Could a union-run co-operative subvert workfare to solve unemployment? | Beastrabban\’s weblog

Unemployed Union pic

Robert Owen [proposed] in the early 1830s to set up a Grand Consolidated Trade Union which would include all the working people in every trade.

The Grand National Consolidated Trade Union was intended to supersede the existing situation where the workers were divided into separate trade unions according to their different trades and industries. At the same time, the new, umbrella union would be organised into different divisions for the workers in specific branches of industry.

The ultimate aim was for the workers themselves to take over production, which they would then market themselves through special shops, according to the cost of manufacturing the article. Instead of conventional currency, special labour notes, representing labour value, would be exchanged for these products.

To support unemployed workers, the trade unions would also invest in land, which would be worked by unemployed workers, and co-operatives, which would also provide the unemployed with work, producing needed goods that would be purchased by the other members of the Union.

The G.N.C.’s supporters made it very clear in their debates with other radicals, who wanted the political reform of the franchise and the House of Commons, that after the G.N.C. took power parliament would be made totally redundant.

It’s a hopelessly utopian dream. Unfortunately the need for legislation and a democratic parliament isn’t removed by the almost complete socialisation of the land and industry, as the former USSR shows.

The various shops set up to sell goods according to the labour theory of value collapsed because they didn’t take into account demand for the goods. Nevertheless, the system has been revived on a small scale by communities running various local currency schemes, in which vouchers are exchanged for so many hours of work, and these have had some success. As these schemes are locally based, they have stimulated the revival of local, small businesses.

Despite this, I do like these ideas. And I do wonder now long workfare would last, if a trade union set up a genuine workers’ co-operative on the Owenite model, and then applied to join the government’s wretched scheme as a ‘workfare provider’. All workers receiving some form of reward for their labour beyond their jobseekers allowance, with the workshop aiming to buy out other factories, or at least, some of the other ‘workfare providers’.

Somehow, I can imagine that going down at all well with the Tories. They’d be utterly aghast, and try to find all kinds of reasons not to take it on. I sort of wish someone would try, if only to see the ‘welfare to work’ industry turned on its head to support unemployed workers, not the overpaid heads of outsourcing companies and big businesses like Sainsbury’s, Tescos, or various charities like the Salvation Army, who are just seeking to exploit an easy supply of cheap labour.

Source: Solving Unemployment through Trade Union-Run Cooperatives | Beastrabban\’s Weblog

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


8 thoughts on “Could a union-run co-operative subvert workfare to solve unemployment? | Beastrabban\’s weblog

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Have another read of the article. Our current government would not be an issue.

  1. Jane Owens

    A thoughtful and contemplative article. Universal social policies are gradually coming to the fore and humanitarian voices are being heard above the gleeful cackling and the rubbing of hands of Tory pocket-liners. We really must keep going.

  2. Terry Davies

    the russian consolidated union principle didnt work for a very simple reason.
    this particular observation is an oversight when all governments and dictatorships cease to exist.
    when changes occur ALL people in key positions should be removed and this should mean their performances, contacts, and business interests of their family and cronies should be investigated. Any corrupt practices if proven should result in cancellation of pension rights.
    if these or comparable measures were taken in Russia following the November resolution russia would have succeeded in changing their social and political attitudes.

  3. mohandeer

    I’m up for it, I think it is a brilliant idea. However, it is not going to be allowed to be instituted. That is not to say that all people should not be able to join a Union of workers, whether employed or unemployed and pay their Union dues as and when work allows them to do this. They would of course be entitled to workers rights and to choose if they wish to support a political party, just like any other union.

  4. Malcolm MacINTYRE-READ

    I remember a radio discussion from my early work days days (mid-70’s) praising the simplicity and effectiveness of the German “collective” union system, meaning that each sector, i.e. rail, steel, journalists, airplanes, etc., had but one union to work on behalf of all the workers related to a sector.

    It was on an anniversary of the establishment of that system after WW2, much of the concept and background work being done by leaders of British unions. Some of those who participated in that creation and this programme were still union big noises.

    At the end of the programme they were asked “if it has proved to be such a successful system in Germany, where production and work stability are notably better then in Britain (at that time), why can’t it be introduced here in place of such a spread of competing unions across all sectors, especially in view of your experience in setting it up?”

    There was a marked silence before one of them answered “Oh no. Not here. We are different.” End of programme. Familiar?

Comments are closed.