Comment by Mike Rafferty
One of the most debilitating tendencies of left politics in recent years has been the use of dismissive slogans to marginalise debate. This tendency has been particularly evident in debates (or the lack thereof) around unionism and wages policy. To criticise the consensus was to be an "ultra" or whatever.
It was a great disappointment, therefore, that in an otherwise engaging response, Jeff Richards (Write On, GLW 55) resorted to such tactics. He suggested that my review of two books on the Accord (GLW 54) was sectarian and a sort of left breast-beating.
Richards expressed a desire to combat the ascendant "new business unionism" (evidenced by moves towards enterprise bargaining). Any strategy to counter the drift to new business unionism must first confront the fact that it is ascendant across all unions — both "left" and "right". It is also vital to reach an understanding of how business unionism has arrived. This was the point of critical remarks in my review, a point Richards seems to have missed.
The review indicated that both books were a manifestation of a crisis in organised labour. In its current form the crisis has helped to bring us face to face with business unionism. I didn't say that Politics and the Accord was the same as Costa and Duffy's Labor Prosperity in the Nineties. Rather, I tried to show that they shared several similarities, and that this was instructive — particularly as the authors of the left critique dubbed themselves rebels. The books' similarities suggested otherwise.
Richards is right to say I did not develop a scathing review of Costa and Duffy's book. It seemed to me that opposition to their line was self-evident. The book was introduced to show that the axis around which official union politics now revolves is not only narrow, but also quite disturbingly "businesslike".
The review also mentioned the crucial role national left unions played in developing and sustaining the restructuring of organised labour during the 1980s. This applies particularly to the Accord. I hoped that this issue was not in dispute. Unfortunately, Richards wants to suggest otherwise: that it has come from "right-wing domination of the union movement".
The hands off approach to left criticism of the changing nature of unionism relates directly to the way the official left in unions has been incorporated into such projects as the Accord. There are of course many developments, apart from the Accord, that have put labour on the defensive. It was not possible in a short review to outline these. The review dealt with the subject of both books — the Accord. I was not very persuaded, however, by Richards' suggestions — negligence, sectarianism and delusions of power by some left-wing union officials. Constructing the crisis carries a very great danger of left politics becoming voluntarist.
Richards seems to imagine that if these faults can be corrected, and national left union leaders begin to cooperate, they can develop a strategy to counter business unionism. My review suggested a different starting point than hoping for enlightened leadership.
Finally, the review concluded that the left critique in Politics and the Accord does not form "a starting point to escape from the wasteland that has been brought upon the union movement". I suggest it is more like an end point. The book shows all the problems of nearly a decade of unionism bound to an incomes policy in which not only are profits generally okay, but unions have become mere managers of discontent. Among other things, that has involved shutting off just the sort of debate we are now having.