ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From International Socialism, No.44, July/August 1970, pp.41-42.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
The Growth of White-Collar Unionism
George Sayers Bain
Oxford, 55s
It is only recently that white-collar unions have been widely accepted as a serious part of the labour movement. The traditional attitude of manual unionists has tended, with some justification, to be at best patronising. They have often felt that staff workers spend their time sitting on their backsides, engaged in soft, nonproductive jobs; at the same time, staff conditions have usually involved shorter hours, longer holidays, better fringe benefits, separate canteens, and a nice clean suit. Socialists have often argued that these little privileges make white-collar workers the victims of ‘false consciousness’. Just like manual workers, they can only live by selling their labour power; yet typically they identify with management, resist organisation, and are often willing to blackleg during strikes of production workers. And when white-collar workers have been willing to organise, it has usually been in separate unions which have gone out of their way to play down any connections with the broader labour movement.
But reality no longer fits the old image. DATA, the draughtsmen’s union, has for several years exceeded most manual unions in its militancy, and has played a valuable part in the fight against incomes policy and productivity dealing. In the past its militancy was exceptional, but the teachers’ strike has shown that even the most ‘respectable’ white-collar unions are abandoning their traditional opposition to industrial action. The old exclusiveness is breaking down, too: the Teachers have now followed the lead of the Local Government Officers and are to join the TUC. White-collar organisation is now expanding rapidly while manual unionism stagnates – Clive Jenkins’ ASSET, for example, doubling in size in 10 years; and in manual unions like the Transport and General Workers, staff workers are now the fastest growing group of members.
The growth of white-collar unionism since the war has attracted a good number of academic writers. The most stimulating and readable study is David Lockwood’s The Black-Coated Worker, first published in 1956 (available in paperback at 21s). Lockwood criticises the ‘false consciousness’ analysis, arguing that the traditional clerical worker was quite logical in refusing to identify with manual workers and their unions. As a member of an educated minority, his labour market position was quite different from that of the manual worker, and this was normally reflected in his rate of pay. He usually came from a ‘middle class’ family, and was seen as holding a ‘middle class’ position in society. He would normally work in a small office, and was in close personal contact with his employer; a successful career usually depended on promotion within his own firm, and this would almost certainly be jeopardised by trade union activity.
But in the present century there have been some important changes. While basic wage rates seem to have held their relative positions remarkably closely, manual workers have recently won important additions through piece-work, overtime and other bonuses. As a result, the white-collar advantage in actual earnings has been narrowed drastically, and in some cases reversed. With the spread of education, increasing recruitment from working class families, and the extensive employment of female labour, the social status of white-collar workers has declined in step with their market position. Just as important, the work itself has changed considerably. At the beginning of the century there were only three million white-collar workers in Britain, today there are nearly 10 million; and larger numbers have meant bigger offices, the ‘rationalisation’ of tasks, bureaucratic and impersonal control, reduced opportunities for promotion. In place of the old ‘personal relationship’ with the boss, the average staff worker today is in the same position as the production worker – just a number on the books; and even the little privileges which once distinguished staff are now increasingly being won by manual workers. Lockwood’s argument, then, is that the objective differences between manual and non-manual work explain the traditional weakness of white-collar unionism. As these objective conditions change, and staff workers become subject to ‘bureaucratisation’, so the traditional resistance to union organisation breaks down.
Bain’s book carries the analysis a stage further. He begins by showing the implications of the rapid expansion of white-collar employment. In 1911, 20 per cent of the British labour force were in non-manual jobs; by 1961 the proportion had risen to 38 per cent. There is every reason to assume that the trend will continue, and that in little over a decade non-manual workers will be the majority of employees (as is already the case in America).
The consequences for the trade union movement are extremely serious. At present, just over one manual worker in two is a trade unionist, but less than one white-collar worker out of three. Not only is manual work generally declining as a proportion of the labour force; the most rapid fall is in industries – like mining, textiles, the railways – which have traditionally been trade union strongholds. Unless there is a rapid breakthrough in organisation among the growing white-collar occupations, trade union membership will fail to keep up with the expanding labour force and will indeed fall absolutely. There is in fact ample evidence that this is already happening.
