London, 09/05/2005
To be checked against delivery
It's almost 20 years since I first became associated with the IPA. For me the partnership journey was a response to the wreckage of the miners' strike of 1984/85 and the loss and diminution of large swathes of UK manufacturing (and trade union membership). There was little doubt in my mind that the adversarial model of industrial relations was playing a major part - not the only part, not in most cases the biggest part - but a major part nevertheless in the UK's industrial decline.
The contrast then with other advanced European countries was stark. The coal industry in Germany and France was being reduced but in large measure around agreed programmes and at a pace designed to give communities some chance of adjustment without much pain. Productivity there was generally higher - the car industries of the same two countries - the key industries of that period - were successful while ours was often struggling. They had plenty of conflict but at no stage did it endanger the success of the enterprise or the job security and earnings of the workers.
By contrast, we were mired in a situation where our conflicts were on such a scale, were so out of proportion, that staple industries and key companies were being held back and in some cases risking or taking mortal wounds.
To me - and them - it was a desperate situation. Trade unions rhetoric, if not practice was based on the Scargill lexicon. Fight, conflict, struggle were the watchwords. That's what we said we did. Little wonder that new enterprises were increasingly keen to keep unions out - and, more worryingly, their employees sometimes thought so too. Other unions tried different strategies, especially the EETPU with its no strike agreement that did not deserve or achieve much success. We needed different stories, different rhetoric, different images.
Two developments came along to help meet the challenges. First was Europe. The then President of the Commission was Jacques Delors - 80 this year - who had been active in French trade unionism. He was steadily altering the balance of the European Community away from a predominantly common market to a single market for sure but with a strong social dimension.
He was building the concepts of social dialogue and social partnerships between unions and employers as the prime means of running labour markets, combining efficiency and economic success with strong collective bargaining and labour standards.
The two concepts of social partnerships and social dialogue were to be central to the evolution of the EU in the Delors era and they were embedded strongly enough to be significant today - as the British Government could well find out in Strasbourg this week in relation to the British opt out from the Working Time Directive - of that a little more later.
Just to say these two principles were not invented in Brussels, although they were polished and promoted there. They reflected the consensual approach which had underpinned the rapid post-war economic growth of the German, French, Italian and Benelux economies - an approach which itself was a rejection of the huge pre-war political and industrial conflict which had led to the Second World War.
In Thatcher's Britain, amid the wreckage of the miners strike, these concepts were very attractive and, after a speech by President Delors to the TUC in 1998, the TUC changed from anti-European to pro-European. The political effects rippled wider. Mrs Thatcher saw that speech on television and concluded that Europe was a vehicle for socialism that had to be confronted. Three weeks later, she responded in a speech in Bruges, rejecting the social Europe and the federalist Europe approaches, split her cabinet, and 12 months later, toppled from power.
That was another pressure for a different environment. This was what was happening at Rover cars in particular. There had been an earlier agreement at the Ford Motor Company - the employee development assistance programme - which had empowered workers and unions to develop the skills of individual workers. That idea was imported from Detroit but it caught fire in Ford UK and helped an improvement in industrial relations. It was then incorporated similarly in the Rover new deal.
Rover was, as now, in desperate straits but the idea of union engagement in learning has been an enduring process with the Government's Union Learning Fund and the work of the LSC. And the TUC's huge and successful efforts to promote the concept nationally, and regionally has been one of the most significant developments of the past decade of UK industrial relations - a feature much admired by other European countries.
The Rover new deal went further than that. It introduced the concept of unions accepting change in exchange for promises of employment security and investment in skills and these concepts were taken up enthusiastically by the IPA under Bryan Stevens and by leading members of its Council - John Edmonds, Hugh Stirk and Keith Sisson were particularly prominent. And in a ‘Towards Industrial Partnerships' a document which emerged in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the principles of unions embracing and shaping change were codified and presented.
