrina, but there is a
reason why it has received such great scrutiny. Whilst the
extent and scale of the damage was unimaginable (and it
is likely that any country would struggle to cope with such
an onslaught), it was a real surprise that the world’s richest
and most powerful nation could have been so ill-prepared
in a region notorious for tropical storms. The problems
experienced in New Orleans demonstrate some of the key
failings of the US model.
To European observers it was incredible that only those
able to afford to leave the affected area were evacuated;
that the refuge to which people unable to evacuate were
sent had no clean water or medical supplies. The US
model’s reliance on charity to provide for the least well off
meant that when disaster came knocking, the state was
unprepared and unable to help.
The real reason that the tragedy in New Orleans received
so much attention is that what it means to be poor in 21st
century America was laid bare for all to see. The European
social model is about giving citizens a level of protection
that, sadly, millions of Americans are lacking.
However, the way in which that protection is provided
varies from country to
country, which makes
continued overleaf...

 continued...
a definition of any kind, beyond one of simple social
responsibility, difficult to attain.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop a myriad of interests
from blaming ‘the European model’ for economic
failings, determined to water down social protection
and force down taxes in the pursuit of greater profits.
Opponents of employment rights and state funded
social welfare are using the opportunity of an economic
downturn to attack Europe’s tradition of putting people
first. This is dangerous enough on its own, but it is also
of concern to anyone who wants to get to the bottom
of the EU’s inability to meet its ambitious Lisbon targets.
By focussing attention in the debate on Europe’s social
and employment policies, some of the real failings of EU
policy are being missed.
For example, we are told that Europe’s high employment
standards make us uncompetitive in comparison with
countries like China, and that these standards must
be cut back if we are going to compete. The problem
with this argument is that if a government wants to
choose labour standards as the ground on which to fight
these emerging economies then it has chosen a losing
battle. The logic of their argument fails because in the
foreseeable future European member states have not
the slightest chance of offering labour costs comparable
to those available in much of Asia. To do so would be
politically impossible – and rightly so.
?

However, despite this a number of vested interests
have been able to put the focus on the ‘European
social model’, using it as an excuse for failure in other
fields. Recent studies have found that as much as
two-thirds of the productivity gap between the EU
and US can be linked to the high level of investment in
new technologies that has taken place in the US. It is
not America’s low taxes and low levels of employment
protection that make it economically strong. It is the fact
that it is at the cutting edge of IT and continues to invest
in research and development – areas in which the EU,
despite various action plans, is still lacking.
This is not to say that we should stick with existing
policies without question. Certainly European countries
face a whole range of challenges, be it Italy’s difficulties
in meeting the economic requirements of the Euro
zone, Germany’s struggle to cope with unification or
the development of mature economies in the EU’s
newer member states. In dealing with these economic
challenges governments are bound to consider how they
meet those basic principles that prop-up ‘social Europe’,
but that debate about methodology must not become a
debate about the principles themselves.
Most importantly, we must not allow a simple ‘social
Europe’ v neo-liberal America debate to dominate our
thinking on Europe’s economic future. A complex
debate about how Europe can succeed without losing its
enviable employment and social policies might not make
good headlines, but then good policy very rarely does.
 Social Europe:
talking points for unions
Owen Tudor, Head of the TUC International Department
Britain’s unions should start asking what Britain can learn
from the experience of our Nordic counterparts. Unions in
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have maintained
the tripartite social dialogue, and workers’ collective
rights. This has resulted in increased productivity,
flexibility, low unemployment and high levels of social
protection. They top the world rankings for both
productivity and social justice. With one exception, they
have socialist governments, and without exception, high
trade union membership density. There is much for UK
unions to learn from their experiences.
British unions should also be developing a strategy to
hold back the neo-liberal approach which dominates
the global debate about politics and economics. Neo-
liberalism has many proponents in governments across
Europe, and particularly in some new accession states
in Eastern Europe, Italy and the UK. But we should be
arguing that democratically-elected governments should
neither roll over in the face of globalisation (not if they
want to be re-elected), nor can they completely isolate
our continent. We should not accept a vision of the EU as
a transmission belt for globalisation: as even Tony Blair has
said, the EU’s job is to maximise the benefits and minimise
the costs. We need to manage globalisation, so that it acts
in the interests of people rather than business.
Unions must campaign to drive standards up throughout
the European labour market. At present there is a danger
of a permanent split between those in secure, skilled jobs
with decent rights, and others like temporary agency
workers and migrant workers who are increasingly falling
through the net. Unregulated labour markets lead to racial
tensions, social dislocation, and lower living standards.
Unions have to ensure that workplace standards are
improved, and migrant workers are treated equally to
indigenous workers.
Industries hit hardest by global competition need the
assistance of EU institutions through active labour market
measures to upskill their workforces – like the Global
Adjustment Fund that the European Commission is now at
last proposing. This will assist both the local economy and
the workforce, and avoid workers being thrown on the
scrapheap. Government investment in renewing a skilled
workforce is a long term benefit to workers, and far more
radical than the traditional remedy of bailing out lame
ducks.
European Model
It is time to relaunch the “European model” which stands
as a beacon to the trade union movement across the rest
of the world. It should not be a question of defending or
defining the existing model, but asking how Europe can
cope with the impact of globalisation. Consider the two
issues of demography and environment.
Europe is facing a crisis of low and falling birth rates. But
in Nordic countries the birth rate has actually increased
because of buoyant economies and high quality child
care. This allows women to return to work in good jobs.
Trade unionists in the Nordic countries know that family
friendly policies make good economic sense. And this
is no less true in the UK. Unions can play a key part in
increasing rates of participation in the economy: stepping
up the pressure for equal rights through collective
bargaining.
With Britain facing a future as a net importer of energy,
it is clear that international cooperation is essential.
Especially as the UK is likely to be importing gas from
highly unstable parts of the world. Unions have a key
role to play in promoting energy conservation, making
its use more efficient and creating less pollution, while
maintaining living standards so that people will actually
vote for the measures needed.
Economy
Europe’s unemployment - over 20 million out of work –
makes economic growth, increased productivity, research
and development fundamental. Unions must put pressure
on governments to invest in people and their knowledge.
The current economic problems in France and Germany
– principally lack of demand, not lack of flexibility - are
not something to gloat over. If we can’t trade with them,
Britain won’t sustain our own economic performance.
Britain’s unions should be making the most of the
European Union. We can make more use of measures like
the Information and Consultation Directive and Works
Councils to rebuild our workplace organisation and
membership. We must grasp the organising opportunities
that Europe provides.

