[page 1]
2p
A
SOCIALIST POLICY for the DEFENCE of TRADE UNIONS
This policy statement was adopted by the Basungstoke Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions et a meeting held on Feday, May 12th 1972
[page 2]
If fret tid KO Sak A PGE “Quote. "IT HAS TAKEN YEARS of painstaking work to build the democracy Gf this union. Central to it is that MPMBERS decide the policies and the executive operates then, "It is better to be held in contempt of the Court than to held in contempt by the men, : "We should NOT order the men back at Parsons, and we should NOT abide by the N.I.R.C. injunction. The policies we are pursuing at Parsons are the policies of our section of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, of the A.U.E.W. itself, and of the T.U.C. "Tl now expect and demand that the T.U.C. be recalled to mobilize support for us.
"In the meantime, we should ignore the injunction, fight on, and all the best elements of the trade union movement support us", MIKE COOLEY (President of the Technics) and Supervisory Section of the A.U.E.W.) speaking against the Act.
Seu taal a | PRINTED and PUBLISHED for the BASINGSTOKE LIAISON COMMITTEE for the DEFENCE of TRADE UNIONS by the INTERNATIONAL MARXIST GROUP (Reading & N. Hants Branch) 50 Basingstoke Road, Reading, Berkshire. ———— ee =— = —— ——————_——
[page 3]
—— ANALYsIS —— BACKGROUND THE END OF THE LAST WAR saw the beginning of a long perei iad of economic “boom in which it was possible for the trade union movement to make considerable seins, both in terms of economic rewards wrested from employers whose primary concern was to keep production running at all costs, and in terms of the development of its organisations. For during the years of "reconstruction" the employers were genuinely in+terested in increasing production. That was the most profitable thing ta do. Then came the beginning.af the end of the boom in the early Sixties, when the world market began to be so "full" of commodities that trade began ta fall off. It became more and more difficult for the employers toa increase or even maintain their profite—-simply by increasing production. For they could no longer rely on being igh sell any extra foods so produced. So. they began to "rationalise", "modernise" and introduce all kinds of "Procuctivity Deale", The idea was no langer to try to increase the production of goods, but to increase profit per man (i.c. the return on capital invested in labour) at the expense of jabs. : At first this was not clear ta many poople wha were confused by Wilson's demagogic chatter about "the white heat of technological revolution", But Gradually unemployment began to rise. (There were ovor half a million registered as unemployed at the end.of the Labour Government's term of office.) by the late Sixties, however, it was clear that even all these measures were failing to preserve the bosses' "profit margins" in the face of increasing competition im the world market, In 1966 we saw the Scamen's Strike - and the first scrious attempt bythe Gavernment (a Labour Government) to impose an incomes policy on a-section of the workin# class. Then in 1969.came the "In place of Strife" proposals - the Labour Government's equivalent to the Tory Industrial Relationa Act of 1971. But the working class succeeded in forcing the Labour Government to retreat on both their anti-union proposals and their attempts at an incomes policy. TORY POLICY WHEN THE TORIES CAME TO POWER again in 1970, they decided on a@ tougher line. -Their aime were (and are) almost the game. as those of the Labour Gavernment before thom: to try to solve the basic problem of the capitalist class (the constantly falling rate of profit) by reducing the "wages bill", But their plans for achieving these aims involve a far more decisive attack on the organised strength | living standards of the working class than Labour was ablo or prepared to mount. The British capitalist class as a whole are desperate to get into the Common Market. In a world of shrinking markets and strong competition, they need tha comparative security of a lariser "home! market and larger (international) unite of production, But they will te the only ones to benefit from entry into the EEC. Higher food prices and the losinj; of jobs due to increased competition forcing firms ta "cut labour costs", would worsen the position of the working class. If the trade unione were still strony these cGffects might lead to a wage revolt and a tremendous increase in militancy; To prevent this the trade unions had first to. be weakoned by the Industrial Relations Act. — “ll But this too posed prablems for the Government and the employers. For in ether countrics where similar measures had been introduced, there had been a massive revolt of the working class against them. (In Australia, for example,
[page 4]
