|
Mixed Greens For all its good ideas, says Jonathan Timbers, the Green Party needs to do some serious thinking if it is to be a credible and progressive alternative to Labour The Green Party is
often seen by some democratic socialists in England as a left-wing alternative
to the Labour Party. There are a growing number of Green councillors and the
Greens are represented in the European parliament. In areas such as
mine (west Yorkshire), where historically people with ‘new age’ views have
settled and, in some cases, created green businesses, voluntary organisations,
housing co-ops, and so on, the Green vote is growing. At the last all-out
council elections in June 2004, when all three local council seats were up for
election, the Greens, with only one candidate, just failed to take one seat from
the Lib Dems. The Green Party
itself seems to draw strength from an ‘associational’ culture of the kind
that Sean Creighton
referred to when describing the rise of the Labour movement. In my area, for
instance, Green Party activists, though small in number, are prominent in
organising and running public events like ‘the Big Green weekend’ and
‘Crickstock’ (a local league cricket match by day, and a music and dance
festival by night, with acrobats and fire jugglers). There is no
indication at present, however, either in my locality or elsewhere, that the
Greens are likely to have any significant impact on the Westminster elections.
This does not mean, of course, that they never will, but our political culture
and the electoral system that underpins it, keeps them on the fringes of
electoral politics, even if, outside the political stockade of Westminster,
their numbers are growing. Therefore, the
Greens remain ‘a party of protest’, thriving on the opportunism of
oppositional politics, and appealing to a relatively narrow social base. One may
reflect sadly on how some of its supporters might, in a different age, have
found a home in the old ILP, or have contributed to the ‘broad church’ of
the old Labour Party, but perhaps for that very reason, the growth of the Greens
presents only a marginal threat to new Labour. Its existence may drain potential
recruits from the fractious and ageing cohorts of the Labour left (although some
might say, that the left doesn’t need much help to do that) and divert
troublesome people, who don‘t want to appeal to ‘Mondeo Man’, from the
party. However, much more
significant than the Greens' electoral threat to the Labour Party, or its
organisational competition for the left, is the ideological challenge it poses
to socialism, social democracy and new Labour. I have chosen one
area of Green Party policy which is central to the thinking of the Labour party,
old and new, to illustrate the differences, challenges and weaknesses of its
approach: employment rights, Labour law and the trade unions. For those who wish
to go further, the Green Party keeps an updated version of all of its policies
in its Manifesto for a Sustainable Society on the web at http://policy.greenparty.org.uk.
Comprehensive
plan The Green Party’s
lengthy statement on workers’ rights and employment makes interesting reading.
As the product of a policy commission, it can be uneven, obscure and
contradictory. There may be tension, for instance, between those members who do
not like trade unions, except in theory, and those who take a more pragmatic
approach to industrial relations. However, taken as a whole, it is an engaging
document, which is idealistic rather than utopian, and, for all its practical
shortcomings and occasionally inchoate proposals, presents a much more relevant
and comprehensive plan than anything the socialist left can currently produce. Of course, that
does not mean I fully agree with it. Underlying the
document is a recognition that rights need to be extended to agency workers and
the self-employed. There is still far too much focus on the left on ‘organised
Labour’, the ‘traditional’ working class, and public sector trade
unionism. Although the Labour government has made huge strides forward in
extending and strengthening employment and discrimination law, millions of
workers are relatively unaffected because they do not fit the legal definition
of ‘an employee’ (a flexible concept but one based on the notion that there
exists, among other things, a mutual obligation by both parties to offer and
accept work, as well as control by the employer over work procedures and
delegation of tasks). Employment patterns
have changed dramatically over the last quarter of a century and many people
either obtain work through employment agencies or have set up in business for
themselves. Thirty years ago the vast majority of manual labourers in my
locality worked in textile mills. Now many who practice a skill or a trade are
in business for themselves. Often their conditions of employment are poor and
insecure, but the left has little to say to them directly. The Green Party not
only recognises this shift, but embraces it. It seems to
envisage a world where people work either in co-operatives or for themselves in
partnership with other business organisations. Mutuality is central to this
vision. ‘Our long term aim,’ the Greens grandly assert, ‘is to end the
oppressive and exploitative nature of economic relations and develop a society
of equality and economic justice... We recognise that there is a thin dividing
line between “workers employed by a single regular employer” and the
“genuinely self-employed, freelance and sole trader”.’ The self-employed
will have similar benefit entitlements to employees and the imbalance in
negotiating positions between the single trader and larger business organisation
will be rectified by statutory changes to the law of contract including
penalties (as opposed to genuine liquidated damages) for late payment to small
businesses and applying equal pay and discrimination law to contracts between
businesses. The Greens also say that they will end small business dependency on
multi-nationals, but don’t say how they will do this. Similarly,
significant changes in the law are envisaged for contract workers employed by
employment agencies or businesses. Short term contracts should only be available
