TUC Anti-Racism Task Force evaluation

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,

“Was it a success? Yes. Have we reached the destination? No. Racism is alive and kicking out there. It hasn’t gone away. We know that there’s more to do in the labour market, in the workplace, but also there’s more to do within our unions to tackle racial disparities.”

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:

“It’s 20 years since the first TUC Task Force was set up – the Stephen Lawrence Task Group – and at that time for the TUC it was quite ground-breaking. But I think one of the failing of that group is that there was no implementation review or follow-up; the obligations on unions were not as strong as they are with this Task Force.”

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:

“We should be clear that if our unions are not living up to the values, the objectives and the ambitions that our movement espouses, then they are challenged about that, possibly to the point of saying is this really the place you need to be because actually we expect more or better of our unions.”

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,

“What do we add [to the anti-racism movement]? We add the ability to unite Black and white workers. Nobody else can do that in quite the same way we can. That’s our contribution and we should be more confident about that.”

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:

“It would have been even more powerful if we managed to find a way of having some rank-and-file Black workers who were also able to do more than just speak in the Congress debate. The danger I see is the disconnect between a well-meaning report and seeing real change. The real inspiration would come from seeing future reports to the Congress being delivered by some Black workers who felt their lives had begun to be transformed or their challenges really being taken up by the trade union movement and that to me is the thing that we’ve got to focus on next.”

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:

“It almost feels like the project is over, we’ve got the general secretaries signing up to it, but actually we need to keep that accountability and I’m not 100% sure the accountability has been passed down to the members of the unions to say this is how you hold them accountable. This is what they promised they will do and you as the members we’ve gifted that to you to make sure it happens.” (Union officer)

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:

“I think it would be a mistake to say to the Black workers conference or Race Relations Committee, there you go, we’ve done this, it’s over to you, let us know if there’s a problem. On the other hand, I don’t think you can do it to them either. So I do think the two-way process is key.”

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.

“As a TUC we needed to give more permission, especially to the white leadership of unions to say you are allowed to talk about this, you are allowed to make change and it starts with a conversation with your Black members. You’ve all got Black members. It’s not just to benefit them who are currently voiceless within your union but it’s about everybody helping to create a culture where they aren’t voiceless.”

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:

“If you don’t allocate resources, I think we’ve fallen at the first hurdle because we would be very open to the charge politically of ‘you felt you had to be seen to do something, you’ve done it and now you’re pulling back’. The legal work will cost money … there has to be an ongoing resource and not just money, but staff too and general secretaries prioritising it in their time.”

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:

“It’s less about devoting lots of new resource and more about ensuring the resources you have are working effectively and that the right people are involved in the right meetings.”

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.

Summary

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.

Recommendations for sustainability

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.

TUC leadership and co-ordination of the union movement’s anti-racism work

• Provide strong leadership and an ongoing commitment from the TUC to continue to steer and co-ordinate anti-racism work across the union movement.
• Identify mechanisms for mitigating the risk of anti-racism work returning to an equalities silo, e.g. maintaining general secretary responsibility for oversight of Action Plans and for championing anti-racism within their unions.
• Strengthen links between the ARTF’s Implementation and Oversight Group and the TUC Race Relations Committee and Black Workers Conference and commit to listening to challenging views from those structures.
• Seek to engage the unions who did not participate in the ARTF Main Task Force or Workstreams and identify mechanisms to support them to develop their Action Plans.
  • Look at doing this via equalities officers and/or via Black member or equalities structures and networks.
• Consider how the TUC can support smaller unions which do not have dedicated equalities staff to develop and implement Action Plans.
  • Consider how the resource stretched smaller unions can be assisted to pursue a strategic litigation strategy.

Union accountability for anti-racism Action Plans

• TUC to set up an annual monitoring and accountability mechanism where unions report on their Action Plans – challenges as well as successes – whether through the TUC Equality Audit process or another process requiring critical self-reflection on gaps as well as proposed solutions to problems/obstacles identified.
• TUC to do more to encourage (push) unions to undertake ethnic monitoring of members, lay reps and officers/staff. This will not only provide useful benchmarks across the union movement around change/progress, but would also set a minimum expectation for reporting.
• Allocate time at TUC Annual Congress to an ARTF IOG report at least for the next five years.

