TUC Equality Audit 2022

To ascertain whether a union truly represents the full diversity of its membership, it needs to monitor the composition of both its members and its various representative structures. This means keeping disaggregated statistics for their membership, in their activist ranks in and their democratic structures.

This section of the audit looks at the number of unions that have disaggregated statistics for their membership and among their stewards/workplace reps, learning reps, health and safety reps, branch officials/officers, equality reps in branches/workplaces, delegates to union conference, delegates to TUC Congress and national executive committee.

Not all unions that collect data are able to state confidently how many of each equality strand there are at a given time because the data often comes from a sample of members or activists rather than the entire membership. This is generally either because not all members have furnished the union with the information, or because the information is collected through application processes devised only after a certain date. We would therefore urge caution when using the figures in this section.

Monitoring membership

The first part of the monitoring section looks at the number of unions that keep statistics on the diversity of their membership, and also gives an idea of how much that diversity ranges across different unions. The variation largely reflects the diversity (or lack of) in the sectors and occupations where unions organise, but also on occasion the geographical location of their membership base.

Many unions that collect data on their membership are unable to provide completely accurate statistics. ASLEF, for example, says the only accurate data it can currently provide is on gender and age. However, a new membership database introduced in 2021 has for the first time options for recording members’ sexual orientation, whether they are disabled and improved categories around ethnicity.

Nevertheless, the majority of unions responding to the audit (35 unions – 85 per cent) do collect data on the number of women in their membership. And 83 per cent (34) of unions provided actual percentage figures, among which the proportion of women in their membership ranged from 6 to 94 per cent.

59 per cent of the unions responding to the audit (24) said they collected data on the number of people from a BME background in their membership, with 54 per cent (22 unions) providing figures. Among these unions, the BME population made up between 0.1 and 40 per cent of their membership.

And 56 per cent (23) of those responding said they monitor the number of disabled members, with 18 unions (44 per cent) providing figures. Among the unions that provided data, the proportion of disabled members varied from 0.1 to 13 per cent.

There has been an increase in the proportion of unions monitoring the LGBT+ identity of their members, to 59 per cent (24 unions), with 19 unions (46 per cent) providing actual figures. Among these unions, the proportion of the membership identifying as LGBT+ varied from 0 to 8 per cent.

61 per cent of unions responding to the audit (25 unions) said they kept statistics on the number of young people in their membership. Unions’ cut-off age for ‘young’ ranges between 24 and 40, though some unions use categories such as ‘trainees’. Nineteen unions (46 per cent of audit respondents) provided figures on young membership, and the proportion ranged from 5 to 38 per cent.

Large unions are rather more likely than medium and small unions to disaggregate membership statistics by demographic (see table 1), though just four out of the six large unions monitor by disability and LGBT+ identity.

Change in the last four years

There has been little improvement in the monitoring of membership by gender, ethnicity or age over the past four years, but there has been a marked increase in the proportion of unions that keep statistics on disabled members and LGBT+ identity. The trends in membership monitoring compared with the 2018 audit are shown in chart 6.

Monitoring and representation of activists

There has been little improvement in the monitoring of membership by gender, ethnicity or age over the past four years, but there has been a marked increase in the proportion of unions that keep statistics on disabled members and LGBT+ identity. The trends in membership monitoring compared with the 2018 audit are shown in chart 6.

Unions were asked if they kept statistics of gender, ethnic background, disability, LGBT+ identity and young age of their reps and activists. On the whole, unions are more likely to keep statistics broken down by gender than by any other equality strand.

Table 2 shows the percentage of responding unions that collect different equality data of various workplace and branch roles.

It shows that, for almost all rep roles, only a minority of unions monitor the different equality characteristics. The exception is that a majority keep gender-disaggregated statistics for stewards/workplace reps (61 per cent) and for health and safety reps (51 per cent). Fewer than one in three know the breakdown by strand of branch/workplace equality reps, other than by gender.

Table 3 shows there is a similar low level of disaggregated monitoring of delegates to union’s own conferences and to TUC Congress. While a majority (59 per cent) have gender-based statistics, a minority of unions do so for any other equality strand on these delegations.