for short term work and those employing workers in particular trades (such as
building) will only be able to claim that they are self-employed if they belong
to a register of sole traders. If not, there will be an absolute legal
presumption that they are employees and covered by the relevant legislation. In
any event, employment agencies ‘will be covered by [legislation] on leave
entitlements, discrimination and health and safety’ (although I believe that
to an extent they already are). Not
revolutionary Proposed
improvements to existing employee rights are not particularly revolutionary and
include 28 days paid holiday (as opposed to 20 days); a reduction in the
qualifying period for the right to claim Unfair Dismissal to day one of
employment; the right of mothers with babies to take breaks to feed their
children during the working day; and improvements to maternity leave (including
full pay for the first three months) and paid parental leave. Significantly, the
Greens plan to introduce tax incentives and grants where appropriate for
employers to offer child-friendly work. The minimum wage
will be retained and benefits improved until a citizens’ income can be
introduced for all, ensuring that workers will be in a stronger position to
refuse jobs which are poorly paid or where the conditions and benefits of
employment are poor. Odd
hours The proposals on
working hours are odd, to say the least, and do not appear to improve the
current situation. The government is to set a maximum number of hours for
certain occupations per year but district committees (tripartite boards
responsible for enforcing employment law – more of them later) will advise on
standard annual contractual hours. This seems less clear cut than the current
working time regulations and may provide less protection for workers and more
red-tape for employers, so the benefits are elusive, save for the fact that the
system sounds highly decentralised. The allure of
decentralisation is offset at times, however, by an unfortunate desire to
formalise decision-making by laying down codes. There is a long-standing debate
at the centre of employment law about the degree to which tribunal decisions
should be discretionary and flexible. Much of this hangs around the
interpretation of words like ‘reasonable’ and ‘just and equitable’. Too
much reliance on precedent allows employers to evolve ways around the law, too
little creates uncertainty and the danger of arbitrary justice. Essentially,
this is one of those irresolvable legal imbalances which allows the law to
remain dynamic, but which can also lead to absurdity. The document left
me with the strong impression that someone on the Green policy commission has
studied employment law but never practised it, and has decided to try to iron
out some of the imperfections which arise from this imbalance. For instance,
redundancy selection criteria would be laid down by new Labour Courts. The
intention of this may be to reduce the amount of litigation which currently
arises out of these criteria, but the potential for the courts to make a dog’s
breakfast of the system is boundless. Enforcement of
these rights will be at the hands of new district industrial tribunals and a
local inspectorate. The Greens are at pains to stress that the society which
they envisage will be much more consensual than now. The sort of changes which
they propose would normally lead to a litigation boom, which would make the
present upsurge under Labour look modest. Understandably, they wish to avoid
that, hence their plans for local inspectorates with a much wider remit than the
present Health and Safety Commission. Furthermore, they do not favour the
involvement of lawyers except, it is assumed, as advocates. Accordingly, they
propose a root and branch re-fashioning of the system of decision-making in
employment. Currently, an employee making an application sends it to a regional
Employment Tribunal where his or her case will be heard by two lay members,
representing employees and employers, and chaired by an experienced employment
lawyer. An appeal, if given leave to be heard, may then proceed to the
Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), which has High Court status, and from there
to the Court of Appeal and upwards to the House of Lords. It is only when the
higher appellate courts become involved that lawyers dominate the proceedings. This is not good
enough for the Green Party, however, which seems to want to create a set of
people's courts without the benefit of lawyers (although in its favour,
Magistrates’ Courts operate a similar system). There will be a new system of
Labour Courts staffed by judges, call them what you will, separately trained
from the existing judiciary (in case they catch some legal disease of the mind,
no doubt). However, beneath this there will be a system of District Industrial
Tribunals appointed by district committees composed of representatives of
business, the unions and the community. These committees will also appoint and
oversee the work of the local inspectorate, so the culture will be one of
enforcement. Beneath these will
be workplace committees which will ensure that the new Employment and
Discrimination Acts (which actually aren’t so very different from those
already in place) are implemented, advise negotiators on the drawing up of
contracts of employment, and assist the district inspectorate. In addition, they
will also try to resolve disputes before they go to the district tribunal,
thereby replacing ACAS, which nevertheless will be expanded to mediate in trade
disputes. This system has the
benefit of localism and the potential for creating chaos as the plethora of
committees become mini council chambers. Why, except for ideological reasons,
make employment law completely separate from other branches of the law? There is
a benefit in having it as an integral part of our jurisprudence – justice
requires consistency. Do the Greens want to over-turn our system of common law
and return to some sort of pre-feudal system of local law and custom? The
existing arrangements already allow lay members (i.e. non-lawyers) to have a
significant influence on the application of employment law. Why change it,