 Consult, involve and modernise
Robert Stevens (IPA) reports from
the Unions 21/Prospect workshop
“Information & Consultation:
Pathways to Recognition?”

In 2006 and beyond will anybody remember that 2005 model for a pre-existing information and consultation
was the year that transformed trade union membership, agreement to be agreed at a sectoral level in the UK.
recognition and employee relations in this country? And Individual employers will be free to locally negotiate the
will they know that it was down to the introduction of the specific terms of the agreement.
information and consultation regulations which came into
Burke claimed that the model resolves some of the
force on 6 April this year?
important concerns unions have raised about the
Perhaps not, at least not yet but for the trade union regulations, including: the definition of information and
activists, academics and officers who gathered at TUC consultation, subject matter available for discussion,
Congress House for the European Social Fund sponsored the nomination and election of union and non-union
event, theirs was a fascinating insight into the motivation representatives, meeting arrangements, confidentiality,
behind the regulations and some of
the good practice trade unions are
already involved in.
Gerry Sutcliffe, employment relations
minister spoke to the delegates of
his own personal ambition to see
employee involvement break the
barriers preventing real engagement
on the issues that affect employees.
“Information and consultation is an
opportunity to significantly improve
the way we work; to empower
employees to contribute even more
to the businesses they work for; and
for unions to demonstrate their value
to both employees and employers,”
Sutcliffe told Unions 21.
Paul Noon, general secretary of
Prospect, suggested that information
and consultation should be regarded Employment relations minister Gerry Sutcliffe revealed one of his personal ambitions.
as a key instrument in a union’s
approach to membership and
recognition. “It is an opportunity for trade unions to facilities and the use of external union officers and other
strengthen their role in the workplace, by developing experts.
an influential role in the formative stages of the decision
Delegates from Amicus, the T&G and ANGU all highlighted
making process,” he said.
that new agreements needed to be supported by time
Noon spoke of four examples in different sectors off for representatives and facilities in order to make
where Prospect is addressing employee involvement information and consultation effective.
by establishing mechanisms for information and
The minister acknowledged the challenge the regulations
consultation. Tony Burke, assistant general secretary,
posed to union resources and invited the delegates to use
Amicus also identified a number of organisations in which
the new Union Modernisation Fund as an opportunity
Amicus is working with the employer to develop robust
to address these issues. “The Fund aims to help unions
information and consultation arrangements.
to modernise themselves and meet the challenges of
In particular he highlighted a new national agreement a modern economy and changing labour markets. The
“Partnership at Work” drawn up between Amicus and the Government sees information and consultation as an
British Print Industries Federation, which includes the first integral part of this picture,” said Sutcliffe.