Most unions have some strand breakdowns for their national executive members, most commonly those based on gender (71 per cent).

Comparisons across union size

Small unions are less likely to carry out monitoring than large unions. So, for example, whereas 100 per cent of large unions (six) conduct gender monitoring of stewards and workplace reps, only 57 per cent of medium unions (eight) and 52 per cent of small unions (11) do so. This pattern is repeated for each equality strand.

More or less the same picture – where diversity monitoring is more likely the larger the union size band – is seen for learning reps, health and safety reps, equality reps, branch officials and union conference delegations.

However, monitoring of national executive members and TUC Congress delegations doesn’t fall into a completely uniform pattern. For example, medium unions are slightly more likely than large ones to keep figures on the proportion of BME and LGBT+ national executive members. And small unions are more likely than medium ones to have disaggregated figures for their TUC Congress delegations.

Changes in the last four years

There are some changes in the levels of disaggregated monitoring compared with 2018, though it should be remembered that small changes may be down to the pool and number of unions responding to the audit.

Nevertheless, there appears to have been noticeable changes. There have been increases in the proportion of unions monitoring membership at all levels of activism by LGBT+ status and disability. While monitoring by gender appears to be lower than four years ago in a number of cases, ethnicity monitoring is more widespread for some tiers of activist.

There is also more monitoring by all strands of union conference delegations and national executive committees and by all strands except gender for TUC Congress delegations.

Overall the changes in levels of disaggregated monitoring over the last four years appear to be more positive than were noted in the previous four (2014–2018). However, the gaps in the data demonstrate the need for unions to do more to ensure consistent and accurate monitoring of membership and activists.

What do the figures say about activist diversity?

Unions that kept any disaggregated statistics of activists were asked to provide the figures. Where possible, these figures have been compared with each union’s disaggregated overall membership figures to get an indication of whether women, BME, disabled, LGBT+ and young members are represented proportionately among unions’ ranks of grassroots and senior activists.

Gender: The comparative gender-based statistics show that, on the whole, women members are still underrepresented in these roles in most unions. They are represented proportionately (or more than proportionately) among stewards/workplace reps in just six out of 21 unions; among learning reps in seven out of 16 unions; among health and safety reps in three out of 19 unions; among branch officials/officers in three out of 17 unions; and among equality reps in eight out of 14 unions.

Ethnicity: Fewer unions have figures for activists broken down by ethnicity, but the data that is available indicates that BME members are likely to be underrepresented among stewards, health and safety reps and branch officials. However, BME members are at least proportionately represented among equality reps in 12 out of 12 unions with sufficient data and among learning reps in 10 out of 14 unions with data.

This mirrors research done by the University of Exeter for TUC Education in 2019,8  which showed that women were underrepresented in union rep roles and that BME workplace reps are twice as likely than average to be union learning reps.

Disability: In those unions where sufficient data is available, it is apparent that disabled members are generally well reflected in their activist ranks. They are at least proportionately represented among all roles covered in the audit in the majority of unions, including as equality reps in 11 out of 11 of unions with data.

LGBT+: Where there is sufficient data, it is also evident that LGBT+ members are well reflected among activists. They more likely than not to be at least proportionately represented in each of the roles, including in nine of 10 unions that monitor LGBT+ identity in respect of equality reps.

Young: Of the unions that were able to provide sufficient data on the representation of young workers among workplace/ branch activists, virtually none showed young members being proportionately represented at any level. The most likely area was among equality reps, where three unions had young members fully represented.

Action to increase the diversity of activists

Encouraging more women activists

A number of unions have run campaigns or taken action to increase the number of women in their activist ranks.

For example, the single-employer NGSU attended Employer Equality networks to encourage members from those groups to come forward as union reps, while the EIS ran events on union leadership targeting less-experienced members.

Each Unite region ran a Getting Involved course that aimed to get women members (and non-members) active in the union and to get more experienced reps to increase their involvement and to encourage others. The union also ran online workshops across regions/nations for women, BME and LGBT+ members, which led to more joining their regional equality committee.

