Workers and Trade Unions for Climate Solidarity

by Paul Hampton

This book is a theoretically rich and empirically grounded account of UK trade union engagement with climate change over the last three decades. It offers a rigorous critique of the mainstream neoliberal and ecological modernisation approaches, extending the concepts of Marxist social and employment relations theory to the climate realm. The book applies insights from employment relations to the political economy of climate change, developing a model for understanding trade union behaviour over climate matters. The strong interdisciplinary approach draws together lessons from both physical and social science, providing an original empirical investigation into the climate politics of the UK trade union movement from high level officials down to workplace climate representatives, from issues of climate jobs to workers’ climate action. This book will be of great interest to students and researchers in environmental politics, climate change and environmental sociology.

232 pages, Paperback

First published June 30, 2015

Reviews

[Zack · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important study into trade unionist and workers’ organisation around environmental and climate issues. Paul reveals a complex, informative, and sometimes inspiring situation: highlighting many limits and some possible ways forward. The stuff about green reps, and reps’ networks, in particular. They had a big ecological impact in particular workplaces: small net ecological impact, but big political potential.

There can be a danger of green rep activism being a gateway to partnership: but it can cut in the other direction, particularly if it is done effectively. Sometimes conflictual because it is a TU, or because seen as encroaching on prerogative of bosses. Sometimes apparent partnership causes division. Sometimes causes unions to get stronger, and can bring in new people. There can — and should! — be a fight over what should be done with the money saved by schemes employees push the bosses to implement.

The history of inter-union debates over coal vs nuclear, a place where climate change was first raised in the TUC, by nuclear advocates, is very interesting. Likewise over heathrow.

He critiques the often conservative answers to anxieties around jobs; the — I’m not sure about this — vagueness and limitations of the label “green jobs”; more importantly, that rather than focus on some we should aim to green the economy as a whole, and green all work; widespread partnership approaches, green Keynesianism, and ecological modernism approaches; CCS being used as excuse by TUs for coal even when not implemented; and the state.

The original just transition idea apparently advocated a paycheck for those made redundant. I think, for a just transition, need not a technocratic or atomised approach but a collective and programmatic one.

Just transition is limited in how it is used: workers may participate, but don’t lead; the transition is treated as inevitable — when it isn’t — and the aim is just ensuring justness. Energy democracy is a better framing. Fuel poverty activism by unions brings in more class perspectives, nationalising does somewhat too.

It was written for a PhD, uses a lot of official documents, and published academically, so is quite dry — but worth it. Chapter 5 is key. While focussing on a particular historical period, he is right to say it isn’t just historically specific, but is still relevant.

Paul gives too much to CACC/OMCJ.

There are limitations as well as possibilities in fighting for legal rights for green reps.

I’m not convinced (as I believe is argued) that workers particularly have a special interest in fighting climate change — either subjectively or objectively — but rather they do have a special agency. Compare "MAPAC" — it is a nonstarter.



Quotes

Three principles of green jobs have emerged from unions: (1) whether the job is environmentally sustainable; (2) whether it is a quality job in the sense of being well-paid and secure; and (3) when it replaces another, non-green job, whether it is located in the same community and targeted to the same worker (Pearce and Stilwell 2008: 131-2).

Just transition was defined in terms of formal consultation with unions, green and decent jobs, education and training, diversification social protection measures and respect for human rights (TUC 2009a). Just transition was reduced to five key principles: (1) union voice ('consultation between representatives from trade unions, business, government and voluntary organisations on the shift to a green, low-carbon economy); (2) green and decent jobs; (3) green skills; (4) respect for labour and human rights; and (5) 'strong and efficient social protection systems' (TUC 2010a: 64; TUC 2014c: 3). This formulation, boiled down for government consumption, was some way from Mazzocchi's original, more radical conception of just transition.

Although the majority of UK trade unions and the TUC favoured Heathrow expansion, there was also consistent opposition to the proposal, including from some significant Labour-affiliated unions, from transport unions, and some organising in the aviation sector. Unison opposed expansion of Heathrow in favour of regional airports (where it had members). Unison’s response to the government’s consultation stated: ‘Uncontrolled and unplanned airport growth and expansion can damage the environment... Aviation emissions, for example, are a small but growing proportion of total global emissions and contribute to climate change.’ It added: ‘The full environmental costs of aviation must be taken into account in any cost-benefit analysis of air travel and airport expansion’ (Unison 2003: 5-6). Unison proposed an environmental tax on aviation fuel, related to engine efficiency in aircraft. Unison delegate Jean Geldart spoke against airport expansion at the 2003 Congress (TUC 2003a: 132). Trade unions and their leaderships opposed to airport expansion were able to challenge arguments that equated more flights with more employment.

