KitNotes

A mini website set up by Plaid Cymru urges union members to stop funding the Labour Party. The website says:

 Plaid Cymru supports the unions and actively encourage our members to join a union. We also value the good political work that unions do and think that it is important that people support the General Political Funds that many unions use to campaign for better and more equal rights for all workers.

We also believe that union members should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not the Labour party is representing their interests. At the moment many union members do not realise that they are paying money to the Labour party.

Already I can spot problems with Plaid’s claims. Firstly, the only union which I know of that has two political funds is my union, UNISON - a General PF, and an Affiliated PF. No prizes for guessing which one I contribute to, but the existence of two political funds is a historical comprimise between the former unions which make up UNISON - NALGO (whose political fund wasn’t affiliated) and NUPE and COHSE (whose political funds were affiliated).

Nearly every other union which has a political fund only has one political fund. In fact, it’s only UNISON which has more than one.

Secondly, I think nearly every union member is aware of what their political fund does. The Tories introduced a requirement for unions to ballot their members every ten years as to whether they should set up/continue the political fund, so they do have a choice as to whether they have a fund or not. And there has not been a case where union members have voted to give up their political voice through a fund - indeed, more unions are starting political funds. Also, the majority of union members do know if their political fund is affiliated - again, only one union, the RMT, has given money to political parties other than Labour (the Scottish Socialist Party, and I think the Greens and Plaid). Those who do give money to the Labour Party (UNITE, GMB, UNISON amongst others - see the “Unions Together” website for a full list) are also keen to show what they are doing with members’ money, lest they find themselves out of a position.

It’s quite clear what Plaid are trying to do - grab the union cash for themselves. I don’t think I can trust any party that openly considers rainbow alliances with those erstwhile friends of the workers, the Tories and LibDems, and I am sure that there are Plaid AMs, Councillors etc who would be just as axe-happy with spending cuts as their right wing Labour In Name Only counterparts. Plaid does have a socialist left, but anyone who sees this as a reason for Plaid being somewhat more progressive, let alone more socialist, is deluding themselves. Because it’s like that in the Labour Party, too.

But, despite the opportunistic nature of Plaid’s cash grab, it does raise a serious point. From my own experience, there are people in the UNISON-Labour Link (as the APF is known as) who are just as dogmatic and raving in their support of the Link as some of those, like the SWP, who want to see the link severed.

I have a different idea of what the link should be. It’s there, so it should be used. But it should not be used simply to funnel Labour policy into the unions, but rather, the other way around; it is possible the only space left for union members to influence Labour politics and to advance independent working class politics in the Labour Party.

If, as Plaid claims, we should simply stop paying into the Political Funds, then what does that mean for the political voice of the unions, and the workers they represent? Because the pratical implications of such a move is that the unions (under the current law) will be politically straight jacketed. Remember the excellent UNISON ad in defence of the NHS, with the surgeon and the cigar chomping fat cat staring down at the lens over the operating table? That was paid for by the political fund. RMT ads against the East London Line privatisation? Forget them.

If we follow the Plaid/SWP line of not paying into political funds, then any pretense of progressive politics is lost; instead, the unions will end up wallowing in a pit of apolitical syndicalism. And is that any good for anyone?