The NASUWT ran a Women’s Under-representation Roadshow event in all regions, which increased the number of activists in all roles recorded.

In March 2021 the CWU hosted a CWU Equality Month dedicating a full week for each equality strand (women, BAME, disability and LGBT+). In each week, it hosted webinars, news articles, podcasts and workshops on a broad range of equality subjects, including those promoting and encouraging women, BAME members, disabled members and LGBT+ members into leadership roles.

Encouraging more BME activists

Some unions have carried out a range of actions to get more BME members to participate actively in the union.

One is the NEU, which has organised a number of activities including a Black Lives Matter phone-bank campaign, which identified 40 new workplace reps. It has also rolled out Anti Racist Framework training encouraging take-up of rep roles in the workplace and districts.

The NASUWT has worked on increasing the profile of Black members in leadership positions within the union, which has seen an increase in Black members taking up activists roles such as local secretary, treasurer and equality officer. It has also worked with the TUC Anti-Racism Taskforce on increasing the number of Black workplace health and safety reps.

The RCM has appointed a Race Matters Project Midwife, part of whose role is to increase the number of Black activists. The EIS and NAPO have both established Black members’ networks to encourage further participation. The AUE issued a call for expressions of interest for a Black members’ network.

Encouraging more disabled activists

A number of unions have attempted to further foster disabled members’ participation.

UNISON, for example, took advantage of the move to virtual meetings to ramp up its provision of national training for disabled members interested in becoming disabled members officers in their branch. The union says this is often the first step to activism, with many going on to other roles in the branch and indeed on a regional and national level.

• 8 Stevens H and Graham F (2019). Changing Workplaces: the impact of trade union education on workplace representation. University of Exeter

The NASUWT ran a high-profile campaign demonstrating the impact of Long Covid on disabled teachers, which saw greater interest in disabled members becoming active, particularly as caseworkers, using their direct experiences of overcoming barriers to access at work. The union also increased its profile of Mental Health First Aid activists, which has increased the number of disabled members with mental health specialisms within the union.

The EIS established a disabled members’ network, which increases the members’ participation in the union, while Unite has established a Disability Access Fund to help deaf or disabled members to access branch meetings and other union events and to support innovation and good practice in access for disabled people.

Unions that have taken action to increase the number of LGBT+ activists include UNISON, whose national LGBT+ committee has written a guide on engaging branches in LGBT+ recruitment and organising.

The NEU sees its annual LGBT+ conference as an activist recruitment vehicle so it has a conference guide explaining activist roles and taster workshops on the role of the rep. Separately an LGBT+ inclusion survey with 1,000 member responses generated 280 expressions of interest in becoming a workplace rep. The NEU says the proportion of its workplace reps that are LGBT+ increased by a sixth between 2020 and 2021.

The NASUWT’s annual LGBTI conference includes sessions on getting involved and the benefits of being ‘out’ in the union and being positive role models. This has increased interest among LGBTI members in becoming caseworkers to support members experiencing homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in the workplace.

Encouraging more young activists

A number of unions have been working to improve the representation of young members in their activist ranks.

Unite’s East Midlands region held targeted separate events for women, BAEM, disabled, LGBT+ and young members, which increased these groups’ participation in constitutional committees. It led to two new delegates to the Regional Women’s Committee, one BAEM members becoming an active rep and being invited as an observer to the Regional BAEM Committee meetings. Additionally, eight young members were identified and were invited as observers to the Regional Young Members’ Committee meeting.

In Northern Ireland, Unite Hospitality launched a campaign in 2018 to educate young workers about their rights at work and encouraging them to get in touch for support in organising their workplace. Its key demands include zero tolerance for sexual harassment and safe transport home for late-night workers, and it is also involved in various protest movements in Northern Ireland. In terms of activists this has resulted in increases of 50 per cent for women/non-binary activists, 2 per cent for BAEM activists, 10 per cent for disabled activists, 10 per cent for migrant worker activists and 75 per cent for young activists.

Equality officers and reps

Full-time equality officers can play an important role in leading on equality and ensuring it stays on the union’s agenda. Some unions approach this with an officer for overall equality, while others have officers responsible for one or more strands. Some unions have both.