I seem to remember a spectacularly ill piece of timing - a press conference to promote partnership held on Black Wednesday but, despite that, the early 90s saw the message of partnership - and social partnership spread with some spectacular deals inside and outside manufacturing with deals at many companies like Tesco, Barclays Bank, the Inland Revenue and Legal and General.
During my period as General Secretary of the TUC, I made it a key point to promote partnerships and visit partnership workplaces. We set up the Partnership Institute, celebrated successful closer working arrangements and encouraged their wider dissemination. And of course, we supported the IPA.
The partnership agenda received some recognition from the Government with the DTI Partnership Fund being a useful tool to encourage the spread of the concept.
A major disappointment was however that I could never persuade the Government to embrace the concept of social partnership except on a very limited scale. The CBI did not want it - it smacked too much of corporatism for their taste; and the Government, frankly at the top level, has never encouraged the European Social Model.
So much for the Monks version of history. Some of you may have different takes on some of it. But what about the present and the future?
There have always been critics of partnerships - from the union side, the accusation of partnerships being, sweetheart, unequal deals which give employers too much; from the employers' side, there is a fear that they can give too much away and accord too central a role to unions who are held to be a force for the status quo rather than change.
These critics are vocal at the moment. When I left the TUC, an article in the Guardian referred to me as a purveyor of the ‘snake oil' of partnerships to whom good riddance was an appropriate message.
More seriously, there are real questions to be asked of those of us who advocate partnerships.
First, how can we promote partnerships in an era of ever widening income distribution - illustrated so graphically in a key original partnership company by the different treatment of the 4 Phoenix directors compared to the rest of the Rover workers.
Second, it is hard to promote partnership against the background of the pensions problem. This is a huge and growing problem which I think will only be resolved by a concerted national strategy embracing employers, unions and others - a classic subject for a new partnership approval. But at the moment, worsening and shakier pensions are a poor basis for spreading the partnership message.
Third, the Government is solidifying its opposition to the European Social Model. It ended the opt-out from the Social Chapter but has since consistently opposed measures brought forward under the Social Chapter. To some extent, the claimed justification for this is found in lower unemployment in the UK than is currently the case in France and Germany in particular - but it is also a gesture to the CBI that the Government will be business friendly and do its utmost to limit European social policy and the social partnership system.
So where do we go from here? First the partnership agenda will be shaped by the policy framework being followed at national level. The appointment of Alan Johnson to the new department could be very helpful in this respect as Alan's track record on partnership has always been excellent. He is a true believer. I hope that he will lead a new impetus on partnership by delivering the Warwick agenda, by adopting a more positive approach to social policy in Europe and by encouraging the Government to get tough with employers where this is necessary, pensions being a crucial issue at present.
The other issue is facing the productivity challenge. The UK continues to stumble along at lower productivity rates than USA, Germany, France and a host of other leading nations. To some extent, this is compensated for by the longer working hours than other European countries. But it is not a happy position for the UK. And this week in Strasbourg, the European Parliament could well vote to end the British opt out from the Working Time Directive on the 48 hours normal upper limit. There would be a substantial transition period and more flexibility to average to 48 hours over a longer period. But will the UK Government accept the decision, if indeed that is the decision this week? I very much hope so.
Next, harnessing common commitment for necessary change remains a crucial test for any leader - political, business or union. Some countries are good at it. Others not so. We have examples where we are quite good - the minimum wage, where you George; led the way, the agreement on information and consultation, and the moves on family friendly working. But it is all a bit low key, and subject driven. It needs to be more streamlined and systematic - more central to the big issues.
Partnerships should not be a low-key approach. It needs to underpin the key economic, social and business challenges faced by the country.
For me at European level, there are three major issues. First is the demographic challenge with longer lifetimes and lower birthrates. The second is what the French term ‘délocalisation' which the English word ‘relocation' does not fully live up to - that is the export of jobs to cheap locations. And third, is developing social institutions in the new member states. These are key partnership issues, central to the future of our society. Some countries like the Nordic and Ireland have made substantial progress already.
So keep the faith, move partnership and social partnership forward. Best wishes to the IPA.