Partnership working is a con

We are told that having a partnership agreement enables the union to have a formal presence, increase its membership, and have a degree of influence. If an employer is happy for a union to have a guaranteed, formalised presence at a negotiating table, and happy for all its workers to a join a union, then what could the reason for this be? We don’t need to call in Einstein to work it out.

The whole concept of partnership working is a fraud. It is designed to let people think that they have a say, to make people think we are all in it together. My own experience of partnership working has been in the public sector. It was nothing more than a social club, monthly committee meetings, followed by a huge buffet and chit chat. The organisation decided that the senior union committee members did such a good job for the workers, that they would give them all a pay rise of between £10,000 - £15,000, over and above their substantive post and for the duration of their time in a full time union position.

All the facility time was given to reps that the staff side ‘leaders’ wanted, rather than who requested it. This meant that the union leaders would always win the annual election, as most of the reps had their facility time and other perks tied in to certain individuals winning elections.

Certain individuals saw themselves as part of the board of directors, naively thinking they were part of making decisions, when in actual fact they were ridiculed and laughed at behind their backs. There was actually was ‘partnership’ working that took place. It was the board of directors and the unions working in partnership to try and soften the blow on every bad thing that was handed down to workers.

The union reps behaved like arrogant, pompous, slippery politicians. Never answering the questions of members directly, patronising workers, telling them that they ‘don’t understand’ etc. etc. They also colluded and collaborated with senior management when reps get out of line. However, I am sure that that not everybody’s experience of ‘partnership working’ is as negative as mine

Partnership working is a tick box exercise; it makes employers look good and fair, makes unions look progressive and willing to negotiate. What does it do for the workers though? Absolutely nothing. I remember having a discussion with one of the board of directors about the implementation of something that nobody wanted. He smirked at me, and said, ‘well, your union agreed to it’. Since when has the unions been a handful of committee members, what about the rank and file?

Genuine mutuality is impossible, workers are water, and employers are oil, we cannot mix. Partnership agreements will only ever benefit employers. If they benefited the workers, then there would be no such thing as ‘partnership agreements’. The whole concept of partnership working has done just as much damage to the working class as any anti-union legislation has. It is just more subtle and sophisticated.

Alexander Berkman summed up the alleged shared interests of workers and bosses
"The masters have found a very effective way to paralyse the strength of organised labour. They have persuaded the workers that they have the same interests as the employers . . . and what is good for the employer is also good for his employees . . . If your interests are the same as those of your boss, then why should you fight him? That is what they tell you . . . It is good for the industrial magnates to have their workers believe [this] . . . [as they] will not think of fighting their masters for better conditions, but they will be patient and wait till the employer can 'share his prosperity' with them . . . If you listen to your exploiters and their mouthpieces you will be 'good' and consider only the interests of your masters . . . but no one cares about your interests . . . 'Don't be selfish,' they admonish you, while the boss is getting rich by your being good and unselfish. And they laugh in their sleeves and thank the Lord that you are such an idiot.
"But . . . the interests of capital and labour are not the same. No greater lie was ever invented than the so-called 'identity of interests' . . . It is clear that . . . they are entirely opposite, in fact antagonistic to each other."