The audit shows that 18 unions (44 per cent) have at least one officer at national level whose sole responsibility is either for overall equality or for a single strand. Five of these also have additional officers with partial responsibility for equality.

A further 15 unions (37 per cent) do not have dedicated equality officers, but have officers at national level for whom equality (either overall or for individual strands) is part of their explicit responsibility.

The most likely type of dedicated equality officer is for overall equality, employed by 17 unions. Five unions employ dedicated equality officers for women, three do so for BME members, three do so for disabled member, three do so for LGBT+ members and four do so for young members. (Some unions have more than one dedicated equality officer).

Some unions are too small to employ dedicated equality officers, while others nominate or elect lay members, such as specific national executive members to take on the role of leading on equality issues.

Some changes since the 2018 audit include the PFA’s development of its equality, diversity and inclusion team to include a dedicated Women’s Football Executive and officer working to develop and support South Asian inclusion in English football. The CWU has also changed its equality structure (see box).

Equality reps at workplace or branch level

Equality reps in the workplace or branch are there to raise awareness of equality-related concerns, help ensure that equality is properly considered as part of all workplace consultation and bargaining activities and support members who feel isolated or face discrimination. These are most frequently responsible for all strands, though some unions have equality reps for specific strands.

Twenty of the unions responding to the audit (49 per cent) have a rule or practice on workplace or branch reps for overall equality, six (15 per cent) have them for women’s equality, eight (20 per cent) have them for BME members, four (10 per cent) for disabled members, five (12 per cent) for LGBT+ members and six (15 per cent) for young members.

The system of local equality reps is much more likely to be found in large unions (83 per cent have equality reps) than in medium (50 per cent) or small ones (38 per cent). The pattern is the same for equality reps for individual strands.

In total, 85 per cent of members of unions who responded were in unions with a rule or practice on overall equality reps.

Since the last audit, UNISON has adopted a rule change that says that all branches should have a women’s officer, who must be a woman.

And a number of unions have made efforts to expand their equality rep ranks. The FDA has run equality rep training and developed a handbook. Napo, which has a role of anti-racism officer, has worked with the employer to secure a day-a-week facility time for each officer to support the work of the employer’s Race Action Programme.

Equality committees and networks

This section examines the presence of both formal lay structures for equality or individual strands and also informal networks.

The main questionnaire asked about these separately. It showed that 18 of the 37 unions completing the main questionnaire (49 per cent) have formal bodies or committees for overall equality, 13 (35 per cent) do for women, 15 (41 per cent) have formal bodies for BME members, 12 (32 per cent) for disabled members, 14 (38 per cent) for LGBT+ members and 14 (38 per cent) for young members.

The proportion of unions with formal bodies for each of the strands has declined since 2018.

One contributor to this fall is changes in the equality structure of the CWU. It replaced its national advisory committees for women, BAME, disability and LGBT+ categories with its new structure for equality, including equality seats on its NEC (with full voting rights) plus regional and branch equality leads (see page 27), which hold regular meetings with spaces for the separate equality strands.

On the other hand, the WGGB has established a formal equality and diversity committee and the UCU has added an equality standing committee for migrant workers, with the same status as its committees for Black, LGBT+, women’s and disabled members.

A big change in this area in recent years has been the growth of informal networks and groups in unions, either for overall equality or for particular groups of members. In some cases, these groups and networks arise spontaneously from members and in others they are initiated by officers or other structures of the union.

Looking at the unions completing the main questionnaire, it is evident that there has been a further growth in their popularity since 2018. Apart from informal networks for overall equality and for women, which have declined, the proportion of unions with such groups for the other strands has increased. This is especially true in relation to informal groups for BME members, which now exist in 54 per cent of unions compared with 37 per cent in 2018.

Indeed, the most common type of group is for BME members, which exist in 20 of the 37 unions completing the main questionnaire (54 per cent). Sixteen of those unions (43 per cent) have groups for disabled members and the same number for LGBT+ members. Fifteen (41 per cent) have groups for women members, 11 (30 per cent) have them for young members and six (16 per cent) have them for overall equality.

