TUC Anti-Racism Task Force evaluation

This section first summarises the main work delivered under the Anti-racism Task Force (ARTF) and then assesses the extent to which the ARTF achieved its objectives and resulted in positive short- and long-term effects. The ARTF objectives are captured in the Terms of Reference (Appendix 1). The intention is not to present an assessment of each of these, but rather to represent from the perspective of the various groups of participants, their overall sense of the effectiveness and impact of ARTF as regards creating a framework for the union movement’s anti-racism work and renewing the commitment to anti-racism.

Main work delivered by two-year Task Force

The main work delivered by ARTF is set out in a report Building an anti-racist trade union movement.11  By summer 2022, the ARTF had launched an impressive range of resources/outputs (research reports, surveys, guides, toolkits) related to the themes of the four Workstreams and was pushing forward with dissemination and adoption of these within unions through different activities and initiatives including training events, focus groups, roundtables, videos.12  A Black Talent Programme had also been developed and piloted in the South West region with the aim of developing a new generation of black activists and leaders across the union movement.13

Combined the resources produced deliver on the promise to create the foundations for renewing the union movement’s work on anti-racism and race equality but as discussed later, it is widely acknowledged that those resources will not in themselves be enough to ensure sustained and consistent work across unions. This is where the role of the Implementation and Oversight Group is likely to prove critical (discussed in the next section).

Perspectives on overall effectiveness and impact

In her inaugural ARTF Main Task Force address, the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, stated that the aims of the Task Force were to make a difference and to get some ‘quick wins’. Participants in the evaluation exercise were asked to reflect on this statement and offer a view as to whether they thought these goals had been achieved. Few participants expected quick wins because they knew that developing initiatives takes time and seeing their effects even longer, therefore they were reluctant to judge the ARTF against quick wins, rather whether it seemed to have made a difference and had the potential for lasting impact. One quick win that participants did highlight was the visibility that ARTF had brought to racial justice and race equality within the union movement as well as conveying the important message that these are issues for everyone not just Black workers. Task Force participants spoke about how the existence of the Task Force had created the conditions for an extra impetus and in some cases extra resources, for work that some unions had already started on anti-racism or had been doing for many years.

As to whether overall ARTF was overall a success, one viewpoint (largely from general secretaries and union officers) was that the Task Force had shifted the discourse around anti-racism work in the union movement not least because senior union leaders had stepped up and shown a willingness to devote time and effort, therefore leading by example on the anti-racism agenda. This had been one of the reasons for getting senior leadership involvement in the first place and it seems to have landed well. One Black union officer explicitly stated that even though they had their criticisms of the detail of ARTF, they felt extremely proud of the TUC for establishing the Task Force, personally proud to be involved and felt that it had been a success, a standpoint widely shared.

General secretaries had found the Task Force inspiring and thought-provoking because the conversation on racism had been opened up more widely and ideas shared among different unions:

“I really got a buzz from it when we were exchanging views be it at the workstream level or in the Main Task Force, definitely. I think it re-established the profile of the race issue at a very timely moment. The test now is to what extent are we prepared to push on and build on these recommendations.”

Some Task Force participants commented that it is not very often that union general secretaries gather to talk specifically about racism, but not just to talk, they also had to collectively identify how the movement should tackle it, therefore for most ARTF had to be a step in the right direction. Some Task Force participants spoke about former times when they had seen any talk of race or racism at various mainstream union meetings dismissed as ‘not relevant here’, ‘not the place’ for equalities issues, etc., or where it had been knocked off the agenda supposedly due to lack of time and other more pressing items.

Most Task Force participants believed that ARTF symbolised a new way of working on race/racism that has the potential to achieve significant change across the union movement. One significant marker was that even though anti-racism was being talked about in the separate Task Force space (rather than mainstreamed), it was general secretaries who were leading it, thus making it clear that the problem of racism was not one merely for Black structures to tackle as a separate project but one that union leaders had to take up too.

The fear that some equality officers expressed was that now that the two-year Task Force has ended, and the implementation phase has started, that the work would be handed back to equality officers and structures which risks restarting the historical cycle of siloing (race) equality. The Implementation and Oversight Group needs to be cognisant of this risk and needs to identify mechanisms for mitigating it.

Reflecting the possibility of a shift in the significance of race for unions, the ARTF report to TUC Congress in October 2022 had been a key moment for some Task Force participants when they sensed a far greater interest from the audience in listening and hearing about workplace racism, and debating about the union movement’s role in anti-racism than many had witnessed previously:

“I’d describe the debate as electric actually. People were transfixed by it and many people came up afterwards and said great. I don’t think I’ve seen a debate of that type for many, many years.” 

