This section considers whether it seems likely that there will be a continuation of the progress made in the two-year period of the Anti-racism Task Force (ARTF) and how that will be achieved. All the general secretaries and union officers who participated in ARTF were acutely aware that the intention was for the anti-racism work kick-started to endure beyond the end of the two-year period. As one general secretary put it,
The ARTF Chair made it clear at the end of the first year (December 2021) that sustaining the momentum of the Task Force would be a challenge but one that it was vital for the unions to confront so that ARTF would not end up being merely a two-year programme but one that would go on to be at the core of the union movement’s work. Here, reference was made to the Stephen Lawrence Task Group. While all agreed that it had been a landmark moment for the union movement, it was also widely felt that the legacy had not endured as far as concrete agendas and actions went partly because there had been insufficient sustained action within individual unions overall:
Some Task Force participants as well as other equality officers felt that not enough was required of unions by the TUC. One general secretary likened the TUC to a club, observing that clubs tend to have rules that members are required (not just asked) to abide by:
This would send a very clear signal to unions that signing up to the ARTF Manifesto was more than a rhetorical commitment but one that requires action; that the ARTF was not simply a ‘talking shop’ as one Black officer said and which was a sentiment echoed by Black activists. Thus, the challenge is for the TUC to expect and demand more of its affiliates vis-à-vis anti-racism work. This is something that Black activists very clearly expect and demand. On the other hand, as pointed out by several Task Force participants, the TUC is not a regulatory body, it is not an enforcer of a set of standards, rather it is a membership body pulling the work of the union movement together and attempting some co-ordination or at a minimum a common sense of purpose. The ARTF Manifesto essentially seeks to establish this common sense of purpose as regards anti-racism.
However, the reality is that getting affiliated unions to sign up to undertake certain pieces of work or change policies etc. is always going to be a challenge requiring continual effort by way of advocacy, exhortation, and relationship management at various layers of leadership across the unions. As the union movement co-ordinating body, this task lies with the TUC. Many Task Force participants argued that unions needed to be regularly reporting on their Anti-racism Action Plans to the TUC General Council meetings as a means of pinning down unions’ declarations of commitment. One union officer said that there might have to be an element of ‘naming and shaming’ to push some unions into ‘backing words with action’ and others talked about the need to prevent any future accountability mechanism from slipping into an opportunity for ‘grandstanding’ on the part of unions or for ‘showcasing’ and ‘window dressing’ with examples of good work but without critical analysis about gaps and voids and how to address them.
It was felt that unless the challenges are confronted and at least partially surmounted with concrete actions, general secretaries and other people in unions interested in the anti-racism project would ‘move on to other things’ or ‘walk away’, and ARTF’s legacy would similarly (as per Stephen Lawrence Task Group) not endure in any practical way in the longer term. This, it was felt would leave a gap as far as Black workers, the labour market and workplaces go. Speaking to the need for ongoing anti-racism work on the part of the union movement, one general secretary said,
Thus, while it was widely recognised that there are now various groups beyond the union movement – formal and informal – working in the anti-racism space, the specific focus on work, workplaces and working lives is the unique contribution of the unions to that space. It is important that this message is repeatedly communicated to affiliated unions, hence race needs to be on the agenda of the highest TUC/union structures. The ARTF lays down the gauntlet for those structures.
It is evident from ARTF documents that a significant concern for the TUC and ARTF leadership from the outset had been how to sustain the momentum of the Task Force in the longer term beyond the two-year programme of work so that it does not turn into “another report that gathers dust on the shelf” as expressed by several Task Force participants including general secretaries. The general secretaries expressed their ongoing personal commitment to making sure the work started by the ARTF continues and builds. Some were very clear that while the TUC might steer and co-ordinate the effort moving forward, it was the individual unions’ responsibility to progress the agenda by way of developing and implementing Action Plans so that the whole becomes the sum of its parts. In short, it was widely thought that it was time to switch the attention away from what the TUC is doing within the Task Force and turn the focus onto individual unions pressing them to develop their own Action Plans.
On the other hand, some general secretaries and union officers identified an ongoing need for support from the TUC as a co-ordinating body for this work. Support might be in the form of training toolkits but also individualised advice for equality officers and others with the equalities portfolio on campaigns, mentoring schemes, etc. Some Task Force participants also thought that the TUC should continue to play a role in maintaining the public profile of the union movement’s work on challenging racism through press releases, briefings, social media, etc.
