Trade unions: how are they faring during the recession?

DEPENDING on your point of view, trade unions either bring power to the people on the shopfloor, or hinder a company from reacting to changing conditions.
As a business journalist I've seen things from both perspectives. Probably the first time I saw a trade union in action was a month after I joined the business desk at The Sentinel when tyre maker Michelin decided to make 950 job cuts amid cut-throat competition from manufacturers in China and other parts of the Far East.
The cuts - and another a further 500 a year ago - ended new tyre production at the site in Campbell Road, Stoke, and were seen by some as the beginning of the end of the French company's tenure in the city.
I was stood outside the plant in Campbell Road on a bright, but cold, October day - it was my sister's birthday, to be precise - as workers piled out shell-shocked from meetings revealing the plans. I can remember the disbelief and fear for the future from employees who believed that Michelin's tyre production ought to be a permanent fixture of Stoke's manufacturing heritage along with steel, coal and pottery - all of which have also succumbed.
However, I also remember the swift organisation of the AEEU and T&G unions in putting into place job shops and interview sessions for those threatened with losing their jobs.

As I understood it, the union secured good severance terms for redundant workers and fewer than 50 staff left the company to no job at the end of the shake-up.
Similarly, I've seen successful negotiations by trade unions in getting companies to offer training and competitive wage packages, as well as fighting for compensation for workers who have been wronged either by their employer or by the systems through which companies are rescued or collapse when in trouble.
It doesn't always go that way, however. Michelin's French management has always been far more social-minded than many other companies, and you only have to look at the examples of Royal Doulton, Indesit and the Caudwell Group of relations which have been much more strained.
Caudwell refused to recognise trade unions in his mobile phones business, famously saying trade unions promoted mediocrity in the workplace.
During the period from late 2000 onwards, Royal Doulton's management spoke to but never appeared to work hand-in-hand with the trade unions as they wrestled to restructure the bloated pottery giant into a size and form which could be profitable again. The unions often complained of being in the dark about the plans and were even forced to threaten to - and back down from - a strike in protest of the closure of the factory in Nile Street.
There was a similar, possibly even more remote relationship between the management and trade unions at Indesit - formerly known as Creda - where my Dad used to work. The first front page story I wrote at The Sentinel followed the decision by unions to vote for a strike over pay and conditions at the factory, and one of the last was the final closure of the factory in late 2007. In between those times, I remember the endless disputes and negotiations of the union to improve conditions as it became ever clearer that the days of manufacturing on the factory were numbered.
With the chaos that the credit crunch and subsequent banking crisis has wrought on everyone, there has been much finger-pointing of top executives who have cashed enormous bonuses despite wreckless risk-taking behaviour or even taking bonuses amid significant losses.

Among the most vocal have been trade unionists and left-wing thinkers who oppose golden parachutes and bonuses in the face of failure.
Yet, on that argument, how can a trade union leader continue to collect ever-bigger wages in the face of shrinking membership.
Take the accounts of the Unity trade union for 2003 and today.
In 2003, there were 10,063 members. Now there are 5,871, and that's despite a name-change and a change of emphasis from pottery-focused union to a more community-minded organisation.
As the membership has dwindled, the fighting fund has also diminished, andeven forced to take a £980,000 amid a severe devaluation of some of its assets.
What's not diminished is the pay of the president Geoff Bagnall. Accounting changes mean it is not possibly to do a straight comparison between 2003 and the latest reported accounts, where Mr Bagnall picked up a total pay and benefits package of £71,000.

However, his salary is £41,598, up 20 per cent on the £35,835 - or equivalent to a three per cent pay rise every year despite falling membership.
That's not to take away from Mr Bagnall's efforts to restructure the historic union. His management team recognised the decline and decided to change the name, and pursued efforts to gain new membership in distribution centres and other growth areas of employment.
People I've spoken to say he is a proven and skilled negotiator who deserves every penny of the package he earns for representing the membership.
But then, there will be those who were made redundant from Wedgwood, Royal Doulton or one of the many pottery companies which have shed jobs who have expressed anger at the impotence of the union.
What do you think?