The other day I had occasion
to mock
some of the candidates standing for election to UNISON’s National Executive
Council (NEC) under the banner of “Stronger UNISON”. Since their entire
campaign borders on self-parody this isn’t too difficult, but I was
particularly struck by their claim that UNISON membership is growing. They
say that “despite attacks from this
Tory Government, our union is defying the odds and continuing to grow.” As
a member of the Development and Organisation Committee of the NEC I know that
this is not true – but so does anyone else who bothers to read the annual
returns which UNISON makes to the Certification Officer.
From these one can derive
the following information;
Table One: UNISON membership
2010-2015
Year
|
Membership (millions)
|
2010
|
1.375
|
2011
|
1.318
|
2012
|
1.302
|
2013
|
1.283
|
2014
|
1.270
|
2015
|
1.256
|
Far from growing, UNISON’s
membership has declined by 119,000 (8.65%) between the end of 2010 and the end
of 2015. Plainly UNISON members voting in the NEC elections may choose to vote
for candidates who deny the published evidence if they wish, but I am writing
now about the more interesting (to me at least) question of what one should
make of this information. How should we assess this obvious decline? How bad
are things and (which I won’t get to today) what should be done about this?
I think we need to put into
perspective that this is not simply a UNISON specific problem, but one which is
afflicting our movement generally (and – although I won’t go into that in this
blog post – not only in the United Kingdom). Take, for example, the overall
density of trade union membership (the proportion of employees who are trade
union members) on which official statistics are readily available.
|
1995
|
2000
|
2005
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
All Employees
|
32.4
|
29.8
|
28.6
|
26.6
|
26.0
|
26.1
|
25.6
|
25.0
|
24.7
|
84 Public admin, defence, social sec
|
59.1
|
59.3
|
56.5
|
51.7
|
53.4
|
52.4
|
50.2
|
49.8
|
45.7
|
85 Education
|
55.6
|
53.9
|
55.5
|
52.4
|
51.6
|
52.1
|
51.8
|
50.3
|
51.8
|
86 Human health activities
|
54.9
|
56.3
|
54.8
|
53.9
|
56.4
|
55.5
|
54.6
|
54.1
|
56
|
87 Residential care activities
|
31.4
|
27.9
|
21.8
|
18.4
|
18.4
|
18.5
|
17.4
|
18.9
|
19.6
|
88 Social work without accommodation
|
42.9
|
37.7
|
31.7
|
31.9
|
29.8
|
27.6
|
28.1
|
26.2
|
24.8
|
91 Libraries, archives, museums
|
44.3
|
41.3
|
35.9
|
32.1
|
38.6
|
27.4
|
27.0
|
25.5
|
31
|
Table Two shows that overall
“trade union density” (the proportion of employees who are trade union members)
in the United Kingdom has fallen markedly from just under a third twenty years
ago to just under a quarter now. However the position in those sectors where
UNISON membership has been concentrated is slightly different. In health union
density has hardly moved over the past twenty years and was actually marginally
higher, at 56% in 2015 than it had been twenty years previously. In education
union density has fallen only slightly, by less than four percentage points
from 55.6% to 51.8% over those two decades.
There have been larger
declines in other sectors, with the proportionate falls in density in
libraries, archives and museums and public administration, defence and social
security (both sectors which our local government service group shares with the
civil service trade unions as well as the other local government unions)
broadly reflecting the proportionate decline in overall density, and the very
significant falls in union density in social work and residential care
considerably exceeding the economy wide decline (perhaps reflecting the impact
of privatisation and fragmentation upon union organisation in social care).
These sectoral differences
reflect the different experiences between UNISON’s two largest service groups,
where membership in health has held up far better than local government, within
which membership in schools has done relatively considerably better than in the
remainder of the service group.
Table
Three: Trade union membership as a proportion of employees in the public
sector for certain years, 1995 to 2015
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
Public Sector
|
||||||
|
|
|
All employees
|
||||||
1995
|
61.3
|
||||||||
2000
|
60.3
|
||||||||
2005
|
58.2
|
||||||||
2010
|
56.4
|
||||||||
2011
|
56.6
|
||||||||
2012
|
56.4
|
||||||||
2013
|
55.5
|
||||||||
2014
|
54.3
|
||||||||
2015
|
|
|
54.8
|
Another way of putting into
context the circumstances in which UNISON has been operating is to look at
aggregate trade union density in the public sector, where UNISON still has the
large majority of our membership. The decline in trade union density in the
public sector over the past twenty years (shown in Table Three) has been far
slower than across the economy as a whole (reflecting the larger decline in the
– much larger – private sector over the whole of this period, although that has
recently been reversed).