most of the unions aimply refused to-pay the fines imposed by the Government, and when a union leader was arrested over 500,000 struck, demonstrated and aventually forced. the Government to back down, And similar eventa have: occurred in this country toa when governments have.tried to fine, imprison or in other ways attack trade unionists, For, example, in 1950 the Labour Government tried to imprison seven dockers' leaders, There were immediate mass strikes in the docks and hufe demonstrations to the courte, and the Government was forced to back down and release the men it had charged.) So the Tories set about deliberately incrcasing the already high level of unemployment = hoping to eventually reach a point where the unions would be forced into retreat, and so be softened up for the introduction of the Act. (The total number of unemployed: nom stands: at about 14:million. The Government has admitted that there are at least 400,000 unregistered unemployed workers over anc above the official figures of just over 1,000,000 - though it does not publicise this fact very widely!) But although this policy had a momentary success in the first six months of 1971 (when the number of strikes were only half the number for the same period in 1970 = resulting in a fall in the real income of workers of at least 3%), it was net long before a magnificent fight back began. The work-in at UCS, and even more so, the sit-ins at Plessey's, at Mold and at Fisher-Bendix, all showed a new militant way of fighting redundancy. For factory cccupations terrify the employers. ‘They still remember the massive strikes af May 1966 in France where millions of workers a¢cupicd their Len ories, and it looked for By pewAadiag BLAG MHPKOTS] BevSlition was AgeaoigAl sy t an end to capitalism in France,
THE GREAT DLUFF SO NOT ONLY IS THE ENTIRE DRITISH ECONOMY, from the point of view af the employers, in a total mese, but the Tory policies for dealing with it are also not quite working out according to plan. For what is now happening is that the Tories are being forced to bluff their way through. On the docks, for instance, far from having raised the Level of unemployment to the point where they had broken. the militancy of dockers and so could enfarce the Industrial Relations Act, the Government has been forecd to try to use the Act in an attempt to enforce unemployment on the docks! But if the Tory policy is in such’ «2 shambles, and if they are just bluffing their way along, why did the TUC and the rail unions and the T2GWU back down? The answer is simple, It is because the prasant TUC loaders DO NOT WANT TO 4 PUT AN END TO CAPITALISM. Their only perspective is of working within the framework of capitalist property relations - not ending them. fo they dare not seriously challenge "the rule of law ~ even if it is euch an obviously anti-working class law as the Industrial Relations Act - lest by. so doing they should accidentally topple the Government and so precipitate a crisis... for British capitalism like that of French capitalism in May 1968. Yet it is clear that the TUC's alternative policy of passive nen-cooperation - which can be summed up as "Pretend the Act isn't there ane perhaps it will fo away!" - has left the TIC with no dcfence afainst the Court's fines. That -\o. sey that their policy was unable to defend the unions.
Re Te ; beeause their only perspective is one of working within the framework of Capitalist property relations »(expressed inusuah (fais iar political Maivetyl as Victor Feather's "Yes wa want to improve Industrial Relations too, but this is not the way to co it"!), these gentlemen are unable to correct their Gistake and start leading a campaijgm of active opposition to the fct,
[page 5]
inatead, they prattle on about it being "the law of the land" (ignoring the fact that the whole history of trade unionism in this country has been one in which the unions had to establish themselves.despite the "law of the land" in the shape of the Combination Acts, ete), and thon set about "redefining" the word "co-operation", so that unions can co-operate with the Act when they are under attack by it! & policy af active opposition to the Act is, however, just exactly what is needed.. It. means a policy which is not afraid to go outside the law of the land in the best traditions of the days when the early trade unions were faced with the Combination Lawa, the traditiona reprosented by the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It means a policy which is not afraid to go on the offensive, not only against the employer, but also against the State; not only at the economic level of struggle, but also at the political level - against Capitaliam itself. ——___—_____—_ _— proseamme ——W—_—
PREAMBLE THIS. PROGRAMME has been drawn up with the following basic points in mind:- 1) We live under Capitalism. This means that we recognise that our society E is dominated by that class of people who live on the return from investing their wealth (in the form of capital) in the labour of ather (the working class) ~ a society in which production, being carried on for the purpose af making profit and not to supply the wants and meee OF cur society, is determined by the vagaries of the world capitalist market. 2) The self-activity of the working class. The working class has no need of - -- anyone to make administrative “calls ta action” - strike on such and such a day, take this or that action, or, adopt this or that form of struggle. On the contrary it is daily in a atrugiie against the employers, and is constantly inventing new forms of struggle suited to obtaining its ends - the NUM's flying pickets, the sit-ine in Manchester, etc. 3) The need for a political strugzi @. But the spontaneous struggle of the working class is funcamentally an economic struggle = to achieve better terme for the sale of labour, It takes place within the framework of the social order of Capitalism. However, this level of strugcle, is now proving inadequate even for the defence of past Bains, both as regarde waye levels and as regards trade union organisation. What is needed, therefore, is a different level of struggle - to achieve the annihilation of the social order which forces the have-nots to sell themselves to the rich: 4) The needa for Socialism. We believe that all the problems faced by the working class (unemployment, low wages, bad housing, etc., etc.) derive from the cantinued existence of capitalism, and that therefore they can only be resolved throt¢h this atrugglc for an end to Capitalism and the establishment of Socialisn,. 