Trade unions and their leaderships opposed to airport expansion were able to challenge arguments that equated more flights with more employment. The government’s impact assessment showed slightly fewer people employed directly at Heathrow by 2030 with a third runway than there were at the time (DfT 2007). Without a further runway, it estimated on-site employment would fall by around 10,000. Even with a third runway, BAA and the airlines planned job cuts (Sewill 2009). Oppositional unions worked with activist campaigns to make the case for a high speed rail link as an alternative to expansion. The RMT published the report, Who says there is no alternative? compiled by campaigner John Stewart. The report estimated that over a third of flights from Heathrow were short-haul, that more than 20% serve destinations already served by a viable rail alternative, and that 20% more were to places where rail is the potential alternative. It claimed that ‘a fast rail service which substituted for further expansion at Heathrow would result in significant environmental benefits… climate change emissions would not rise so fast. High-speed rail emits between eight and 11 times less CO2 than air travel’ (RMT 2008a: 9). At its launch, general secretary Bob Crow said the report ‘shows that high-speed rail can provide a win-win solution for the economy and the environment’ (RMT 2008b). The report was backed by John McDonnell MP, chair of RMT's parliamentary group and a high-profile opponent of the third runway, whose constituency was affected by the proposed expansion.

The RMT, along with rail unions ASLEF and TSSA, Unison, Connect telecom union and the PCS (with members in air traffic control, BAA and the Civil Aviation Authority), sponsored an advertisement in The Times newspaper on 14 October 2008 opposing Heathrow expansion. The advertisement stated: ‘If the government pushes ahead with expanding our airports, including Heathrow, the UK will never be able to meet the new target of cutting emissions by at least 80% by 2050 and play its part in fighting climate change.’

PCS delegate Sue Bond also challenged the General Council at the 2009 Congress, arguing that in the light of climate change and the possibility of alternative transport and employment opportunities, the TUC should reconsider its support for the expansion of Heathrow (TUC 2009b: 127). PCS reps in aviation subsequently contributed to a report, which explored the positive arguments for the public ownership of aviation, the use of aviation taxation (such as VAT exemption and Air Passenger Duty) and proposals for a ‘Heath-wick’ dual-hub linked to Gatwick by high-speed rail to protect existing jobs (Molloy and Sealey 2013).

This overview confirms that at the highest levels, UK union climate framing was closest to ecological modernisation during this period. This was particularly clear in TUC support for the Labour government’s Climate Change Act, carbon capture, its ‘balanced’ energy and aviation policy, and for partnership.

Less prominent, but still significant TUC framings were located closer to employers and deployed neoliberal market arguments, in particular over EU ETS and Heathrow expansion. Issues such as employment were sometimes posed in narrow, sectional terms or more blatantly in neoliberal terms close to business.

there are at least three further areas where [a class-based] approach was more pronounced. First, union conceptions of just transition and climate jobs have been more consistently class-focused; second, forms of climate representation at work have exhibited elements of working class organisation; and third, union involvement in the Vestas occupation indicated distinctive forms of working class action. Without ignoring neoliberal and ecological modernisation framings, the following chapters explore these more explicit cases of working class representation in union climate politics.

In 2005, the TUC’s Greening the Workplace report highlighted only a handful of union examples (TUSDAC 2005a). Yet surveys carried out by the Labour Research Department (LRD) in 2007, 2009 and 2012 indicated much more widespread activity. Surveys found thousands of union reps making a substantial contribution towards curbing carbon emissions across the UK (TUC 2009c: 1; ibid 2012b). Several unions (such as Unison, PCS, UCU and Prospect) established climate and environment networks involving hundreds of reps. The LRD surveys found examples of union representatives engaged in wide range of climate-related activity in the workplace, including mitigation and adaptation. Some union reps had been involved in discussions around substantial energy efficiency measures with their employers, such as the installation of solar panels and wind turbines, modifications to heating and ventilation systems, changes to IT and lighting use, as well as other energy consumption measures at work. Similarly, union reps reported engagement with workplace green travel plans, cycle to work schemes, public transport subsidies and remote working. A range of recycling and waste reduction measures as well as a green procurement were reported, indicating a variety of measures to bring about climate-related behavioural change in workplaces. Less evidence was found on climate change adaptation, particularly in tackling high temperatures during the summer months (such as changes to dress codes), or for adequate plans to respond to extreme weather events such as flooding and storms in the workplace. However a prime facie case can be made that a significant layer of trade union officials, activists and representatives had begun to engage with the implications of climate change at work.

