Before the concept of workers' control of industry can be discussed seriously, it is necessary to discuss the undemocratic character of the Trade Unions. Although the Trade Unions are more democratic than any other form of organization in capitalist society, they are nevertheless far from the situation where the working class have democratic control over them. Therefore before we can visualize the working class taking the giant step forward of [illegible] the economy and taking control of industry, surely they must remove the obstacles—within their own organisations—that stand in their way.
This can best be illustrated by examining a very important experience the working class went through last year. Barbara Castle presented a White Paper, In Place of Strife, to the House of Commons, a document which contained such far-reaching anti-Trade Union legislation that had it been put on the statute books it would have gone a long way towards taking away the only democratic right workers have—the right to strike.
How did the leadership of the Trades Union Congress react? Instead of calling on the organised might of the Trade Union movement to struggle against the offensive of this so-called Labour Government, and placing themselves at its head, the TUC leadership organised a special congress at which they agreed in essence with the Government that "unofficial" strikes must be curbed. The only difference being that they should do the job of disciplining the rank and file instead of the Government.
This was the main issue on which the TUC leadership moved to defuse the growing opposition among the working class against the Wilson Government's policies. In practice this meant that at every turn workers found themselves not only in conflict with employers, management, and the Government's income policy, but also with their own Trade Union leadership. This has happened with the miners, steel workers, women car workers, etc. We must remember that in these struggles we have not been witnessing battles that called for a change of ownership and control of industry, but struggles that were in defence of living standards that have been won over a number of years. So how much more of a brake would these "leaders" be on a struggle to fundamentally change society?
While capitalist commentators on the radio and television, and in the papers, decry the mass upsurge of working class militancy in the past year, and talk depressingly about the state of the economy, we socialists should welcome and support the willingness and ability of workers to struggle in defence of their working standards. We should also see the possibilities of a development which promises, as the struggle unfolds, the working class going over to offensive actions in which "workers control" demands will be utilised.
Before we go into the question of workers' control in the Trade Unions in more depth, and illustrate the intimate connection between workers' democracy in the Trade Unions and the struggle for workers' control of society at large, it will help us in our purpose if we trace the causes behind the new upsurge in working class militancy.
The first point that must be made is that the increase in the number of strikes in Britain is an extension of a process that has been happening right across Western Europe. In France we saw millions of workers involved in a massive general strike which posed the question of the transfer of class power. In Italy we witnessed millions of workers paralysing the country. And West Germany has experienced widespread strikes by militant workers.
The strikes in Britain have been in defence of working conditions and living standards that have been threatened by the offensive of the Labour Government. This Wilson Government, backed by Big Business, has been pushing policies of rationalisation which have led to mergers and closures, giving rise to unemployment. The economic review from the National Institute states that through 1970 unemployment will leap by 10,000 a month and rise to 730,000.
Wilson pushes productivity deals leading to greater exploitation of the individual worker, deals which are used by employers to lower the working people's living standards. Instead of the workers gaining more control of production, productivity deals have led to declining control of existing working conditions. There has [illegible] the Sunday Times September 10th stated "the productivity per man year has leapt from an average of about 2.5% in the early 1960s to nearly 4% since [illegible].
Therefore, in order that Wilson's policies of rationalisation and productivity deals, incomes policy, and unemployment be combated effectively, it is necessary to bring in the great power of the Trade Unions in such a way as to make use of their tremendous assets:— the power workers have because of their position in the economy; the history and tradition of struggle the workers' movement is based upon; the millions of workers in Trade Unions along with millions of unorganised workers that can be set into [illegible].
For the Trade Unions to struggle effectively against Government policies they can no longer rely on defensive actions. For example to meet the threat of rationalisation and consequent unemployment workers must extend control over their work environment. This will not be brought about without mass action. Therefore, instead of the Trades Union Congress using its machinery for the curbing of "unofficial" strikes, they should be encouraging any sign of a tendency in which workers' frustrations break out and take the form of struggle.
However, the truth is that there is a big conflict between large sections of the Trade Union leadership and the interests and hopes of the rank and file. There is a big task ahead for the mass of workers to democratise the Trade Unions.
Barbara Castle tried to impose legal ballots for strikes. This was aimed at workers' power on the shop floor, against shop stewards' ability to bargain with the bosses by threatening to withdraw their labour.
The TUC has now introduced similar ideas in a circular to its 135 affiliated Unions: here are a few examples:
1) Unions are asked to "state clearly the procedure to be followed and which bodies have the authority to call or approve or terminate a strike".
2) "State clearly the method of election or appointment of shop stewards and the body within the Union to whom the steward is responsible."
3) "Ballots should be held where a strike is contemplated or during the course of a strike, the decision to hold such ballots being entirely at the discretion of the appropriate body of the Union."
The measures are clearly meant to move in to curb the power of the steward on the floor. The intent is to bring the shop steward under the control of the higher leaderships of the Unions.
A good example of this intention was the action of the NUR leadership when it instructed its Committee representatives to go into work regardless of whether the rank and file workers on the tubes responded to the January 1st strike call.
The Guardian stated: "In short the TUC statement is a curious mixture of attempts to marry the Government's earlier determination to curb small groups of unrepresentative wildcats and insistence of left-wingers that the rank and file should have a bigger say in Union policy-making."
In that shop stewards directly represent the wishes of the rank [illegible] against any encroachment on their in[dependence] [illegible].
However, from the struggle outlined above, it is clear that there is a difference between the real interests of the rank and file (and their representatives) and those of the majority of full-time Union officials. Thus, if in the coming struggles against productivity deals, rationalisations, mergers, unemployment, the Trade Unions are really to defend their members, they must be democratised. To do this it is necessary to bring the leadership under the direct control of the rank and file by carrying out the following measures:
Election of all full-time officials, for a given period and subject to recall.
The elected representatives earn a wage no higher than the highest-paid worker in the Union.
Abolition of the block vote, within a Union.
No bans or proscriptions against any party or political tendency.
At the same time we must struggle to commit the Unions to an alternative socialist policy to the Government's. A policy of:
Workers' control of production.
Control over hiring and firing.
For the nationalisation of the basic industries, banking and finance.
To plan the economy in the interests of the working people.
Pat Braine (P.O.E.U.)