from Peter
j dustria
i f the Unions school on In
S afternoon of the Voice © Epi ag ee ee ope rinal session took the form of a Brains Trus
isted of: ¥ i Clive Jenkins, General Secretary of eo
John Hughes, Ruskin College tutor in econo om
Professor Bill Wedderburn, expert in — von ee
Paul Derrick, research officer of the Sunday OF
and a Jugoslav speaker, acquainted with works counc pig xenal oern country. Richard Fletcher, editor of Voice of the Unions,
i i m the
All the panelists were allowed time ie oe gedagetenl pi _
i incomes policy, an democratic control of industry and : moved into general discussion for the rest of the afternoon
As the afternoon progressed it became clear that the iptog bein of. cetnion ee — hoe a2 Sage et <Seaaey o the view that
da be central to the de e ,
pb se peepee Incomes Board should be killed off and that trade cae leaders should reject an incomes policy until there has been a radi — re-distribtuion of wenlth. He emphasised the fact that 2% of the — : own 38% of the wealth of the country. Trade union officials shoul sets! with their job and negotiate as much as they could for their members ro collective bargaining, He concluded his remarks on the question by saying "J stand on the Labour Party Constitution - that is the policy we should try to get implemented."
John Hughes expressed disappointment and surprise at the speech of Clive Jenkins. Hughes argued (as he had done, jointly with Ken Alexander, in a Fabian pamphlet: "A Plan for Incomes") that the trade unions should go on the offensive on the issues of prices, profits and incomes, Within an incomes policy the labour movement could begin the process of socialising the flow of income and begin democratising economic power, The stages, he continued, would be two-fold: firstly, the Labour Government would be forced to consider a wide approach on the question of social priorities; secondly, he wanted the Labour Government to use the taxation system to carry through a principled and progressive re-distribution of wealth attacking property ownership. "The Conservatives deliberately used taxation to re-distribute wealth in favour of the rich." As an immediate step, Hughes thought that the unions should make their challenge on price determination which he thought as crucial as money income,
Other speakers tended to declare support for one or the other of these
Ken Coates, while insisting that incomes policy was a neo-capitalist planning device to suit the purposes of big business, stressed that the fight against incomes policy could be used as a lever for social change if it was carried through by positive demands such as ‘open the books',. On this point Bill Wedderburn hoped, as a first move, that legislation would be quickly prepared to compel companies to publicly detail their balance sheets. For example, on how they broke down their profits. On incomes policy, he felt attracted to both viewpoints but stressed that the unions should present a positive rather than a defensive approach to the problem.
views.
== SSS SSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSS SS SS SS SS TS TS SS SS SS SS SS SSS SS
Industrial Lemocracy brains trust continued/ One arguuent he accepted was that, while the debate was on, this might increase the level of socialist consciousness, Paul Derrick suggested that the success of an incomes policy would depend largely on an extension of the public sector,
Other speakers included Norman Dinning, of the A.B.U., who saw the present incomes policy as little more than a wage freeze, Frank Ward from Tribune thought employees should have access to the 'books! as of right.
Problems connected with industrial democracy, sparked off by the comments of Ian Mikardo on the Sheffield Steel Report on the previous day, brought questions. Clive Jenkins was against any union officials being on the boards of nationalised industries. He did not want them put in a position of divided loyalties. "They have enough to do now. Let them get on with it, in a professional way." Peter Heathfield, a delegate from the Derbyshire Miners, expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the trade unionists that had been put on the boards of the nationalised industries. In a contracting industry, such as mining, he felt that this dual role should be avoided. John Hughes thought the mining industry a specte case and could not see how any participation by union officals could separated from the union structure. The Jugoslav_ speaker described from his own experience how this problem was dealt with in Jugoslavia. The discussion showed a difference in view of the role of the trade unions in any plan for workers! participation in management.
Steel compensation was mentioned briefly by the platform. Clive Jenkins thought that there was a case for a public tribunal to decide the amount. He was very disturbed by the fact that the price to be paid is 30% above the closing price of steel when the White Paper was published, Bill Wedderburn suggested that the assessment of the value of the companies should be independent of their equity value, The “excessively generous" compensation terms were criticised by Paul Derrick in some detail. John Hughes outlined the danger of steel becoming saddled with a debt which would mean that it would be an easy target for Tory propagands. ‘Tie debt that the nationalised industries had to bear had trebled over the years, and this had been accompanied by exploitation from the private sector through low prices, subsidies and back-door deals. Hughes also hoped that the T.U.C. would take the initiative and press for an enquiry into the structure of industrye
The general concensus of opinion was that this was probably the most lively session during the Conference, and it is hoped that this critical debate would be taken back into the labour movement, continued and acted upon,