Although battered by the recession and austerity, many union reps clung tenaciously to their climate commitments. An LRD survey in 2012 received 1,200 responses and indicated further progress with advancing climate issues at work, while new case studies demonstrated continued appetite for climate action, despite a more difficult political and economic context. The survey cited numerous examples, including GMB reps at ASDA encouraging workers to close walk-in fridge and freezer doors when they are not in use; union reps at a weapons manufacturer successfully lobbying for the installation of showers for cyclists and parking spaces for car sharers; Community reps at Tata Steel negotiated the replacement of thousands of light fittings with energy efficient tubes; PCS reps at Defra regulating the office temperature during the winter months, with windows have been resealed, and heat from the canteen is re-used to heat the building; and CWU reps at mail distributor Parcelforce encouraging the firm’s management to buy greener vehicles (TUC 2012a). Progress was also registered in six case studies for the TUC publication, The Union Effect at Allianz Insurance, Defra (York), EDF Energy, Furzedown Low Carbon Zone: a community project based on a further education college, Great Ormond Street Hospital and The Port of Felixstowe (TUC 2014d: 6). It seemed that the time for climate reps had finally arrived.

Environmental representatives should be ‘entitled to paid time off to attend a minimum 10 days of accredited training in the 12 months immediately following their election/appointment’. They should also be entitled to ‘reasonable paid time off for relevant training and updating on TUC or union courses in relation to their responsibilities; be appointed or elected by recognised independent trade unions; have the right to reasonable paid time off to carry out their functions; and have a right to information from the employer to assist them in their duties’ (ibid 2007b: 4, 13). TUSDAC sought the amendment of the ACAS Code of Practice, Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, ‘to recognise the role of union reps in consultations on sustainable production and consumption’ (TUSDAC 2007: 7).

Most unions and the TUC employed the language of ecological modernisation to explain the benefits of union environment reps for employers and the government. This was more than a tactical or presentational decision.

Port of Felixstowe

In her otherwise strongly pro-partnership evaluation of the project, Pearce was moved to warn about the dangers of union environmental reps and managers becoming ‘green police’. She argued that union green reps ‘can come under pressure to police staff behaviour, to use more of the stick approach and less of the carrot’. Individual actions, such as turning off photocopiers at night ‘are all worthwhile, as a first step forward. But many other changes may be necessary. Employers must be tasked with the duty to reduce the workplace carbon footprint’. As well as asking each staff member to turn their computer off, ‘it makes economic and environmental sense to invest in technology to automate energy saving processes. That’s why green issues need to feature on the collective bargaining agenda’ (TUC 2010e: 13-4). The point is well made, but it brings out one of the crucial limitations of the ecological modernisation approach many trade union leaders took during this period.

The most far-reaching incursion into what would normally be considered management’s territory were agreements over environmental matters, such as those at Bristol, Plymouth and Stockport councils, Western Power Distribution and South Thames College, which gave union reps partial suzerainty over environmental decisions, with at least the possibility of consultation and implicitly of veto. The most thoroughgoing agreements also allowed for time during working hours to progress environmental issues, for workers in general and union reps in particular. Discussing environmental matters on joint union-management committee has similar effects, extending the union role to partially encroach on aspects of the work process – for example by taking part in audits and inspections of the workplace and then making recommendations for change. At a lower level, the use of meetings, conferences, fairs, DVD showings, ‘Question Time’ panels and other educational events during work time and on work premises also implicitly challenged the frontiers of control (TUC 2009c).

The 2009 TUC survey found that three in five (60%) of union reps said their employer had not distributed the benefits of climate change savings to their workforce or to other energy initiatives, while only 7% had received some financial incentives for engaging in environmental activity. While some union reps were able to point to tangible improvements in their pay and conditions arising from green improvements, others suggested that their employers were simply pocketing the financial gains of carbon emissions reductions. A Prospect rep in one ministry summed this up in pithy fashion: ‘No bonuses, just a rollicking if you leave kit turned on!’ GMB reps at one large engineering firm said the gains accrued to the company only, while Unison reps in a water company reported ‘nothing to benefit the worker’. Within one government department, PCS reps reported that there were ‘no bonuses or no time off for going green. All pay is subject to work-related performance management pay, but the green issue has not been taken on board. This has been raised a number of times during pay negotiations’ (TUC 2009c: 24-5). Concerns about the distribution of gains and losses between workers and employers suggest deeper conflicts of interest over climate politics.

Disagreements crystallised over car parking. The 2009 TUC survey found that in central government, local government, the health service and higher education, some employers introduced parking charges, parking restrictions or removed car allowances, often justified as ‘green measures’, while failing to provide alternatives. UCU reps in further education expressed this tersely: ‘Who can use the limited car parking? This has not helped climate change, but has created problems for staff and students for whom public transport cannot help.’ They added, ‘Not everyone who can use public transport, walk or cycle will or can always do so and not everyone can access public transport and [some] live too far away (for good reasons) to walk or cycle’ (ibid 2009c: 36)

See also https://workersliberty.org/story/2017... plus more quotes in the comment below