“My perception has been that when issues around race at work or the perspectives of Black workers, for example motions from the TUC Black Workers Conference, have been debated in Congress, I wouldn’t say that the hall has emptied but you almost get the impression that for some this is somebody else’s debate and that didn’t feel the case time round. It felt as if there was a momentum; it felt as if there was a groundswell of support. The hall remained full.”

For many Task Force participants, this perception of a ‘groundswell of support’ gave cause for optimism that a shift in level of commitment to tackling racism had occurred and that what was started under the auspices of ARTF will continue and grow. There were examples of instances where racism had been discussed at unions’ executive committee meetings for the first time in recent or living memory for some. In other cases, the Task Force was being used to build ongoing work on anti-racism with the Main Task Force Chair and Workstream Chairs attending and addressing meetings in different unions to assist in that process of building the campaign.

While most general secretaries and other union officers could point to recent and current anti-racism initiatives within their own unions, they believed that ARTF played an important role in bringing all those disparate initiatives into view across unions to create an opportunity to co-create awareness and eventually benchmarks of good practice that potentially all unions could adopt. The latter was not entirely achieved by the end of the two-year period across the four areas of activity covered by the workstreams, but it was felt that it would be possible for this to be picked up and pursued by the Implementation and Oversight Group. 

Some participants felt that ARTF produced some peer pressure among (participating) unions to act and to be seen to be acting on anti-racism even though there was some concern that a renewed commitment might be read by Black members/activists as purely rhetorical and performative. Running through the interviews and focus groups was the idea that Black activists were pleased to see ARTF up and running, but were saying, “we’ve been researched to death; we don’t want to be told what we already know”. Union officers in touch with Black members/activists reported that they had met some anger and scepticism and had to work hard to convince them that ARTF was a genuine attempt to stimulate progress on race equality and not just another short-term campaign or research project that was ‘of the moment’, but that would soon be forgotten about. One officer reported that the sentiment of Black activists she spoke to in a focus group were:

“We’re not fodder for the union movement to make them feel better about themselves so they can yet again prove they’re still relevant when we know they’re not [for us].”

This officer said that she went on to explain to the group that ‘we do want to listen to you’, but the conversation revealed the fragility of Black worker loyalty to the union movement in the face of experiences of exclusion and marginalisation or just simple neglect.

Union engagement

The question of whether the Task Force’s participating unions as well as those in the wider union movement had taken up the challenge laid down by ARTF to develop their anti-racism work was widely discussed in the evaluation exercise. A common viewpoint was that those unions that had not participated in the Task Force had engaged very little with its work even though there were regular reports to the TUC General Council. While some put this down to lack of interest, others thought it was more to do with resource constraints and specifically the time constraints of General Council meetings. In contrast, most, if not all of the ARTF participating unions had begun to engage with at least some elements (i.e. some Workstream themes). However, this still leaves the question of how to expand engagement with the renewed anti-racism agenda beyond those unions that participated in the Task Force.

Some Task Force participants and other equality officers argued that the unions that responded most robustly to the demands of ARTF by way of kick-starting action or (re)establishing additional initiatives in their own unions were the ones with the most active Black networks and structures and where report-backs to those groups on the emerging work and conversations had been integral to the union’s participation in ARTF. This speaks to the broader question of how Black structures and networks articulate with a broader, inclusive anti-racism project ‘owned’ by the whole union, rather than by its Black members, and where the objective is for Black members to have influence on mainstream thinking, that is, on executive committees and annual conferences. Some Task Force participants as well as Black activists felt that it was an achievement that ARTF had started or reignited that conversation.

The ARTF participants who were in dialogue with Black member structures in their unions detected a lot of positivity around ARTF, but some impatience in the context of the perception that action had been limited and progress on race equality extremely slow over many years. Equally some of the Main Task Force and Workstream Committee members were also frustrated with the length of time that was spent during the short life of ARTF on research and data collection when people in their unions were hungry for action. One Task Force participant said:

“The frustration I had at the very beginning was this idea that we needed to do more research. We’ve got enough flipping research. But on the other hand, we did need to open the spaces for the conversations so that communities could come into those spaces and understand why we’re doing it. Even at the Black Workers Conference, loads of people were saying ‘we’ve done all this before, we’ve been here, and nothing happened and yet we’re asking the same questions again.’ It almost felt like people were saying again, but this is the last time.”