Black member/activist engagement and involvement

• Unions to focus a mini project on developing links between unions’ Black structures and networks and ‘mainstream’ structures to get direct input into ARTF Action Plans as they unfold across the union movement and to achieve better integration between structures and their work.
• TUC to provide a framework for oversight and reporting of anti-racism work within individual unions which would place centre stage guidance on engagement with and involvement of Black member structures/networks.

Developing and spreading good practice towards race equality

• Individual unions to be encouraged to set up their own mini-Task Forces to kick start or reinvigorate the anti-racism project, in particular around the collective bargaining agenda. ARTF can be a framework for union mini-Task Forces.
• Strategic litigation: TUC to ensure that a clear set of recommendations to unions are developed and disseminated to union leaders and officers about how to approach race discrimination cases strategically.
  • Implementation and Oversight Group to monitor which unions adopt the recommendations and to identify which might require additional support.
  • The emphasis must be on the strategic purpose of litigation. The TUC recommendations must include guidance on how to collectivise issues brought forward as individual legal cases to mitigate the risk of failing to use cases for strategic purposes.
  • Mechanisms need to be established for monitoring legal casework related to race/racism across unions and sharing that information and the knowledge gleaned vis-à-vis strategic litigation. This could be done via a standing agenda item for a TUC coordinated equality officers forum.
• TUC to develop and disseminate a good practice guide that identifies benchmarks for unions to aim for across the four areas of activity covered by the workstreams – organising, collective bargaining, public policy, unions as employers.
• Review and if necessary, overhaul mainstream TUC training for union reps to highlight the importance of identifying and prioritising race equality in bargaining as well as practical ways that that can be achieved, avoiding reliance on separate equalities training. To achieve this, some ‘train the trainer’ work is likely to be necessary.
• Set the agenda for increasing Black representation among union officers, tutors, staff and lay reps.

Appendix 1: ARTF Terms of Reference

• Oversee a rapid review of progress on race equality across the trade union movement since the previous TUC Stephen Lawrence Task Force, including synthesis of findings from the TUC's Equality Audit, evidence from Black officers and reps (including representatives of the TUC Race Relations Committee) and new evidence from unions. 
• Agree on actions unions will take to increase the representation of Black trade union members at all levels of trade union democratic structures.
• Agree on actions unions and the TUC will take to increase recruitment, retention and progression of Black staff and address ethnicity pay gaps within their organisations. 
• Agree on actions to ensure union organising, education and training combat racism and deliver race equality on a sustained basis.
• Examine the effectiveness of union representation in dealing with race discrimination in the workplace and agree actions on how this can be improved.
• Agree actions on developing and advancing a collective bargaining agenda on race equality
• Oversee a comprehensive programme of research and evidence gathering from Black workers and Black-led organisations, evidencing the scale and impact of institutional and systemic race inequalities across the UK labour market and society more widely.
• Lead a new coalition of unions, employers and civil society organisations pushing for meaningful legislative change to support race equality at work.
• Oversee a comprehensive programme of public-facing communications, leading the public debate on race equality at work and making the case for change
• Report to Congress in 2022, including making recommendations for ongoing work to promote race equality and combat racism within workplaces and across the trade union movement. 

Appendix 2: ARTF Membership

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 

Appendix 3: Implementation and Oversight Group Terms of Reference

• Work with the Race Relations Committee and General Council to implement the recommendations from the ARTF Manifesto and report to Congress
• Use the TUC Equality Audit and other methods to monitor, assess and review the changes implemented by affiliates in response to the Manifesto
• Identify ways in which the TUC and trade unions can support and promote good practices on anti-racism across the trade union movement
• Regularly report to the General Council, Race Relations Committee and Congress on the progress the trade union movement has made in achieving the racial justice actions identified by the ARTF