Does Unity Matter?

Published in Education for Tomorrow:

The well-known trade union maxim asserts that Unity is Strength. In union conferences across the movement, people declare that working people need to unite to defend themselves against this government’s attacks. Indeed, there is not one trade union activist who would oppose the idea that we need greater unity.

But what does this actually mean for education unions? I worry that too often, the unity we seek proves to be transitory, fleeting, of the moment. It is almost like we have been divided for so long that all of us have, on some level, developed a kind of cultural acceptance of that division.

For example, we are used to the idea that unity at school level means three different reps consulting their members then agreeing a joint approach before they meet management. Or, if we are very lucky, a join union meeting in which three different reps with work together to try and bring their members to a shared approach. But, when things get tough and action is called for, we are back to three different decision-making processes, potentially with three different outcomes.

I recently heard a teacher at a union meeting arguing for greater unity through the formation of the equivalent of ‘join shop stewards committees’ at workplace level. While this is of course welcome, and far better than not working together, it shouldn’t be necessary. We shouldn’t need joint committees. When it comes to teachers, ATL, NASUWT and NUT don’t represent different grades of workers or different subdivisions within teaching. They represent the same group of workers and are in direct competition to recruit them. In most staffrooms, they don’t even represent different political positions, simply the union people chose to join.

At national level, we have become used to the idea that unity means jointly-badged materials and joint campaigns. Once again, we are asking teachers who have no discernible differences at workplace level to set aside these difference and work together on a specific campaign. It’s good as far as it goes but isn’t it missing the main point?

The problem is that these divisions are not just absurd, they are damaging. There is a reason that our organisations are called unions. By bringing working people together, in all their diversity, and speaking, and acting, in union on the issues which matter to them most, we give them a voice. Every division within our movement weakens that voice.

Of course there are differences between our unions. Each has their own history and culture and has developed their own structures over time. More concretely, they represent different balances of state school teachers and independent sector teachers, some organise in FE as well as schools, and all but the NUT admit support staff as well as teachers. However, these differences seem far less significant when you look at the current pace of change in education and everything there is to fight for.

Academies, as state-funded independent schools, are blurring the lines between the independent and state sector, and are increasingly run as businesses. The devolution of key decision on pay and conditions to school level shows the increasing need to organise the entire workforce and develop effective bargaining machinery at workplace level. The assault on professionalism through hyper-accountability and the denigration of qualified teacher status increases the importance of asserting our professionalism and professional control over our work.

As ATL has shown, having a strong and vibrant support staff section, with a real voice within the union, is entirely compatible with campaigning for every class to be taught by a qualified teacher. More than that, it allows the union to combine this with campaigning for other education professionals to have clearly defined roles, distinct from that of the teacher but no less vital to the education process, rather than being used to provide ‘teaching on the cheap’.

The key is that, in any new union, every member should feel they have a voice and the appropriate mechanisms within the union to exercise that voice. It is our diversity and the ability to bring those diverse voices together which gives us our strength. Teachers, whether independent or state sector, support staff members, FE members, and leadership members at all levels must feel that this is their union and that it represents their views.

If we can achieve this, we will fundamentally change the landscape. Industrially, we will not just have the strength to fight the battles we know we must, but to win them too. As educationalists, we will be able to speak clearly for the whole profession and politically, we will be able to demand that that those in power don’t just listen to us but act on what we say, whether it is about education or other crucial issues such as housing and child poverty.

We are presented with an unprecedented opportunity. It is time we redefined unity and redefined our unions.

Gawain Little is Chair of the NUT Professional Unity Committee.