I feel it’s important to report on the GMB’s debate on climate change due to its image as an opponent of net-zero and clean energy.
Current Congress policy is recorded in the GMB’s policy book and the key differences between GMB policy and the more radical campaigners is that it wants to see the new jobs before the old systems are turned off, their goal is 2050, they support nuclear power and retaining gas as a source of consumer energy. Importantly the GMB wants to see the energy companies renationalised. The union still has policy supporting fracking and to issue more drilling licences in the North Sea.
The motions debated were M293 and 294 available in the final agenda document, also here, and the debate is recorded on the video stream. I congratulate Val Brooks moving M295 for her speech. Both motions call for the development of campaigning coalitions and for member education. They are both steps away from the hard luddism of some elements of the GMB. There may be room for hope because the big problem with the GMB policy is that given a choice between jobs & members and net-zero, GMB’s leaders choose jobs. They show little understanding that “Just Transition” is two words.
For procedural reasons, I only have the CEC comment/qualification on M294, they say,
The CEC is seeking to refer this motion to explore further working with our worker-led Workers Power the Future campaign and Climate Jobs UK, which is a coalition of trade unions representing tens of thousands of energy workers, campaigning for a jobs-first clean energy transition that delivers high-paid, high-skilled work here in the UK.
The CEC does not agree with the motion’s assertion that GMB has “failed to identify and articulate broader long-term interests of workers and how jobs can be sustainable” given our longstanding work with the above two initiatives which has been precisely to empower our members to have their say over the nature and type of work that they do and play a role in determining the future of their industry.
It remains GMB’s belief that our belief that there are paths for all the GMB-organised industries to play their part in meeting the net-zero emissions target. It must be recognised however that some industries will always be difficult to decarbonise, and while every effort should be made to achieve carbon reductions within individual industries, it is the overall balance across the UK that counts. Any decarbonisation plans should also be subject to full and genuine consultation with the workers who are most affected by industrial change.
I have never heard of the two campaigns and agree with the motion that the GMB has failed to identify and articulate broader long-term interests of workers and how jobs can be sustainable. Given the choice between renewables and legacy energy systems, GMB chooses the latter, the phrase, “it is the overall balance across the UK that counts”, is basically code for agreeing to keep dirty energy systems running. The good news is that this is being questioned by members and delegates
It’s a difficult problem for the GMB, I hope it finds a way to do the right thing by the rest of the country.