 Modernising Company Law:
Meeting the Stakeholders Challenge
The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition set up in
2001, represents over 130 charities and campaigning
organisations such as Amnesty International UK, Friends
of the Earth, Christian Aid, Oxfam and Action Aid. It also
includes unions such as AMICUS, GMB, UNISON and
TGWU; community organisations such as the National
Federation of Women’s Institutes; businesses such as Unity
Trust Bank; faith-based groups like Christian Ecology Link;
academic institutions like the University of Dundee, and
elected representatives. Over the last four years, CORE has
attracted the support of over 300 MPs, members of the
House of Lords and MEPs.
CORE was formed to influence the Government’s proposals
for company law reform. It is directed by a Steering Group
comprised of Action Aid, Amnesty International UK,
Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth, Traidcraft, War on Want,
and WWF UK.
Over the coming months the Government will be making
the biggest changes to UK Company Law in decades, by
taking the Company Law Reform Bill through Parliament.
This Bill, which was tabled in the House of Lords on 1
November, presents a major opportunity to deliver a
framework of company law to meet the needs of the 21st
century by ensuring that business is accountable for its
wider social and the environmental impacts.
In order to deliver that framework, CORE argues that
Union Ideas Network
Unions 21 is giving its support to a proposed new “Union
Ideas Network’ (UIN), to be launched before the end of the
year.
The central aim of the Union Ideas Network (UIN) is to more
closely link the work of the academic and policy making
community with the practical work and needs of unions
– adding tangible value to links which already exist. It has
several clear objectives:
• Single gateway to articles and reports of interest to unions;
• Searchable database of academic expertise and research
interests;
• Act as ‘brokerage’ point between unions and academic/ • Undergraduate and graduate students
policy making community;
• Enable easy and sustainable of ideas, experience and more academic partner. To support this ‘virtual’ network, it is
information between unions and academic/policy making proposed to hold 1-2 national seminars per year.
community;
company law, must reflect the interests of affected
stakeholders, not just shareholders. CORE has set out three
key challenges for the Government, which would ensure
that company law meets the needs of stakeholders:
Company law should include a requirement for
directors to consider, act and mitigate any negative
impacts of their business on affected stakeholders, such
as employees, consumers, local communities and the
environment
Affected communities must have access to justice in the
UK when the behaviour of UK companies abroad causes
harm
Companies must be required to report on their social
and environmental impacts and performance
The Bill as currently drafted fails to deliver that
framework. As a result CORE, and all its supporters, will
be campaigning over the coming months to amend
the Company Law Reform Bill, focusing in particular on
strengthening the directors’ duties clauses, as set out in
Early Day Motion (EDM) 697.
Further information on the Campaign can be found on the
CORE website at http://www.corporate-responsibility.org/ ,
where your support is sought by lobbying your MP to sign
EDM 697 – Modernising Company Law and signing up for
the Campaign on the website.
• Help the academic/policy making community identify
issues of interest and concern to unions; and individual
union officers;
• Enable academic/policy making community to more
widely disseminate their work to practitioners;
• Provide informed and wide-ranging comment and opinion
on ‘contemporary’ issues of interest to unions.
The network will be open to:
• Bona-fide academics and policy makers;
• Union officers, organisers, researchers and lay activists; and
The UIN will be based around a web-site hosted by one or

 ‘What’s New? What Works?
Modern Trade Unions and Life at Work’
This will be the broad theme for a Unions 21 week of
events, from 27 February to 4 March 2006. Unions 21
annual conference is branching out, and will include
seminars in three regional venues as well as other events
in Congress House and the more traditional Saturday
conference in London. Planning for all events is currently
Union Modernisation Fund
In September, Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, announced the board members
that will assess bids for up to £200,000 from the Union
Modernisation Fund (UMF). The fund is designed to help
trade unions adapt to meet the challenges of the modern
workplace.
The Board has seven members; Sir Bill Connor, formerly
general secretary, USDAW (chair); Adrian Askew, general
Alan Johnson pictured at the Labour Party Conference with Tony Dubbins (left) and Adrian Askew. Adrian is a member of the Union Modernisation Fund board.
underway and further details will be available shortly
– keep an eye on Unions 21 website: www.unions21.org.
uk. If in the meantime you want to know more, or want
to suggest a union “innovation” to be featured at the
conference on 4 March, contact Matt Ball, Unions 21 Acting
Director, at info@unions21.org.uk.
secretary, Connect; Willy Brown, University of Cambridge;
Danny Carrigan, formally assistant general secretary,
Amicus; Jeannie Drake, deputy general secretary, CWU;
Judith Hackitt, director-general, Chemical Industrial
Association; and David Metcalf, London School of
Economics and Political Science.
Unions 21 will next year provide a forum for unions to
share experiences of implementing their UMF projects.
David Mansell/reportdigital.co.uk