Work, trade unions and Petrotrin

The legal stand off between the Government and the Oilfield Workers Trade Union (OWTU) over the future of Petrotrin provides us with the opportunity to consider the role of trade unions in the 21st century and the nature of work itself, given the enormous workplace shifts that are upon us.

The word “dinosaur” is one often associated with trade unions and their leaders who seem determined only to preserve the status quo. The impression many people have of them is that they are greedy, confrontational and continually engaged in class warfare, uninterested in the future of their companies (capital), and strategic only in relation to extracting higher wages and avoiding job losses, even when dire reality stares them in the face. That opinion has some validity but there are unions which, under skilled leadership, have played critical roles in securing the viability of their companies, and have worked with management to shape the future of their industries, including managing some job losses to save more jobs.

The media industry in the UK was an excellent example of how powerful trade unions could overplay their hand and lose out. The three unions representing all areas of the media operated a closed shop, which restricted the talent pool to only workers “just like us.” The rigid work-to-rule policy and overtime demands were so much to the workers’ advantage that individuals purchased homes just on those extra payments at a time when many could not afford home ownership. It was an open secret. But the unions failed to foresee the digital revolution, and instead of working with industry leaders to understand what it meant for the future of media workers and preparing for the seismic shift, they attempted to hinder the natural and necessary change of work practices that technological advances demanded. They, therefore, lost the opportunity to set the agenda.

As an aside, I remember as part of my corporate senior management training being subjected to a day of union negotiations; I can say it was the most unpleasant personal experience of my working life. We were individually subjected to ritual humiliation, near physical intimidation, and a high level of “you can say what you want,” by the trade union workshop leader during the interactive sessions. It was impossible to negotiate. It was a war of attrition.

Trade unions are important organisations, established to be the thorn in the side of employers, commercial and public, safeguarding workers rights that are always vulnerable. Their permanent place, therefore, should be at the table to put the worker’s perspective from a constructive standpoint, and not be caught in a slipstream. If they don’t already, all trade unions should conduct research and develop policies related to workplace changes and steal a march on management, which can often be poor and eager to blame workers. So many types of jobs have disappeared in the last 20-30 years – we no longer have telephone operators and elevator operators or typists, but we do have entirely new occupations that 35, 25, or even ten years ago did not exist, such as webmasters, programme developers and social media managers. Robots have replaced humans on factory floors and artificial intelligence will continue to make many current occupations and people redundant unless we can think creatively about how to work in line with these advances to improve jobs, including for home workers and multiple portfolio workers.

Quality Work Worldwide is an interesting report published after a two-year research project by the Ford Foundation on the changing nature of work globally. It proposes strategies for avoiding labour exploitation and enabling workers to be part of shaping their terms of employment but it also pinpoints certain challenges that undermine the quality of work. These include the lack of accountability from companies and limited action from national governments, together with gaps in global governance, all of which pertain in the Petrotrin case, and also workers having insufficient power to voice their concerns. Dr Rowley, addressing the Petrotrin closure, suggested that Government knew it could not negotiate with the OWTU. It is another example of the prevailing counter-productive nature of government-labour relations.

One cannot help concluding that the workers, as well as the management and the endless number of Petrotrin boards appointed by a succession of governments from all sides knew that they were on a runaway ship heading for disaster but no one had the courage or desire, out of self interest or self protection, to set the goal of turning the ship around. The people of this country now must pay the price of their cowardice and delinquency. We have been very badly let down by all concerned. That is the crux of the matter.