9) The nesd for a Programme for this struggle. If the idea of an end to Capdtalism and the establishment af Socialism is not to appear to be just "pie in the sky'', however, what is necded is a programme for struggle which will drive back, undermine and break up the pawer of the capitalist class in our society; a programme which is both realistic and yet challenges the richt of the capitalist clase to rule our lives; a programme that sets about solving the problems faced by the working class at tha expense of the capitalist class. A programme, in short which preparce the ground for the overthrow of capitalism. ,
[page 6]
a ee ee ee eee * - : t THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of . ra A ur j © ry any Workers! ‘organisation is that , it nust be completely independent ‘ of the Capitalist State, The trade unions are organisations of workers if epen 2nce for workers, or they are not trade unions, The ain of the Industrial Relations.Act is not to swash the trade unions, but to usc the threat of smashing them to force their full-time officials to police the working class, W@ can see this clearly in relation to recent events inside the T&GWU, where the Natichal Industrial Relations Court (N,I.R.G,;) is. demanding that the T&GWU » "purge its conteupt" by "dis-associating itself" fron its own members, the shop stewards leading the blacking campaign in defence cf dockers'! jobs. In other words, instead of the executive committees and officials of the trade unions representing the rank-and-file to. the bosses, they are to represent the bosses to their members, Instead of union rule books bein, framed to suit the needs and wishes of their members, they are to be framed to suit the needs and Wishes of a representative of the capitalist state - the "Registrar of Trade Tniens' , Dut as Mike Cooley (Presidant of the T.A.S.8) put it so well, “IT IS DETTER TO DE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF THE ‘COURT THAN TO BE RELD IN CONTEMPT DY SEE MEN". Therefore, we ust raise in the trade union movement the following sorta of Slogans TO EXPLAIN THIS FUNDAMENTAL IDEA of the need to maintain the independence of the trade unions from the capitalist state:
FOR THE REPRAL OF PHRMINDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT NO FURTHER LAWS AGAINST Tie, TRADB UNIONS NO REGISTRATION NO RECOGNITION OF THE N 1.2.6, TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THE INDUSTRIAL XELATIONS ACT NO TO STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE TRADE UNIONS NO CO-OPERATION. WITH THE CAPITALIST sTAvE
eS 2 HO n OQ , THE TORIES SAY they have abandoned any »@ j Cs MZS idea of imposing an incomes policy on es the trade unions, but in reality they . do try .to\|fis a “ceiling” for wage iD ©) : C y the “norm was 7%. .1t the moment they increases. Until the Miners' Strike,
_ are trying to hold the railwaynen to around 11% on the basic. And we should note that the Labour leaders aro still, trying to negotiate some tind of deal with the TUC leaders over what kind of incomes policy they would accept under a Lacour Government. For the Labour leadership is trying to prove to the capitalist class that at can deliver the goods with more moderate less risky policies than those of the Tories. This is what Hoy Jenkina means when he talks about the need for Labour te bedtve policies ‘that are both
[page 7]
practical and idealistic. They are two sorts of policies. ‘he latter are the "pie-in-the-sky' varicty of "socialist policies" to which the Labour leadership are always "committing" theuselves: they are designed to give the Party a left-wing look ready for an clection. The former are to be the actual policies the Labour leaders would pursue - in the service of capitalism. Therefore we wust cppose the very idea of any kind of Incomes Policy imposed on the working class - whether it if suggested by Tory or Labour. For it not only represents another ease of STATE INTERFERENCE - this time in collective bargaining - but it also implies that the working class is in some way "to blane" for the prices-wages spiral of inflation. In fact, as we have een (see the Analysis), inflation is the result of the situation of.world trade, which in turn results from the unplanned nature of world capitalist production, This fact also shows the total inadequacy af the slogan “Lories out - Labour inf", when the Parliamentary Labour Party, working within the franework of capitelism, will obviously be obliged to pursue ; cesentially the sane. policies a8 the present Tory Government - albeit in a wore “woderate" form.
NO TO ANY FORM OF INCOMES. POLICY
Se = AT FIRST SIGHT the Right of veto on uanagement ‘ Mig O costte, nay not seen to have much relevance -to the queetion ef defence of trade unions.
Dut it is in tho workplace that the unions are VZ to tricod and tested, Without a clear programue of how we think they should fight there, the rest of Our programme would be reduced to ticre abstract theori, ine. The fundaméntal question as before +s to undermint tho power and authority of the capitalist vis a vie the worker. It nteans sotting new restrictions on the employer's “rights” that will make it easier for workers to defend their righte (The Industrial Relatisns Act aims to do the sane thing in reverse - to set new restrictions on workers' rights so as to tinke it easier to defend profits). The right of veto on managegent Getisions affecting workers' Jobs has two main, functions:~ 1) IT REJECTS ANY RESPONSICILITY FOR TEE RUNNING OF THE FIRM UNDER CAPITALIEM, and 2) IT ASSERTS AN ALTERNATIVE SOCIAL REGULATOR (workers' mass neetings) OVER AGAINST THE VAGARIES OF THE CAPITALIST MARKET. Thus the RIGHT To VETO JOB LOSS would tican that workers could not be tade unemployed just because of a ‘down-turn" in the market for the products of the firm they work for. The right of veto would take the form of imposing a comprehensive series of MSTATUS QUO" clauses in all apreenents, such as the following:- THE RIGHT TO VETO MOVEMENT OF WORKERS WITHIN THE PLANT THE RIGHT TO VETO. SHIFT WORKING AND OVERTIME THE RIGHT TO VETO NEW SYSTEMS OF PAYMENT THE RIGHT TO VETO DANGEROUS WORKING AND SPEED-UP THE RIGHT TO VETO. THk INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANT Thu ALG GUT TO VETO JOB LOSS
[page 8]
7 —_, : — i ‘eae? an ee ee ee ee ee . 7 | fa rye WOR. A. REALLY EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN in | rs ro g U ; on ence of trade unions, the largést ! funber of workers possible nust be ] + ] voived in. the- struggle, Sut, through ; ‘a g - fadeuberatic practices; and failure to a . ' F LOC acy gursue their neubers' intercsts on the | ; art of many union leadcrs and officials, + ‘wany workers heave ceased to be‘invelveG ih the affairs of tho trade unichs. | This is most dramatically illustrated dm the miserably low numbers of workers attending branch mectings. : Most people who end up as full-tine trade tunicn officials began as «cad militants, Dut there is an inbuilt tendency for the ouergence of bureaucratic | interests in the workers’ movorcnt - t is, interests which arc in contra- WS. fee diction to those of the rank-and-file Woubership. -— Pes. Continuscus contact with employers (who often turn out to be quite ploasantpersonally), accompanied by a relatively higher standard of living and style ‘ of lifo than their mombers, and psychodpgical prvesurds such as praise fron the eaployers (the “captains of industmy”") and the Government (not to nention the press!) for persuading their wembers to "excercise restraint" = all these nake « powerful impact on full-tine trate union officials. ind in addition, unofficial rank-and-file action serves to disrupt the * routinisa of a trade union office - and with it, tho possibility qi.2 smooth quiet life! This is why so many trade union officials bedoue ready and willing to stop or “nocerate! any rank-and-file struggle. Imdeed, they are almost obliged to attack any rankeand-filo novea outside thein control sinee their social position deponds on them boing able to liver the goods'-< to tht” tnployers ng well as. to the workers, is As long as they feel they cannot influenee decisions, the mass of workers will tond to bo indifferent to their tre unions, Therefore, in ordcr to involve tho nase 6f Workors, thure must be a massive extension of trade union dotiacracy. There must be an cond to executives over which the rank-and-file have no control, and an end to afficiale who are SELECTED fron above instead of ELECTED frou below.
ALL OFFICIALS TO BE ELECTED AND SULJECT TO INSTANT KECALL DY THE RANK-AND-FILE # OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT BE PAID MOKE THIN THE .VEKAGE WAGE OF THE MEN AND WOMEN THEY AgPReSENT ‘ NO BANS OR PROSCRIPTIONS | NO SECRET NEGOTIATIONS ALL DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN DY MASS MEETINGS, OR DY MEETINGS OF DIRECTLY ELECTED REPKESENT..TIVES OF THE WORKERS —————
CONCLUDING NOTE THE CONCEPT OF THE PROGRAMME sct out in the preceding pages, bases itself on the idea that the Liaison Conmittees for the Befence of Trade Unions Show seo themselves HOT as a "ginger™ group to "get things moving’ (and them band), but as the nucleus for a serice of left fractions in the trade wons which will fight for the trade unions to adopt this sort of socialist programe of strugile - against capitalisn iteslf, ee.