Trade unions - the vanguard of capitalism?

It is becoming abundantly clear that the trade union movement – and Unite in particular – have a real problem with social enterprise.

First came their indignation over the right to request scheme, shortly followed by two unseemly spats with Acevo over third sector chief executive pay and third sector capability to deliver public services. Now we at HCT Group are being disrupted with strike action over one of the best pay offers made in the transport sector this year.

It would appear that Unite's world view simply fails to grasp what a social enterprise exists to do. In its campaign aiming to justify strike action, we have been accused by the unions of 'getting fat on the backs of our workers' as if we were a 19^th century industrialist with a top hat and a cigar. Who, precisely, is 'getting fat' when our assets are locked for community benefit and surpluses are reinvested into the communities where they are earned?

This language of adversarial labour relations is from a different era and a different business model. As a social enterprise, our business model is based on the needs of a broad range of stakeholders: our staff, but also our service users, our communities and our broader mission. It is also based on an ideal of social justice for all, and not on a narrow philosophy of conflict between the owners of a business and its workforce. A brand of unionism that recognises only one stakeholder – members – is simply missing the point of social enterprise.

We have already seen how damaging one-stakeholder unionism can be when trying to innovate at HCT to meet the needs of our communities.

Unite campaigned against our flexible shift policy that allows staff access to consistent patterns of childcare – a policy that has given women better access to a once male-dominated industry. It campaigned against offering part-time shifts regardless of how that helps refugees enter the labour market and study at the same time to make a better future for themselves. All the union could see was the impact these policies might have on some members' overtime payments – the broader positive social impacts were ignored.

The risks to the social enterprise movement from such blinkered, one-stakeholder unionism are clear and unequivocal. Over the next few years a government of any stripe will most likely embark on the biggest cuts in public spending for a generation. The changes that this will bring to public services are going to be disruptive and dramatic. A trade union movement that campaigns against social enterprise will hinder this sector's attempts to provide the best possible social and progressive alternative to for-profit privatisation.

One-stakeholder unionism is even more disappointing when we reflect on what a force for good trade unionism has been in the history of the UK. As such, imagine what we would achieve together if Unite and the whole union movement can step back from narrow member interests and see the full stakeholder picture?

We believe that it could preserve the interests of its members while working towards a broader stakeholder model of social justice – a model that broadens from just the issues of its members to include and address the challenges facing the long-term unemployed, vulnerable people, marginalised and disadvantaged communities and so on. This would be multi-stakeholder unionism and we would begin to share a common language.

Alternatively, by its abject failure to recognise that social enterprises are different in form, function and purpose to regular companies, the trade union movement will become the vanguard of capitalism in the public sector.