There are equally important implications for socialists. We insist that socialism can only be achieved as the act of the immense majority, the working class. If a majority of employees will soon be white-collar, their involvement in the movement is obviously of critical importance. The strength of the trade union tradition among manual workers, and the differences in objective work conditions which remain important, naturally affect the orientation of our propaganda and activity. But it is essential thai we recognise non-manual workers, in practice as well as in theory, as members of the working class whose participation in the struggle is vital. We would do well to remember the important part which many staff workers played in the revolutionary struggle in France in May 1968.
In an important sense, Bain’s findings provide good reason for optimism: his research analysis shows ‘that white-collar workers do not possess any intrinsic qualities which make them less receptive to trade unionism than manual workers’. In part, he accepts Lockwood’s argument that, as white-collar workers become concentrated in larger offices with more bureaucratic management, they will recognise more readily the need for union organisation. But he emphasises the fact that white-collar unionism today is heavily concentrated in the public sector – national and local government, teaching, the nationalised industries – where around 80 per cent are organised. In private manufacturing industries, despite strong unionism among individual groups like draughtsmen, white-collar membership is in general extremely weak – only about 12 per cent. This contrast, Bain argues, reflects the attitudes of employers. As a result of long political pressure by the British working class, governments for over half a century have agreed to negotiate with unions for all their employees, manual and non-manual, and to encourage them formally to become members. (The government attitude to militant unionism is of course a different question!) But most private firms – even those which have long negotiated with manual unions – still refuse to recognise white-collar unions. Many take active steps to discourage staff organisation, and Bain gives plenty of details of the tactics that are used. It’s hardly surprising that most staff workers hesitate to organise, when they know that their boss will refuse to meet the union, and that they themselves may lose their job or else be faced by more subtle forms of victimisation.
Bain’s conclusions are less convincing than the rest of his analysis. He argues that all the important breakthroughs in white-collar recognition in private industry have been due, not to the industrial strength of union organisation, but to a ‘social climate’ (during and after both world wars) favourable towards unionism. As a result, he insists that, left to their own resources, the white-collar unions cannot achieve the necessary breakthrough in organisation. Their present expansion is misleading: it reflects the growth in size of the white-collar labour force rather than any significant change in the proportion organised. He therefore concludes that ‘the future growth of white-collar unionism in Britain is largely dependent upon government action to encourage union recognition’.
Bain certainly shows that on most occasions when staff unions have been recognised, their membership was not strong enough for them to have won an all-out fight with the employers. But the same could be said of most manual unions also. A union may not be strong enough to win an all-out strike, but it may still be able to make a confrontation very costly for the employer. ‘Enlightened’ employers have learned that recognising a union, and tying it to a rigid bargaining procedure/can be a valuable way of getting a reasonably orderly and predictable labour force; a union which is refused recognition, on the other hand, is likely to behave far more militantly and perhaps cause a considerable nuisance. As white-collar discontent increases, more and more employers may see trade unionism as a solution to their problems.
Socialists will in any case give a hollow laugh to the suggestion that white-collar unions should look to the government for help. We all know the sort of trade unionism which modern governments – Labour or Tory – are willing to support! Far more relevant is the experience of NATSOPA, the printers’ union, in 1938. Bain describes how the union won recognition on behalf of its staff members purely because of its power to call out its manual members. Isolated, the prospects of a dramatic increase in staff unionism is certainly small; yet even in a period of economic depression, the breakthrough was made possible by the solid support of established manual unionists.
It is obvious that organised workers must take a serious and active interest in staff unionism, where necessary being ready to lend their own industrial strength to the struggle. Where manual and non-manual workers can be organised in the same union, so much the better; but at the very least their unions should be fully involved in the Joint Shop Stewards’ Committee and any other joint bodies. Too long the employers have been able to exploit to their own advantage the divisions between staff and works. Bain’s figures underline the urgent need to combat staff non-unionism – and they also show that there is no inherent obstacle to success.
ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 1.2.2008