clearest examole of Ham mond's strategy in response ROTS -favorable deals with the emplovers to cut out other unions, and secure exclusive membership and negotiating rights.
This solves the short-term membership problems of the EETPU, but from an overai pomt or view nas a devastating impact UnOn membership as a whole. High drop out rates and low levels of union membership now emerging as the common pattern from plants which have hard-hitting Japanese style single union no-strike deals.
For example at the new Nissan plant in the Northeast, where the AEU con cluded a single-union no-strike deal, unionisation is now agreed to be at only ?
Aside from the principle of no-strike themse ves. it is becoming increasingly clear that the no-strike agreements legitimise de facto virtually non-union plants.
The debate in unions over EETPU-style deals has centred on how to million in union memberend of the 70s. Hammond's claim that the single union no-strike deal is the answer is ringing increasingly hollow, from the narrow point of view of maintaining union membership.
It is this aspect that is causing the crisis in the relations between the EETPU leadership and the TUC While the left unions have maintained a principled opposition to no-strike deals as such, even centre unions like the GMB have come out in qualified support of some no-strike deals.
It is not the principles of trade unionism and the detence of workers interests which is forcing the showon Cown octween me cane the Hammond, but the straightforward, corporate conflict of interest between unions and this alliance is harc threat to the other unio! the TUC Outside the TUC EETPU would unrestricted poaching ( members, and would its membership to Street electricians were prevented from leavin EETPU to join SOGA the thes Briding of Outside the would not protect the i PU leadership If Hammond refus