Other participants stated that there was a lack of clarity in the first months of the Task Force about what it was unions were being asked to do. On the other hand, the same participants understood that evidence is ammunition when it comes to advocating for and justifying actions and achieving outcomes or gaining traction with employers in bargaining. Therefore, whether ARTF struck the right balance in the two-year period was a moot point, but certainly moving forward into the next five-year period the common expectation is that the work will shift into an action phase by individual unions who should now be clearer about what is expected of them (following publication of the Manifesto). Participants agreed in the main that unions need to be asked some very direct questions which they are compelled to answer, for example, “what do the ARTF recommendations mean in your union? How are you going to implement them? When are you going to implement them? What is your 3-5-year plan, what does that look like? What is your budget?”

Effectiveness and impact of Workstreams

Workstream chairs were all aware of the finite time-period of ARTF and were conscious of the need to deliver tangible outputs and actions, which they all did to different extents. As a caveat to the discussion about the effectiveness and impact of the four workstreams, general secretaries, as well as other Task Force participants, acknowledged that it was hardly surprising that there was an unevenness among the four workstreams, as one explained:

“A public policy workstream is all very and good in us defining what we ant to see in terms of the future of public policy but some things are more within our gift than others. So a workstream, for example on trade unions as employers, it’s down to us as to whether we change our policies, procedures, systems to create more inclusive workplaces. So I do think that in one sense the scope for success, relative success, may have been different across the different workstreams from the outset. But I think that each of the workstreams undertook some very compelling work.”

Most Task Force participants agreed that the Workstreams that had had the most impact were Organising and Unions as Employers. This was in terms of tangible outputs that progressed the anti-racism project and the believed gained most traction and engagement by unions. When it came to the Collective Bargaining and Public Policy workstreams, most Task Force participants acknowledged these areas as ‘harder to crack’ but believed that important work had begun.

From the perspective of Task Force participants, the two most significant outcomes from the Organising Workstream were the piloting of leadership training for black activists and the proposal for Black networks for members/activists which some unions had taken up. These initiatives were also well received by Black activists. Task Force participants were of the view that these initiatives would not have occurred without a push from the ARTF and certainly not at a co-ordinated movement level. One union officer stated that previous proposals for a similar Black leadership programme had been knocked back in their union. The empowering potential of those initiatives was seen as huge as well as their potential for bringing greater pressure for current and future action to bear on the unions, but also in terms of supporting the growth of a new generation of Black activists who ultimately will contribute to transforming the unions. A testimony by a pilot Black Talent Programme tutor is provided in the ARTF General Council Report where she summarises feedback from participants as well as the benefits she has witnessed.14

The Black Talent programme managed to recruit participants who had previously either not been active in their unions or if they had, they had met obstacles and felt isolated often because of the absence of other Black activists and in some cases specifically other Black women. In general, participants had not had much union training and certainly not leadership training. The programme has reportedly given participants a better understanding of union processes and structures and how to navigate them. While these comments focus on equipping Black activists with the skills and knowledge needed for union office, Black officers and activists felt that this was only one element of what was needed to work towards plugging the under-representation gap.

Additionally, some Task Force participants felt that the Black Talent programme had developed a new narrative around why there are so few Black leaders, a narrative focused less on the supposed deficits of Black workers/members (e.g. lacking confidence to step up or lacking knowledge of union structures) and more on the structural barriers facing Black (would-be) activists:

“Whilst Black workers may suffer from a lack of confidence, we’ve been able to really blow that narrative apart and show that if there is a lack of confidence it’s probably a lack of confidence that members will vote for a Black person, it’s not a lack of confidence that somehow is inherent to being a Black person.” (Equality officer)

Despite the perceived success of the development programme, there remained concern that unless there is ongoing post-course support (e.g. by way of mentoring or a network), that some participants at least would drop out of activism or fail to get properly started on their personal union journey. The question of how the union movement (whether via the TUC or individual unions) plans to support those who complete the Black Talent programme was raised by several officers and activists. One of the issues around identifying sources of the much needed and desired peer support (e.g. local, regional Black leaders) is the lack of ethnic monitoring within unions, in this case of officers and reps, which makes it difficult to track down people willing to provide that support to emerging Black activists and leaders. Participants in the leadership programme also reportedly wanted some resource and support for maintaining a network of those who had completed the programme in their region which they would see growing over time and acting as a source of ongoing peer support. One Task Force participant observed that unions have a vested interest in the provision of such support because it would reduce the likelihood of losing would-be future Black leaders after having invested in their development.