In addition, among the four unions completing the abbreviated version of the questionnaire, two have informal overall equality groups while one does so for each of the single strand groups.

Overall, 30 of the 41 unions responding to the audit (including those using the abbreviated questionnaire) (73 per cent) have at least one informal equality group or network.

Other informal groups linked to equality include the NUJ’s 60+ council, which now has its own newsletter, while Equity has a network focused on social class that intersects with the union’s other committees and networks. It also has a network for Gypsy, Romani and Traveller members and one for members who are non-UK nationals. NSEAD has an anti-racist education action group and an anti-disablist special interest group steering its work.

There has been considerable development in this area since the last audit. For example, the GMB established national networks of regional women, Black, disabled and LGBT+ activists in 2020, and in 2021 BFAWU established informal networks for women and Black members. In early 2022, it launched a young members’ network.

The NAHT has developed three networks since 2020, starting with its Leaders for Race Equality network, which began in response to the Black Lives Matter campaign. The development of this network led to the request from members to form the LGBT+ network, which started in January 2021 and “grew exponentially within a few months”, according to the union. The NAHT now also has a network for disabled members, the first meeting of which was scheduled for early 2022.

While Napo’s networks for women and Black members have been around for a long time, more recently it has set up networks for LGBT+ and disabled members and has relaunched one called Napo – The Next Generation.

However, launching networks is not always straightforward, some unions have found, and interest can wax and wane. The AUE has called for expressions of interest each year but not had a big take up, so building the networks is still in progress. And the SoR recently split its single equality network into individual workstreams. However, no member interest was received for the young or women’s groups, which are consequently on hold, although a ‘students’ network is still in operation.

Informal networks are not necessarily replacements for formal committees, and to some extent they perform slightly different roles. Equity, for example, encourages informal networks of members allied to formal committees and the POA is setting up networks in parallel with its four equality committees “to engage with ordinary members as well”. On the other hand, ASLEF’s disabled members’ committee did not have formal status when it was established in 2020 but since then has become part of the union’s rulebook. And in the UCU, an informal network for disabled members was established by the chair of the Disabled Members’ Standing Committee during the pandemic to foster discussion of the challenges linked to pandemic health and safety.

21 of the 37 unions completing the main questionnaire (57 per cent) have both formal and informal equality groups of one type or another. The group comprises five large unions, nine medium unions and seven small unions.

Equality conferences and seminars

Unions were asked if they held regular national conferences or seminars either for overall equality or for specific strands of members. Eight unions (20 per cent) hold national conferences or seminars for overall equality, while 10 (24 per cent) hold them for women, 13 (32 per cent) for BME members, 10 (24 per cent) for disabled members, 12 (29 per cent) for LGBT+ members and eight (20 per cent) for young members.

There has been a fall in the proportion of unions holding national conferences for overall equality, women and disabled and young members since 2018, when there had already been a decline in conferences over the previous four years (see chart 8). However, the proportion of unions holding national conferences or seminars for BME members has increased, and the number holding LGBT+ events stayed at the same level.

Holding national conferences of this sort has almost become the preserve of large unions. All of the six large unions hold them for BME and LGBT+ members and five do so for both disabled and young members, though only four do so for women and two for overall equality.

Nevertheless small numbers of other unions do still hold national equality events. Conferences for overall equality, women and LGBT+ members are each held by four medium unions (29 per cent) and two (10 per cent) small unions. Four medium unions and three small unions hold them for BME members.

The CWU’s rules in this area have changed since the last audit such that its equality strand conferences were replaced with a full day of equality business every two years at its general conference and, in the intervening year, a national two-day equality event with breakout sessions for separate equality strands groups.

Nautilus has widened its Equality and Diversity Forum (EDF) since the last audit to give more strands than previously the opportunity to have their own ‘safe space’ meeting alongside the main EDF. Previously this was available only to the women’s and youth groups.

The GMB has established annual national summits for women, Black members, LGBT+ members and disabled members in the last four years. Unite has held a national online equality reps conference in 2021

And the UCU has established an annual conference for migrant members, on the same footing as the existing ones for Black, disabled, LGBT+ and women members.

