Tomorrow, the UK House of Commons is to vote on an amendment to the employment bill, restoring the right of trade unions to refuse to admit, or to expel, British National Party members (more here). The European Court of Human Rights had upheld the right of ASLEF, the larger of two train drivers’ unions, to expel someone for being a member of the BNP; the House of Lords introduced an amendment which makes this more difficult. The campaign website emphasises the incompatibility of fascism and trade unionism:

• We believe that fascism is incompatible with the ethos of trade unionism. Trade unionism is built upon the concept of solidarity whilst the BNP seek to divide people on grounds of race, colour and religion.
• We believe that trade unions should have the right to exclude members of the BNP and other fascist parties from their membership.
• Unions should not be liable for any financial loss incurred by fascists if they are quite separately disciplined, overlooked for promotion or even sacked by employers after the union itself has taken action, as the Lords’ amendments now state.

I certainly agree with the third of these three points; unions need the ability to protect workers, and even the public, from fascists and racists who have got themselves installed in positions of authority. I do agree that there is incompatibility between trade unionism and fascism; fascism when in power is totalitarian and hostile to free associations of workers, or anyone else; any popular movement that cannot be used for their own ends is to be repressed. There is also a distinct danger of unions being infiltrated, and then used as fronts for fascism. However, I have a few problems with trade unions being allowed to refuse representation to people on the grounds of their political views.

First, the whole point of trade unions is to represent workers and campaign for fair pay and conditions. Surely, all workers are entitled to these things, whatever their political views.

Second, mere membership of the BNP does not make one an active racist or fascist any more than membership of the Labour party makes one an active socialist, or membership of a trade union really makes one a trade unionist (particularly in workplaces where union membership is automatic, unless opted out of), while one can be a fascist, and certainly a racist, without being a formal member of the BNP. After all, there are those who have been deceived into thinking the BNP is not racist, while there are surely plenty of real racists who consider the BNP a bunch of amateurs. This might become more of a problem if the BNP increase in size: the number of people the trade unions might have to exclude will grow, and their claim to be representative will be diminished; it also leaves open the possibility of a secret cell, either at “arms length” from the BNP or other fascist party or separate from it, attempting to infiltrate a union.

The most important reason, however, is the ease with which elements on the left now accuse people of being fascist. In particular, in the present climate, Muslims with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood or similar movements might find themselves threatened with exclusion. It would also give ammunition for witch-hunts of other members deemed to be totalitarian, such as communists.

A better solution might be to allow unions to restrict certain privileges, such as the right to run for office within the union, so that a member found to be involved in incompatible activity could be put on restricted membership. This would make sure that the unions could keep doing what they are supposed to do, reduce the potential for witch-hunts unintended by those promoting the right to exclude fascists, while allowing the unions to resist infiltration.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Why I support banning the EDL’s march
• On Norway
• The cartoon Geert Hitlers couldn’t live with
• Suzanne Moore, Newsnight and the EDL
• Asian pimps, Channel 4 and the BNP