Only Served To Underline

Ellie Mae O'Hagan writes:

I went to the biggest event on the trade union calendar, the Durham Miners' Gala, last weekend [I met her, and she was very impressive]. Notably absent among the brass bands, ale and working-class politics were the columnists furnishing us with their opinions on unions just a week earlier.

These commentators were also lacking during last year's GMB, PCS and Unite conferences (and I should know – I went to all three), where general union policy is decided. I am also informed that not a single pundit has requested an invitation to any union's forthcoming regional, national or area activist committee.

I've always been mystified by the media's willingness to publish commentary on the labour movement by people who have barely been to so much as a branch meeting. When I've queried this troubling practice to journalist friends, they often lament that it can't be helped because union structures are just "too complicated" to try to get to grips with.

That's interesting, because I've never seen a Financial Times reporter write a shoddy article about the markets and then justify it by saying, "it's not my fault, it's the FTSE 100 – it's just too hard!". We don't see articles on morning sickness by Will Hutton; Liz Jones doesn't get commissioned to talk about EU trade agreements, so why is it acceptable for columnists to opine about trade unions when they don't show the slightest interest in understanding them?

Now that Len McCluskey (full disclosure – I work for Unite) has given an interview to Patrick Wintour in the Guardian, I am sure these writers will once again leap towards giving us the benefit of their latest thoughts on the matter. I can summarise every article right here: "Of course we all like unions in principle, but isn't it uncouth when they actually try to do something?"

See, I'm not writing this because I want to talk about the Falkirk row. Enough has been said about that and I am sure you, dear reader, have formed your own opinion already. But I do want to talk about how said row has brought up certain hostilities towards trade unions in the public sphere, which are by no means restricted to the right wing.

Anyone who has any involvement with trade unions knows that their lifeblood is the millions of members and activists that keep the movement going, but all we ever hear about in the press, and from many politicians, are the "bosses" and "barons" at the top (and I must say it is highly amusing to hear Tories, whose party contains actual barons, using that word pejoratively).

The purpose of these words is not just to imply that union leaders are controlling; it's to make what little power unions do have (and believe me, it's a lot less than David Cameron suggests) seem illegitimate. "Bosses" and "barons" are both words that suggest unaccountable autocratic power, not democratically elected leaders. The phrase "union bosses" conjures up images of mafioso bruisers: self-made men who have come to power through nefarious means and can't be trusted.

In a way, the Falkirk row became so prominent because it fitted a narrative the press already likes to push when it comes to trade unions: they're full of dodgy geezers. When trade unions are being quiet, there's room for a ceasefire between them and the media, but as soon as they try to exert influence, the old clichés of dinosaurs, bosses and barons swiftly reassert themselves. Aren't these union bosses lacking in decorum? It's all very well that they want more rights, but shouldn't they leave grown-up politics to the PPE graduates?

At the end of the day, trade unions aren't interesting to the media because working-class politics aren't interesting to the media – largely because so few people in the media are actually working class. The lack of interest, bordering on contempt, towards unions simply reflects the wider marginalisation of working-class issues in the public sphere.

Of course, you'll find commentators and politicians agreeing that there should be legislative changes to protect working-class people (ie, that working-class people should be dependent on the goodwill of the elite), but you can forget any support for the working class as soon as it starts standing up and demanding rights; as soon as it refuses to be totally deferential to a professional class that thinks it knows best.

Whatever the ins and outs of the Falkirk row, it started with Unite's belief that there were not enough working-class people in public life. How funny that the fallout has only served to underline how unwelcome those people actually are.