Of the 37 unions completing the main questionnaire, 16 (43 per cent) hold conferences or seminars on overall equality at regional level.9

A small number of unions held regional events for individual equality strands: 27 per cent of unions held conferences for women; 32 per cent for BME members; 27 per cent for disabled members; 32 per cent for LGBT+ members; and 19 per cent for young members.

These figures are higher than they were in 2018, except for women and young members, suggesting that some unions may be switching from national to regional gatherings of this sort.

TUC Congress monitoring

At the 2021 TUC Congress (held online due to Covid-19), equality monitoring of delegates was carried out. Any comparisons are to 2019 as the 2020 TUC Congress did not have delegates due to the pandemic.

All 468 delegates completed the monitoring form, though delegates were able to select ‘no answer’ or ‘prefer not to say’ for questions. The TUC has seen an increase in the number of delegates completing monitoring forms since moving to an online form as part of the registration process.

TUC data showed that 52 per cent of delegates were women, compared to 43 per cent in 2019. 57.6 per cent of delegate speakers were women, which is the highest for any Congress. However, given that Congress was online, and there were fewer speakers than usual, it is difficult to make comparisons to previous years.

In 2021, 12.6 per cent of delegates identified as BME compared to 10 per cent in 2019, which was a dip from 12.4 per cent in 2018 and 15 per cent in 2017.

19 per cent of delegates identified as disabled, up from 16 per cent in 2019, and 10 per cent of delegates identified as LGB, again an increase from 7.9 per cent in 2019. 0.5 per cent of delegates identified as having a different gender identity to that assigned at birth. This was down from 1.9 per cent in 2019.

The proportion of delegates under 35 was effectively unchanged (7.5 per cent in comparison to 7.4 per cent in 2019).

Reserved seats

Some unions have rules on reserving or guaranteeing seats on elected union structures and delegations to ensure a certain level of representation for groups that have traditionally been underrepresented.

All unions responding to the survey were asked about reserved seats on national executives, conference delegations and TUC Congress delegations (see chart 9).

• 9 This question was not asked of those completing the abbreviated questionnaire.

The large unions are more likely than medium and small unions to have reserved seats on these bodies and delegations, especially with regard to TUC Congress delegations, where there is a TUC rule in place to foster this.

There have been substantial developments in the area of reserved seats on unions’ national executive bodies since the last audit. Currently, 34 per cent of unions have reserved seats for BME members on their executive bodies, 29 per cent of unions have them for women, 27 per cent for disabled members, 22 per cent for young members and 20 per cent for LGBT+ members.

These figures are all higher than four years ago, especially for disabled, LGBT+ and young members (see chart 10).

Some of the key developments in this area since the last audit included rule changes in the GMB, which has brought in reserved seats for all five strands on its CEC, while the CWU now has guaranteed seats for women, BAME, disability and LGBT+ lay members on its National Executive Committee (NEC).

PCS, which previously had reserved seats for Black members on its NEC, has now added them for young, disabled and LGBT+ members. And the UCU, which already had them for Black, women, LGBT+ and disabled members, has added reserved seats for migrant members.

The CSP, which has a Council rather than a National Executive, has introduced two reserved seats for Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic members, as they were not previously represented on the Council.

While not directly an equality strand, the AEP has brought in reserved seats for trainee and newly qualified members in the last four years.

There have also been some developments in terms of reserved seats on other bodies and delegations.

In 2020 the MU introduced a reserved seat structure on all of its industrial committees to improve representation. It held events with the EDI member networks to encourage more diverse members to stand for nomination, explain the role of a committee member and discuss standing for committees and the election process.

A UCU rule change means its five equality standing committees now have the right to send two voting delegates (as opposed to observers) to UCU Congress, while the EIS now reserves two places for LGBT and BAME activists for its delegation to the Scottish Trade Union Congress. And Unite has introduced rules giving places at its Policy Conference to representatives from the national women’s, BAME, LGBT+ and disabled members committees and additionally ensuring that the delegations from its regional committees to the conference include women and LGBT+, disabled and young members.