This week's TUC Congress will be dominated by discussion on the future of public services and the trade union response. Understandably there will be much anger and worry about the implications of the public expenditure cuts and in particular the resultant job loses, and adverse changes to employment terms and conditions including pensions. For many public services trade unionists there will be a feeling that the "moral contract" between public sector employers and their employees is being broken. There are real signs that the Government's "social contract" with the people is being torn up as living standards fall and services are cut.
However, whist trade unions will always focus on their members and their entitlements and needs it is essential that this week's and subsequent campaigns focus on the entitlements and needs of service users, communities and citizens. The trade union campaign will be stronger and more effective if it does come across as pure self-interest.
The UK and in particular England's public services are facing some of the most severe cuts for eighty years. Demand for services is not abating. Public expectations are unlikely to diminish. Inevitably there will be much change across public services. It would be a major mistake for trade unions to simply adopt kneejerk opposition to all change - and indeed the record shows that trade unions have continuously proposed and contributed to change. They must ensure that this fact is better known and that they do not find themselves always portrayed as "conservatives" wishing to conserve out dated service models and practices. Trade unions can be progressive change agents but this will require bold leadership and a willingness to act in ways that instinctively may seem unnatural for the unions and their members.
Trade union leaders and members understand the need to avoid actions which will be counterproductive and those which will alienate the wider public. They must not be diverted from this position by their anger, passion and frustration.
It is also important to target campaigning. Government is responsible for the macro-policy agenda and therefore, for example, it is right to argue with a local authority about how it is implementing cuts and policy but not to blame it for national government policy. Campaigns need to be bespoke and based on evidence.
If I were advising the TUC this week I would be proposing that they should be building coalitions with others who share their opposition to public service cuts including the voluntary and community sector, faith groups and consumer organisations. They must be ready and willing to cede some leadership of the opposition campaign to the cuts to the others whilst putting their financial and organisational resources at the disposal of wider campaigns.
There should be allies in the private sector too. Public expenditure cuts will mean less public purchasing of supplies and services; redundancy with less spending in the retail sector; and poorer services which benefit businesses. The wider economic impact in some local economies will be very significant in some places and there could be opportunities for local co-ordinated campaigns.
It is important to argue against imposed changes to terms and conditions and imposed pension changes on the basis the consequences for service outcomes. There is much evidence to demonstrate the relationship between the motivation of well rewarded staff and productivity and outcomes. It is right and proper for trade unions to robustly oppose these changes especially when and if they have been imposed and not negotiated. It is also right and necessary to highlight the societal inequalities such as the pensions of low paid public service employees and those of FTSE chief executives. It is right to explain the social and economic consequences of these inequalities. It is also right to argue for better pensions for private sector employees rather than for poorer pensions for low paid public employees.
Similarly when opposing the Government's deregulation of public sector employment including those regulations relating to the outsourcing trade unions should argue from the perspective of the impact on service outcomes and their users.
Specific cuts and proposals for cuts to services need to be analysed in order to inform the counter-argument. Trade union resources can be applied to this so that campaigns are based on more than rhetoric.
However, ultimately opposition alone will be insufficient. I believe that the trade unions and their allies should be arguing for an alternative economic policy but one that recognises the need to address the public deficit whilst supporting economic growth and promoting fairness. Simplistic deficit denial will weaken any opposition to the current Government's policies. There has to be a coherent argument for an alternative economic strategy based on growth, investment in the private and public sectors, public service productivity and efficiency, and fair taxation timed to protect not damage the economy.
An alternative economic policy in itself will not be enough. Trade unions must embrace wider change in their own practices and the delivery of public services.
There is evidence that the public sector management in its rush to find cuts is failing adequately to engage staff and trade unions in key budget and operational decisions. Many agencies are not acting strategically and denying trade unions and staff the opportunity to contribute. This has the challenged and trade unions must press for effective engagement whilst ensuring that they and their members are equipped to participate with ideas and proposals.
Public services are continuously changing and many would have needed to change radically even without the expenditure cuts. It is essential that trade unions are developing and promoting change at the macro and micro level. There have been good examples of employee and union proposals for service redesign which have led to improved outcomes and lower costs.
In some cases trade unions may be willing to have discussions and negotiations on terms and conditions as one option to addressing financial and service pressures but any attempt to impose such changes is understandably going to lead to strong opposition. However, service re-design and change does not have to be about cutting terms it can be about new processes; productivity increases; new ways of working and behaviours; and empowering staff. Better to reduce costs this way than to sack staff and/or pay.
Trade unions have traditionally argued strongly against the transfer of public services management to the private sector and often against a greater role for third sector organisations. Given that all sections of the public sector will be looking to outsource and partner with the private and third sectors the trade union movement has to consider how it can ensure that its members are fully engaged in commissioning and procurement decisions - and how it can have the capacity and skills to shape these processes; how it can monitor contract performance; and how it can organise in these sectors and demonstrate its relevance to employees and employers alike. This may be a challenge given the political stance of most unions but a "Canute" like approach will not add value for trade union members.
There is increasing interest across the public sector in the development of social enterprises, employee led co-operative and other models of service delivery. Trade unions have to be able to offer their members advice and to protect their interests when these options are being considered; and if they are adopted in the longer term too. The concept and promotion of employee ownership and co-operatives has a long tradition in the Labour movement so this may be time for trade unions to consider how they might themselves establish or support the establishment of co-operatives. They should consider how they and their members can collectivise employment in services such as adult social care where there is a real threat of fragmentation with sole traders and very small agencies.
This week's TUC congress is rightly going to want to send a strong message to the Government. It will wish to show leadership and to demonstrate that it is on the side of its members. It must also send a very strong signal that it is on the side of public service users, communities and citizens. Its campaign needs to be a combination of the intellectual and the emotional; and self-interest and altruism. Above all it should be clear that it wants to work with others for the common good and that it is ready to show and share leadership to save and improve public services.