Last week, Barbadians witnessed first-hand the self-negation of the trade union movement. In the midst of a critically defining moment, it became clear that nearly three decades of neo-liberal conditioning had rendered the union movement fangless.
Thus, at a time which called for robust resistance, neo-liberal assumptions about the necessity of private sector leadership, the need for “partnership” and the false assumption of the commonality of interest between labour and capital have trapped the unions in a condition of helplessness.
The blame for this defeat, however, lies not in any objective development of capitalist supremacy, since capitalism is in deep crisis, but in the intellectual weakness of the union leadership.
Whereas “partnership” and compromise were necessary tactical responses in the period of reversal in the 1980s, one error of the Barbadian labour movement has been to make the tactic of compromise a permanent principle. A particular has therefore been transformed into a universal. What folly!
This error is manifested in the tendency by Barbadian labour to be led too much by capital in the definition of its purpose and mission, rather than by workers’ interests. Just see how the Labour Day celebrations have been hijacked by capital, with marches being led and sponsored by key employer groups, and with the tired message of the need for unity between labour and capital becoming the constant refrain from the lips of opportunistic unionists, some metamorphosed as party officials and friends of capital.
The error is also seen in the false identification with one political party as being pro-labour and the other as being pro-private sector. This simplistic reading of political realities perhaps led the union movement to tie its fortunes to a promise of “no lay-offs” from one group and to harbour a suspicion of “privatization” from the other. An ideologically grounded labour movement would have seen both parties as servants of capital, which accommodate themselves to social democracy only when capitalism allows.
Thus, the union’s instinctive response in the midst of an austerity programme has been to express the belief that the Government will always defend the interests of the workers. They therefore appeared naïve in the extreme when they were caught by surprise by the lay-off decision, since deeper analysis would have treated any “no lay-off” promise as mere political gimmickry.
Indeed, the naivety continues, given the ongoing search for a compromise or reversal, in a context where the International Monetary Fund bosses have written a more tragic script, and remained on the scene long enough to hear it read as intended.
The lesson for the unions is that a man cannot serve two masters.
Unless the interests of workers occupy first place above any other loyalties or ideological assumptions, then the union will continue its slide headlong to the dustbin of history, alongside the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, specializing in regional affairs.