The TGWU and Amicus are next year set to join forces in what will be Britain's biggest union. This blog has already chronicled the lengths Amicus officials are prepared to stretch to stitch up their TGWU colleagues.
But according to The Times this morning, the two sides get on so badly that they cannot even agree what to call the joint venture.
So instead, the two million members are being asked to vote on a name. The shortlist is pretty uninspiring: OneUnion, Union@work or AmicusT&G. As Christine Buckley notes:
'Amicus prefers OneUnion. The T&G put forward Union@work. The third option is one that both can live with, but if it is chosen it will keep alive the Amicus name, which few in the union had been keen on.'
But this is where it gets worrying. Apparently, Amicus shelled out ten grand on hiring a consultant to advise on a new moniker. It then rejected all of the suggestions as inappropriate.
'Two of its list of 200 rejected names were Voice and Accommodate, as it pursued a theme of partnership. Also discarded from the final list were Spectrum and United.'
Accomodate? Accomo-bleeding-date? Well, Amicus always has enjoyed a reputation for being a tad employer-friendly, dating back to its roots in EETPU under the leadership of Frank Chapple. Perhaps it wouldn't have been such a bad choice after all.
TGWU and Amicus readers are invited to tell us how they will be voting on this burning issue in the British labour movement.
Posted at 22:18, 4 December 2006
Comments (21)
Why can't they just call it something trade uniony like Federation of Industrial, Commercial and Allied Workers. They're not a thinktank.
What about Animus (I know it's not original) or Endless Struggle? Or Compromise?
TWDSU, shortenable to T & D?
OneUnion? Are they getting all wobbly on us?
SINECURE - short, and accurate, thats what it means to the head honchos...
Stitchup? Sellout? Workers' International Marxist Solidarity Struggle Group?
Or more usefully, why not "General Workers' Union" - or what about a name with real history, although Canadian rather than the UK, One Big Union?
I think the Industrial Workers' of the World may object to the merged union adopting the name OneUnion one the grounds it's very similar to the IWW slogan of the past 100 years: 'One Big Union'.
Hopefully though it'll bring the IWW some publicity and help people realise that it actually still exists.
How effective is the IWW though?
As a TGWU member, I can't say I'm excited by these choices. I think I'll vote for AmicusT&G on the grounds that it means something in terms of continuity.
How the fuck are amicus as much as I would like them to going to keep the T&G and Tony Woodley out of the new union. The T&G have twice as many members as them. Tony Woodley will be in charge whether they like it or not.
Jimjay,
OK so the IWW are small and ineffective on a national scale but they are a union who won't sell you out, won't do deals with management behind your back and won't give your money to the Labour Party.
In limited local situations they can be very effective, have a look at there new website for the UK branch: www.iww.org.uk
Amicus on the other hand are ineffective at a local and a national level, just look at their inept response to the closure of Ryton car plant.
Jimjay,
OK so the IWW are small and ineffective on a national scale but they are a union who won't sell you out, won't do deals with management behind your back and won't give your money to the Labour Party.
In limited local situations they can be very effective, have a look at there new website for the UK branch: www.iww.org.uk
Amicus on the other hand are ineffective at a local and a national level, just look at their inept response to the closure of Ryton car plant.
Duncan, sure I'm not trying to knock them - and thanks for the link - the site's interesting.
However, I think you're too harsh on AMICUS locally. I don't think you can simply state it's no good on a local level like that without, by implication, essentially knock every single active member of AMICUS.
But more importantly not being sold out in management negotiations sounds impressive until you realise they are not in a position to negotiate with management so don't have the chance.
Unless you're saying they never compromise under any circumstances which I think would be, ugh, problematic.
I'm in UNISON but if I was in a workplace that recognised AMICUS then I'd join it, do what I could and try to link up with others leftists in the union - holding an IWW card as well wouldn't hurt I'm sure, but it's not the key thing. imo
Jimjay, my experiences are a little coloured by my experiences of Amicus locally as they failed to take any effective action to stop Corus shutting our local steel plant.
There's families in my town who worked at that place since 1898 and the efforts of Amicus to save their jobs eventually boiled down to workers' being presented with a wrist watch, DVD and oak plaque.
It's not the active members I want to knock but the way the union is organised, their tactics, aims and overall strategy.
And to be honest the IWW is a little irrelevant, which is why I'm an NUJ member.
Wrong, Adele. Amicus are the second biggest union in the country after Unison and have 1.2 million members. TGWU have just under 780,000.
Not like you to post stroppy comments without doing any research, is it?
No, it isn't I spoke to someone who has been a rep in both unions. What I had heard is that the new union will have 1.2 million members and that 400 000 of those will be from amicus. Surely if what your saying is the case then Tony Woodley would be laughing all the way to a nice secure job as gen sec of the new union. And btw I'm an amicus member so have vested interests!!
Woodley and his people are, actually, serious about the merger. The T&G Broad left unanimously supports it. I know that the Amicus "Unity Gazette" doesn't. But it seems to me that the industrial case foe the merger is overwhelming. and that the serious left can only gain by it.
BTW: the T&G's only condition regarding the name of tghe new union is that it should include the words "worker(s)" and "union".
The industrial case is overwhelming. But it is a bit worrying putting so much hands in the power of 1 general secretary.
I share some of your concerns Adele. The big issue is the question mark hanging over democracy in the new union. Will it be more transparent and accountable, will there be more room for bureaucratic stitch-ups, or will it be the same? Answers are needed.
Well actually the industrial case for amalgamation between the GMB and T&G was stronger than the case for this new union.
But this year's GMB congress voted overwhelmingly against contnuining with negotiaioons, with I think only two regions (including my own southern region) supporting continued negotiations.
the sticking point for the GMb was the beleif that any merger wouold basically on the basis of the undemocratic Amicus rule book.
Peresonally I think we made a mistake, and we should have tried to form a deal with the GMB and T&G, (which have much more synergy) and then presnted Amicus with an offer they couldn't (or even better, could) refuse.
Incidently this was not a left right issue, as such things never are in the GMB (hence the marvellous Morning Star headline froom years ago "Neither left nor right, Just Basnett" (the then general secretary)
(BTW, I was at the Southern regional Council when we voted unanimously to continue with the negotations), and there was a rel deabte.
I am not convinced that the other regions had a debate, the regaionsl secretarys have a lot of power in the GMB and can sway policy for a region