The Implementation and Oversight Group (IOG) also needs to play a critical role in the accountability process; one union officer said that it needs to be ‘obsessive’ about pushing implementation of actions and monitoring them for outcomes thereafter. Some Task Force participants called for the IOG to report to TUC General Council every six months with that report being fed into the TUC Race Relations Committee as well. It was noted several times by Task Force participants that the Stephen Lawrence Task Group had not established a similar mechanism for oversight apart from the reporting of individual unions via the biennial TUC Equality Audit. While many Task Force participants saw the TUC Equality Audits as useful, over the years the exercise that become one whereby unions showcase achievements rather than subject themselves to critical self-examination. Many participants believed that this lesson had been learnt, but the challenge would be to design and implement an accountability process avoiding the ‘showcasing’ pitfall.
Maintaining the pressure on and involvement of senior union leaders was also widely seen as vital to sustain the pressure on unions to deliver action, to allocate resources to anti-racism work and fulfil the promises of their Action Plans. Some general secretaries stated that if that pressure was there (coming from the TUC as a co-ordinating body), then no matter how busy they were they would keep on top of it. For unions led by older white men (the majority!), it was considered important that (Black) members see that their leader buys into the anti-racism agenda in a meaningful way, but part of the role needs to be one of supporting and enabling bottom-up initiatives rather than merely top-down. That support needs to be more than just rhetorical but backed with financial and staffing resources.
The importance of the ongoing commitment and involvement of senior leadership notwithstanding, the concern raised earlier about links to the grassroots is also apposite here as developing better links would be one essential mechanism for spreading the material value of ARTF for members as well as sustaining the momentum. The following from a general secretary who was highly appreciative of ARTF, but who expressed healthy scepticism around the prospects for lasting change:
For some, ensuring that unions are held accountable was important, but unions should see it in terms of accountable to the membership not merely to the TUC in a bureaucratic exercise:
Many Task Force participants as well as Black activists felt strongly that anti-racism work post-ARTF should not be handed over or back to Black structures entirely; the whole union movement must take responsibility. One general secretary remarked:
To this extent, the fact that general secretaries (mostly white) had declared themselves allies, standing with Black workers in the anti-racism space was deemed a significant step forward by many, but still the hard work was seen to be around changing ingrained cultures and practices.
One significant challenge identified by the Main Task Force Committee was how to engage affiliates (unions) to act with a need to set out the central tasks and pledges that the Task Force wanted to be taken forward. These tasks and pledges were set out in the ARTF Action Plan. General secretaries were acutely aware of the need to sustain the momentum via Action Plans and acknowledged that one mechanism for doing that would be to ensure channels of communication between Black structures/networks, general equalities structures and executive committees not least to facilitate decisions around resource allocation for anti-racism work and ensure an accountability mechanism. This point was fed back to the Task Force from discussions held at the TUC Black Workers Conference.
The question of links to members/activists was also raised by Task Force participants as well as at the TUC Black Workers Conference in respect of how the Implementation and Oversight Group (IOG) planned to ensure that Black members/activists on the ground got to feel the benefits of the ARTF, how could the sense of ownership of the agenda spread through the union movement? TUC leadership was acutely aware that discussing something within ruling bodies (whether TUC General Council or union Executive Committees) does not necessarily mean that it is happening on the ground or indeed that it is what is needed on the ground. As one general secretary observed, it is important for unions to win the confidence of Black workers and members “at a time when actually, it seems increasingly that Black workers are not seeing unions as the place for them. We’ve got to make sure our unions are relevant”.
Task Force participants were clear that long-term sustainability will also involve accountability and monitoring mechanisms against Action Plans and unions will need to sign up to subjecting themselves to real scrutiny rather than just enter a ‘window dressing’ competition to show which union is doing the most and the best. One general secretary stated that the questions asked in any monitoring exercise would need to be sufficiently incisive to avoid it merely being an opportunity for unions to showcase their best examples of anti-racism work but to take a more critical approach, which it was said would be ‘revolutionary’ and would ‘unlock a real assessment of how we’re doing’.
One area requiring scrutiny mentioned by some participants was strategic litigation (a recommendation from the Collective Bargaining Workstream) which will require close monitoring to determine whether an increase in race/racism cases being supported by unions occurs and what the wider outcomes are as regards taking issues forward into the bargaining agenda/arena.