The Unions as Employers Workstream was also widely seen to have made a significant difference to the conversation and evidence base about Black workers’ experiences as employees of trade unions, which had previously been missing from the union anti-racism conversation. It was described as the Workstream that ‘really grew legs’ with what it achieved around creating spaces where Black workers within the trade union movement could articulate their experiences of working for trade unions. It was seen as important for having created a space for some honesty about unions’ record as employers confronting that racism is not just a problem that is ‘out there’ in the wider labour market, but one that is found inside trade unions too:

“It felt like we were finally able to have that conversation in a way that was open and honest and not defensive. And I did find that it created a space for optimism that things were going to change.”

Referring to a survey of Black union staff carried out by the Workstream, a union officer said,

“It’s the first time in the union movement where Black staff have been given a voice or a platform to talk about their experience of working in a trade union. The [ARTF] Manifesto and Action Plan provide a really strong roadmap for the movement to take on.”

Like the above quotation, some Task Force participants acknowledged that at times the conversation (based on evidence gathered directly from Black union employees) had been uncomfortable and challenging, but nevertheless it was widely accepted that it was time to have that conversation and to develop practical measures to address the issues raised.

Stimulated by ARTF, some unions have closely scrutinised their internal leadership and management structures carefully considering how to achieve greater Black representation. Some report new succession planning policies and development opportunities for Black union officers/staff, which should ensure a pipeline of potential and future Black leaders.  

When it came to the Collective Bargaining Workstream, participants were clear that achieving gains on collective bargaining for race equality and anti-racism would be challenging (note that successive TUC Equality Audits indicate employer reluctance to engage with equality bargaining with an unevenness in receptiveness across sectors and industries 15 ). Nevertheless, the importance of reigniting that struggle was seen as extremely important in the face of the evidence of ongoing labour market race inequalities and discrimination. One Task Force participant said that this is what black workers want and expect, therefore the stakes are high here:

“People wanted collective bargaining to be a major focus in terms of putting race back on the agenda. That's where all the discrimination takes place that in the main when black workers go to work. That's where a lot of the disciplinary action takes place.” (Equality officer)

Some Task Force participants were quite explicit that unions needed to apply more pressure to secure the commitment of at least major employers to the central tenets of ARTF, but also that negotiators needed to do more to incorporate the issues into bargaining agendas. With this in mind, one of the outputs from ARTF was a new digital guide for trade union reps covering collective bargaining issues for Black workers. While this was seen as an important step, some union leaders and officers felt it remained challenging because it relied on local negotiators engaging with the tools provided by the TUC as well as their own unions, which in practice did not always happen particularly in contexts where Black reps and officers are few and far between. This criticism was also voiced by Black activists.

One area where some Task Force participants considered that the Collective Bargaining Workstream had made most progress was around promoting the concept of strategic litigation. Strategic litigation means handling race discrimination cases in such a way that the issues contained in individual cases are collectivised such that a win delivers benefits beyond the individual case. Part of this approach necessarily involves giving Black members improved access to legal support from unions which in practice would mean selectively waiving the normal ‘50% prospect of success’ rule which most, if not all unions work with when deciding whether to provide legal support to individuals for mounting an Employment Tribunal case.

This issue was discussed at an ARTF activity, a Strategic Litigation Roundtable16 , which involved barristers and solicitors providing a view on how unions could use strategic litigation as a tool to approach legal race-related cases. Some Task Force participants spoke about working on this but only one union had thus far introduced a policy change while others are continuing to discuss how such a (potentially costly) change might be resourced particularly by smaller unions. Taking a strategic approach to race cases has great potential to gain traction within the collective bargaining arena as it would represent a significant shift from the current individualised approach which unintentionally helps employers to stay out of the spotlight and avoid reputational damage for structural workplace racism. However, the risk is that the eligibility bar for support for individuals is lowered leading to higher case numbers (at considerable cost to unions), but that those cases are not used in a strategic way to improve collective bargaining outcomes. Mitigating this risk would likely involve new ways of working between union legal departments and collective bargaining structures.

