Why we can’t tackle inequality without strong trade unions

1st July, 2014 3:37 pm

In 2009, David Cameron said research by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett “has shown that among the richest countries, it’s the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator“.

poverty pay

Wilkinson and Pickett’s work brought a new understanding of the damage caused by inequality, and in the process placed it at the forefront of politics. This idea has not been lost on Ed Miliband who has declared inequality to be, not just the biggest moral concern of our time, but also the key political challenge facing Britain.

This is not just because inequality creates poverty and suffering, not just because it is unfair, but also because the effects of inequality extend to the vast majority of the population and damage the whole social fabric.

Now, in an important new think piece for the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class), The importance of the labour movement in reducing inequality, Wilkinson and Pickett, call for a major shift in our thinking. They outline a vision capable of responding to the challenge of inequality.

In this intellectually compelling paper, they examine the roots of increasing inequality in incomes and power and show how the strengthening and then weakening of the labour movement during the 20th Century was mirrored by patterns of inequality.  Globally, from the 1930s until about 1980, inequality declined, while trade union membership increased but this was followed by a period of decline in trade union membership and collective bargaining coverage, during which inequality has expanded to levels not seen since the 1920s.

Last week new ONS data showed that household disposable income increased for the richest fifth of households while it fell for everyone else. Wilkinson and Pickett stress that the growth of top incomes has played a big part in generating inequality. For They  cite figures which show that from the 1970s to the early 1980s, the CEOs of the largest 350 companies in the US were paid 20 or 30 times as much as the average production worker. By the early 21st Century, they were getting between 200 and 400 times as much. The pattern in the UK is the same. Among the 100 largest UK companies, the average CEO is paid 300 times the average wage. Importantly, Wilkinson and Pickett attribute this widening gap to the absence of strong trade unions and the lack of an effective constraint on top pay.

But the relationship between trade union membership and inequality is not just a reflection of the wages unions achieve for their members. The weakening of trade unions and the rise of inequality is also demonstrates the weakening of the political and ideological influence of the left in the era of neoliberal ideology. In the words of Professor Jacob Hacker (of ‘pre-distribution’ fame) “unions did not just happen to be in the way of a fast-moving economic train. They were pushed onto the tracksby American political leaders“.

So while Wilkinson and Pickett recognise the importance of progressive taxation and more generous social security systems in reducing inequality, like Hacker they seek a more fundamental approach to reducing inequality by acting before the stage of taxation. Tackling inequality, they argue, can only be achieved by extending economic democracy both through strengthening the role of the labour movement and by reforming the way companies operate.

What this paper does is highlight that trade unions are important for society and the public interest at large. Improving living standards and reducing inequality are inextricably linked to policies which assist the growth of trade unionism, and collective bargaining. Government action on the minimum wage, zero hours, agency labour and public sector pay is essential, but without policies which promote collective bargaining and produce a more favourable environment for trade unionism, inequality may falter but it will not reverse.

In 1974, Labour defeated the Tories with a manifesto which pledged to “Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families“. Unfortunately, they failed to produce the necessary structural changes and the victory of neoliberalism ensured that the shift was in the wrong direction.

This contribution from Wilkinson and Pickett suggests that it is only through creating a progressive alliance, with trade unions playing a central role that appalling levels of inequality can begin to be tackled. As they did five years ago, Wilkinson and Pickett again provide the inspiration and analysis so that if we listen, this time we can get it right.

The importance of the labour movement in tackling inequality by Prof Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett is released today by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class).

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • gunnerbear

    “In 1974, Labour defeated the Tories with a manifesto which pledged to “Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families“.”
    And but a few short years later, the TUs thought that they could overthrow a democratically elected government and in later years were curbed because of that behaviour (some say rightly given their past behaviour).
    Globalism has all but killed the TU movement and the MNCs know it, the average worker knows it too. The TUs can demand that firm ‘X’ pays why but the TUs know (or at least those in private industry) if they push it too far, it’s a case of ‘last one out, turn out the lights’ as companies move plants elsewhere.
    Of course it’s different in the public sector where non-jobs thrive.

  • EricBC

    Inequality cannot be tackled. Simple reason. You could tax the rich as needed to create jobs, build houses and greatly reduce poverty. It would work. And the rich would still be far far wealthier than the rest of us. So, let’s call it tackling poverty, not tackling inequality.

    All talk about reducing inequality is nonsense. So let’s start talking about TAXING THE WEALTHY. A Mansion tax would be a good start.

    • Daniel Speight

      Eric I’m not sure quite why you do not like the idea of fighting inequality. Surely your taxing the wealthy is to do just that. Poverty and inequality go hand in hand in times of economic downturns. Why try and confuse the very welcome message that we are once again returning to the principle of fighting inequality.

      • EricBC

        I am questioning the language used. If you make a 100,000 a year and I make 8,000 then getting me up to ten thousand does not reduce inequality that much does it? We cannot reduce inequality. So we should stop saying that we will. We can’t. We won’t. This is a free market, oligarchic plutocracy with a democratic government with very limited scope for action.

  • Daniel Speight

    It’s good that fighting inequality is again taking a leading role in speech and writing from the labour movement. It is a principle that all proposed policies can be measured by. At the moment some of the policies coming out of the shadow cabinet would fail this measurement, being nothing more than a return to trickle down theories so beloved by Thatcher and Reagan.

    • treborc1

      Trickle down of course was the ideal of the One nation Disraeli party.

  • A future socialist Labour government could in theory issue everyone with £1billion. Then redefine a new pound to be 100,000 old ones. The richest people in £ terms would then be worth about $110k whereas the minimum would be worth £10k. There would then be a range of 11:1 between richest and poorest.

    Prior to the issue every physical asset would have to be nationalised to convert them all to financial assets and then they could be sold back after the issue.

    I’m not saying it should do that but it is interesting to reflect on what would be necessary if any future government really did want to “Bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families” .

    As it is, the power is always going to be with the 1%: the multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires, of our society. We shouldn’t promise to change that unless we are prepared to do what it takes to bring that change change about.

  • swatnan

    Agree. Membership of a TU and a Professional Association should be made mandatory. As natural as breathing air.

x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit