In promoting the London 2012 Olympic Games (the ‘Games’) Lord Coe, Tessa Jowell and Ken Livingstone have widely courted the general public, local East London communities and the British trade union movement with commitments regarding the social and environmental legacies that will be delivered by the Games.

For example Tessa Jowell and Ken Livingstone made the following statements at the 2005 TUC Congress:  

“We have drawn up an initial statement of principles about the things we want built into all the contracts, not just environmental sustainability but recognition of trades unions, acceptance of a minimum wage and in London … living wage.”  Ken Livingstone

 “… you will see … the principles of employee representation, fair and ethical employment standards, a London living wage and so forth, written into the criteria that will apply in tendering for the Games.”  Tessa Jowell 

The GMB wholeheartedly welcomed these commitments, not least because the Games will operate with a publicly financed, multi-billion pound budget, and the GMB believes it is entirely reasonable for local communities, workers, manufacturers and suppliers to expect to benefit as equally as private, multinational corporations sponsoring the Games. However should the Games experience a cost overrun, as some are already predicting, then the GMB is concerned that the commitments to a lasting legacy, both social and environmental, for the local communities and the workers involved in the Games will be the first victims of any cutbacks. 

That is why the recent released Olympic Delivery Authority’s (ODA) Procurement Policy is a vital tool in ensuring that these commitments are honoured. However our analysis of the details in the ODA Procurement Policy below (All ODA text is in italics) suggests that the commitments to workers from the local communities are being watered down, and in the worst-case scenario, provides the Games organisers with potential ‘breathing space’ should costs become too tight. Excellent Labour Relations7.26.

The ODA will encourage all of its contractors and subcontractors to have adequate provision for employee representation in the work place (through trade union membership or other means), to enable quick and smooth resolution of conflict should it arise. 

Firstly, Livingstone stated that “recognition of trade unions” would be built into contracts but the ODA will only “encourage”, as opposed to require, contractors to have “adequate provision for employee representation”. This could simply be for the purposes of consulting with workers which is distinct from the rights to recognition, organising and bargaining. Fair Employment7.27. … The ODA would like all employees of contractors and subcontractors working on ODA contracts to be on fair employment terms and conditions, such as the good practice guidance promulgated by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (“CIPD”). 

Given all the commitments to date this is concerning because the ODA, as the principal contractor, will not require that all workers are on “fair employment terms and conditions”.  In other words the ODA could contract with a supplier who didn’t have ”fair employment terms and conditions”, something that is clearly not consistent with public commitments, let alone the spirit of the Games.

Secondly the GMB would contend that union agreements already provide “fair employment terms and conditions”, without the need to rely upon guidance from the CIPD, who, to be fair, aren’t in the business of supporting collective bargaining or “trade union recognition”.  London Living Wage7.28. A key objective of the programme is regeneration … The ODA recognises that the London Living Wage can make a significant contribution in this regard. Again the GMB is concerned that the ODA is not requiring that a London Living wage be paid by contractors, especially for services, despite commitments to the contrary. It raises the obvious question that if the “ODA recognises” the benefit of a London Living wage then why is not requiring it of its contractors as a minimum?  Ethical Sourcing/Human Rights7.29.

The ODA wants to work with suppliers which have a good track record in human rights and use goods and materials which have been produced ‘ethically’. This includes seeking suppliers which operate within the laws of their country, who do not have discriminatory practices, and who do not use child or bonded labour. Despite all the evidence that exists regarding the use of child labour and other unethical labour practices in many parts of the world the ODA still can‘t commit that it will only contract with suppliers and contractors who can prove their supply chains are ethical. 

When we also review Lord Coe’s statements to the 2004 TUC Congress, where he said he would, “encourage Trade Union Representation on the new Organising Committee and the development of a framework agreement in line with the experience of the Sydney Olympic Games.”, what we know is that there is no union representation on the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, nor has TUC been approached to commence the development of a framework agreement. Whilst we expect these concerns to be dismissed as semantics, or to be told to ‘wait and see’ what criteria the Procurement Code contains, we still maintain that local communities and workers should not have to wait until commercial contracts are tendered or rely upon a further Procurement Code that is not subject to public consultation. 

Therefore using the experience of Australian trade unions involved in the Sydney 2000 Olympics as a guide, where they took the initiative and approached the Games organisers in a united fashion, we have written to Tessa Jowell to request her support for the establishment of a TUC steering group, which will include all relevant unions, to meet with the ODA and other Olympic agencies over the course of the Games. 

The GMB is initiating this process and making this contribution in order to start a public debate about the Games and the commitments made by organisers, because we believe that the standards established by the ODA and other agencies should be beneficial, binding and unambiguous and that only this will ensure that local communities and workers receive their fair share of the lasting Olympic legacy they deserve. We look forward to a healthy debate.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)