One of the problematics related to collective bargaining highlighted by several participants concerns how best to approach embedding race equality aims in the agenda. On the one hand, if terms and conditions are improved in any given industry through collective bargaining (one example given was banning of zero hours contracts), that outcome represents a benefit for all workers including Black workers who are disproportionately likely to be in jobs with poor terms and conditions. This speaks to the benefits of trade unionism for all workers whatever their race and to some extent plays to the traditional and preferred narrative of trade unions. On the other hand, the evidence gathered by ARTF (and extant research) reveals specific issues affecting and related to Black workers that might be missed in collective bargaining agendas where there is no explicit focus on race and racism. Still, the union movement has not resolved this existential conundrum:

“In a way, we haven’t carved out that story to tell ourselves and how it’s also about trade unionism doing what it does best which in my view is avoiding Black and white workers being pitted against each other and bringing them together in a union, that’s our basic thing, our bread and butter. We’ve failed to claim some of our organising victories as victories in the campaign for equality and tackling racism. We could have told that story better.” (General Secretary)

The other challenge related to making a difference through collective bargaining is the extent to which employers are willing to engage and as TUC Equality Audits over the last two decades reveal, this is at best uneven across sectors and industries and at times overtly hostile.

The Public Policy Workstream was another area where it would almost inevitably be challenging to gain traction with a Conservative government intent on denying institutional racism even within its own structures including the Home Office and its involvement in the Windrush scandal.17  As one general secretary put it, “truth is, under the Tories what are we going to get? Sweet F.A.!” In this context, the Workstream found it difficult to pin down and agree where to focus and to identify where there were opportunities for TUC/union influence. There was criticism from some ARTF participants around the research-oriented focus of this Workstream, “how much of that is changing lives?”

That said, highlighted outcomes of this workstream included the TUC application for core participant status in the Covid-19 public inquiry with the TUC wanting to ensure that the voices of those disproportionately impacted by the pandemic are centred in the work of the inquiry. The TUC also mounted a media campaign around zero-hours contracts calling for stronger regulation, an issue highly relevant for Black workers due to their disproportionate representation in zero-hours work arrangements. As part of its forward-looking work, the Workstream organised an anti-racism network bringing together for two roundtables key actors working in the race policy arena to explore current challenges and to discuss how to build a stronger anti-racism presence in the public policy arena. Senior leaders expect to gain more traction in this arena when/if there is (as expected) a near-future Labour government. The question for the ongoing work that one general secretary posed was, “how do we get ourselves ready to make sure that full advantage is taken? How do we make it happen in the first 100 days [of a Labour government]”. Thus, when it comes to this Workstream, it is still very much work-in-progress but a very necessary stream of work.

Summary

There was a general belief that the ARTF had been a successful and worthwhile programme despite criticisms and some scepticism. It has renewed the focus on anti-racism within the union movement in a co-ordinated effort and defined a shared vision of what the union movement should be seeking to achieve as regards representing Black workers. It has expanded the evidence base on racism in the labour market which provides unions not only with ‘ammunition’ vis-à-vis negotiations with employers, but also helps to make the case internally within the unions themselves for a stronger focus on anti-racism. It is clear that none of the ARTF participants expected a two-year programme to end racism at work, but what they did hope was that it would be the start of both a permanent mindset change and a practical agenda for action:

“I think the manifesto is a really important statement from the Task Force. I think it’s helped to unite members across our movement around the issue of anti-racism to put that front and centre in the consciousness of unions. That in itself is an achievement. Has it ended racism at work? No, it hasn’t. Has it ended racism within our unions? No, it hasn’t.”  (General secretary)

• 11 https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/building-anti-racism-trade-union-movement 
• 12 See resources available on the TUC ARTF website: (https://www.tuc.org.uk/reports?campaign=526074); (https://www.tuc.org.uk/resource/discrimination-and-trade-unions-negotiators-guide).
• 13  https://www.tuc.org.uk/campaigns/black-talent#:~:text=The%20course%20will%20include%20various,power%2C%20leading%20projects%20and%20networking.
• 14  https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-09/ARTFReport2022.pdf 
• 15 One of these was the issue around access to Black workers to legal support from unions which ARTF advocated should be broadened. In practice this would mean selectively waiving the normal ‘50% prospect of success’ rule which most, if not all unions work with, and potentially setting the qualifying bar lower for cases of racism and race discrimination. This was discussed at a Strategic Litigation Roundtable which involved barristers and solicitors providing a view on how unions could use strategic litigation as a tool to approach legal race-related cases. Some participating unions have considered this and introduced a policy change while others are continuing to discuss how such a (potentially costly) change might be resourced particularly by smaller unions.  
• 16 https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/FINAL%20document%20strategic%20litigation%20RS.pdf  
• 17 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/22/new-hostile-environment-policies-immigration-home-office