Long-term sustainability will also involve permanent allocation of resources to anti-racism work within individual unions as well as the TUC. This is of course problematic during an era of resource constraints but seemingly ever-increasing demands, as one general secretary highlighted:
On the other hand, several Task Force participants were of the view that it was thinking and framing (of issues) that needed to change so that race equality dimensions would surface in all areas of union activity, as one general secretary observed:
Others also spoke about needing to ensure that racism was put at the heart of all union work around campaigning, industrial policy and so on, moving away from framing it as a separate piece of work to be carried out in a separate space. However, there is no evading the risk that a ‘mainstreaming’ approach usually results in neglect of race dimensions, particularly in the absence of concrete mechanisms for mitigating that risk. One example given in relation to the above comment was one union now having its equality officer attend all bargaining meetings or having a representative from a Black member structure attend organising meetings. This involves a willingness to change routines and practices as a practical step towards mainstreaming, which can be easily achieved with senior level backing. On the other hand, one Task Force participant (a Black officer) made the point that she had the feeling that unless she was in the room race/racism did not get addressed. She would be asked to speak to race issues even if she felt that that was not why she was there. While this points to a need for white trade unionists to engage more with equalities, it also highlights the need to improve Black representation in all areas and at all levels of union activity not least so that Black activists feel supported.
It was clear from the general secretaries’ and other union officers’ accounts of the anti-racism work currently going on that unions are in very different places, some having several initiatives that span the areas of activity reflected in the four ARTF Workstreams, while others have fewer and perhaps addressing just one or two areas. One of the core aims of ARTF was to stimulate greater attention to anti-racism across the union movement and that will likely remain a challenge over the next five years in a resource constrained environment. However, as several Task Force participants commented, there are always choices for organisations to make around how to use the resources they do have and what they prioritise.
A lesson from the TUC Stephen Lawrence Task Group is firmly in the minds of Task Force participants, that is, it is very easy for the TUC (and the union movement) to mount a time limited campaign, but sustaining that work is much, much harder. There are many factors that can potentially weaken the prospects of sustaining the momentum of ARTF including changes in key actors (especially general secretaries); the relative lack of Black union leaders and officers; external contingencies diverting financial and staff resources elsewhere. The Implementation and Oversight Group needs to confront these challenges and develop strategies for mitigating the associated risks.
The following recommendations are developed from the insights and perspectives of different groups of Task Force participants including general secretaries, union officers/staff, and Black members/activists. The recommendations are forward looking and seek to build on the hope and optimism that all participants expressed, but particularly Black leaders, officers and activists.
Chair of the ARTF
Dr Patrick Roach, General Secretary, NASUWT
Patron
Dr Neville Lawrence OBE
Membership
Gloria Mills, chair, TUC Race Relations Committee, UNISON
Roger McKenzie, assistant general secretary, UNISON (Year 1)
Steve Turner, assistant general secretary, Unite
Rehana Azam, national secretary, GMB
Mary Bousted, general secretary, NEU
Paddy Lillis, general secretary, Usdaw
Dave Ward, general secretary, CWU
Mark Serwotka, general secretary, PCS
Mike Clancy, general secretary, Prospect
Ian Lawrence, general secretary, Napo
Debbie Weekes-Bernard, deputy mayor, London Assembly
Gary Younge, journalist (Year 1)
Halima Begum, director, Runnymede Trust (Year 1)
Yvette Williams, Justice4Grenfell
Zubaida Haque, Independent SAGE, (Year 1)
Davena Rankin, TUC Race Relations Committee (Year 1)
Michelle Codrington-Rogers, TUC Race Relations Committee
Susan Matthews; TUC Race Relations Committee (Year 1)
Frances O’Grady, general secretary,
TUC Paul Nowak, deputy general secretary, TUC
Workstreams membership
Collective bargaining
Chair: Steve Turner, Unite
Mike Clancy, Prospect
Christine Danniell, TUC Race Relations Committee
Gloria Mills, TUC Race Relations Committee
Michelle Codrington-Rogers, TUC Race Relations Committee
Zita Holbourne, TUC Race Relations Committee
Yvette Williams, Justice4Grenfell
Organising
Chair: Dave Ward, CWU
Paddy Lillis, Usdaw
Ruth Cross, Usdaw (Year 2)
Cecile Wright, University of Nottingham
Glen Hart, TUC Race Relations Committee (Year 1)
Taranjit Chana, TUC Race Relations Committee
Shavana Taj, Wales TUC
Public policy
Chair: Rehana Azam, GMB (Year 1), Ian Lawrence, Napo (Year 2)
Jennifer Moses, NASUWT
Ian Lawrence, Napo
Anthony Bastiani, TUC Race Relations Committee
Ali Moosa, TUC Race Relations Committee
Debbie Weekes-Bernard, London Assembly
Unions as employers
Chair: Mary Bousted, NEU
Karen Chouhan, NEU (Year 2)
Mark Serwotka, PCS
Natalie Arnett, NAHT
Carol Sewell, TUC Race Relations Committee
Maureen Loxley, TUC Race Relations Committee
Michelle Codrington-Rogers, TUC Race Relations Committee
Jenny Dixon, TUC
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox
To access the admin area, you will need to setup two-factor authentication (TFA).