especially since having a system of lay people making decisions does not
guarantee progressive results? Ill-thought
out I welcome the
proposal for a local inspectorate to enforce employment law, and the principle
that there could be a wider role for advisory services in resolving disputes and
assisting both parties to a contract (small businesses could do with a lot more
free impartial advice in handling employees and job applicants, for instance),
but the rest seems ill-thought out, or, worse, well-thought out but
wrong-headed. One final point:
the Green Party proposes granting legal aid for employment cases (currently only
£500 of legal help is available). This is to be welcomed subject to the usual
caveats about legal aid rates, narrow means-testing and bureaucracy which
discourage many solicitors from using it. Trade
unions And what role in
this new system is there for trade unions? The document has much to say on this
topic. The Greens find trade unions problematic in the extreme, perhaps with
good reason. They recognise that in order to have a sustainable economy they
will have to displace large sections of the workforce from their current
employment, and that they will meet fierce resistance from the trade unions if
they are ever in a position to do this. Yet,
notwithstanding their inherent conservatism, the trade unions remain the largest
voluntary organisations representing ‘ordinary’ people in the country, and
can be centres of resistance to global capital. Unlike some socialists, who
cling to the belief that organised workers in trade unions will be central to
the transformation of society, the Greens do not see their role as central, but
do see the need for strong independent trade unions, even in a society
transformed along green lines. In that process of transformation, the Greens
hope to work with trade unionists who want to green their own unions. In a sustainable
economy, the trade unions will work with local committees in overseeing the
implementation of employment law and in negotiating contracts of employment for
their members. The Greens suggest that the most important role for trade unions,
however, is in promoting workplace democracy. They also nod assent to
‘reformed’ trades councils working more closely with local communities (as
some are currently trying to do). That does not mean
that trade unions simply become a voluntary sector arm of government policy. The
Greens wish to make it easier for trade unions to gain workplace recognition and
grant workers the right to strike without being in breach of contract. They also
want to make it automatically unfair to dismiss a worker for refusing to cross a
picket line. Strikers are to receive welfare benefits once more and limited
forms of secondary action will be made lawful, including action to resist
harmful environmental and social production. Indeed, ‘green strikes’ are
given the thumbs up. However, other
forms of industrial action are discouraged. And here is the crux of the issue.
Ultimately, the Greens only appear comfortable with trade unions when they act
as consultative bodies and voluntary welfare and campaigning organisations, a
kind of mixture between ACAS and Oxfam, with perhaps just a dash of Greenpeace
direct environmental action mixed in. It is strongly
implied that the Labour courts will be the ultimate arbiters of what is and is
not a ‘legitimate trade dispute’. Government will continue to legislate on
internal standards of democracy within trade unions, although the Greens favour
open workplace ballots, not secret or postal ones. The tone of the document
indicates that its authors consider trade unions to be bureaucratic, top-down
organisations, which need to be changed, and it would be difficult to disagree. Contradictions It is easy to
envisage, however, a situation where a Green government (so we are talking very
hypothetically) is forced to take a more authoritarian stance towards trade
unions. The Greens want independent trade unions so long as they do what the
Greens want. The contradiction in their position is unlikely to survive exposure
to power and influence, nor win them many friends in the trade union movement
itself. This is a pity
because there are people within the movement who do want to give trade councils
a more community-orientated focus and who are keen to see trade unions run
campaigns on social and environmental issues. They also want trade unions to be
effective and independent advocates for the interests of their members and are
unlikely to be convinced by the Greens’ sincere hope that the implementation
of Green policies would lead to a more consensual and harmonious state of
industrial relations. In fact, if they
were ever tried out, they are more likely to expose serious conflicts between
employees and employers. Making it easier to strike may unleash a wave of strike
action as workers begin to realise that they can act together to improve their
terms and conditions. That in turn may encourage a higher degree of conflict
within small businesses between employers and employees. Green employers are, at
the end of the day, employers who often have to survive off relatively low
profit margins. More expensive and more confident employees are unlikely to
endear themselves to their bosses, who in turn will be subject to challenges
from their staff. This may be a price
worth paying for a fairer and less exploitative Labour market, but the Greens
don’t wish to expose themselves to the difficulties of achieving it, just as
they refuse to recognise the danger of creating chaos from their proposed system
of district and workplace committees and people’s tribunals. And ultimately,
because they do not appear to want to learn lessons from other parties or
ideologies, I remain unconvinced about the possibility of successfully
implementing the whole package, at least with the kind of results that the
Greens hope for. There are a lot of
good ideas in this document, and some I would support very strongly indeed, but
the Greens need to do much more serious thinking if they are to be a credible,
coherent and progressive alternative to Labour. The Green
Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society is available on the web at http://policy.greenparty.org.uk
|