Of course, as public sector
employment has declined since 2010 the total number of employees of whom public
sector trade union members are a proportion has also declined, whereas in the
earlier part of this period unions were organising a slowly declining
proportion of an increasing workforce. This can be seen by looking at the total
membership of all trade unions in the public sector, shown in Table Four.
Table
Four: Trade union membership levels in the public sector for certain years,
1995 to 2015
|
|||||||
|
|
Public Sector
|
|||||
|
|
All employees
|
|||||
1995
|
3,722
|
||||||
2000
|
3,810
|
||||||
2005
|
4,075
|
||||||
2010
|
4,103
|
||||||
2011
|
3,923
|
||||||
2012
|
3,918
|
||||||
2013
|
3,845
|
||||||
2014
|
3,772
|
||||||
2015
|
|
3,801
|
These figures show that
public sector trade union membership was increasing under New Labour, even
though the declining density of union membership shows that this growth did not
keep pace with the increase in public sector employment whereas – since 2010 - overall
public sector trade union membership has fallen by 302,000 (7.3%) under the
Coalition and the Tories. UNISON’s loss of 8.65% of our membership is worse
than the aggregate loss of trade union membership across the public sector
(and, as we know that our private sector membership is increasing, our
proportionate loss of public sector members will have been larger than 8.65%).
Another way to assess our
membership data is by comparison with other trade unions, as set out in Table
Five;
Table Five: comparative data on
union membership 2010 and 2015 for five large trade unions
Trade union
|
Membership 31/12/2010 (thousands)
|
Membership 31/12/2015 (thousands)
|
Percentage change
|
UNISON
|
1,375
|
1,256
|
-8.65%
|
UNITE
|
1,515
|
1,382
|
-8.78%
|
GMB
|
602
|
623
|
+3.49%
|
NUT
|
375
|
372
|
-0.01%
|
PCS
|
292
|
195
|
-32.88%
|
Table Five
illustrates the catastrophic impact upon PCS of the attacks which they have
faced under the previous Government with both massive job losses and the loss
of the check-off facility for payment of subscriptions for those not made
redundant. It also shows that the NUT have maintained their membership almost
unchanged (which corresponds with the stability of union density in the
education sector shown in Table Two). The differences in the experiences of PCS
and the NUT compared to UNISON can be attributed, respectively to these
differences between the sectors in which we organise. In spite of the very
different composition of the membership of the two largest unions, both UNISON
and UNITE have lost members over this period at a comparable rate. The GMB
stand out from amongst these unions as having increased their membership
slightly (and only 4,000 of the 21,000 increase over five years can be
attributed to their merger with the former ceramic trade union, UNITY two years
ago). I would be interested to know if any reader has an explanation for the relatively
better performance of the GMB compared with the two larger unions.
Finally,
UNISON’s performance can be compared with aggregate figures for trade union membership
in Table Six;
|
|||||||
Table Six: UNISON membership compared with
overall trade union membership, 2010 - 2015
|
|||||||
|
Private Sector
|
|
Public Sector
|
Total
|
UNISON membership
|
||
2010
|
2,486
|
4,103
|
6,589
|
1,375
|
|||
2011
|
2,525
|
3,923
|
6,448
|
1,318
|
|||
2012
|
2,589
|
3,918
|
6,507
|
1,302
|
|||
2013
|
2,645
|
3,845
|
6,490
|
1,283
|
|||
2014
|
2,686
|
3,772
|
6,458
|
1,270
|
|||
2015
|
2,692
|
|
3,801
|
6,493
|
1,256
|
||
Change 2010 to 2015 (%)
|
+8.3%
|
|
-7.4%
|
|
-1.5%
|
-8.7%
|
|
Whilst
overall trade union membership has declined by 1.5% over the past five years,
the decline in UNISON membership has been considerably faster (so that UNISON
members who comprised 21% of all trade unionists in 2010 were only 19% of all
trade unionists by 2015). Although (given its different public/private make up)
UNITE probably has even more cause for concern about its broadly equivalent decline
over the same period, UNISON’s performance in recruiting and retaining members
over the period since the election of the Coalition Government cannot be
described as good.
We are not
even treading water.
We have not
faced a catastrophe over membership since 2010 and do not currently face an
existential crisis. Given the scale of job losses in local government in
particular, the fact that things are not a lot worse is a tribute to the work
of activists and officials recruiting members. However it is idle and stupid to
lie to our members and claim that our trade union is growing when it is not.
You won’t make a “Stronger UNISON” by hiding from the truth.
1 comment:
There is no definition given in the link you include at the beginning of your blog post as to what is growing though Jon. Just about everyone would take it to mean membership (as you have), but maybe it's something else, like Facebook "likes" or number of Twitter followers!
Post a Comment