If anyone had any doubt at all about the nature of the incomes policy and the long term policy of the Cabinet, Labour leaders have, between them, destroyed any illusions during the past few days. Gunter's talk of "dishonesty and thriftlessness" sounds strange comi from the Minister of Labour (or should it be Unemployment?) of a Government which has dishonestly broken nearly every election pledge it made and has continued to thriftlessly spend hundreds of millions on Wilson's "East of Suez" policy. Callaghan informs us that the incomes policy is necessary as e long term measure, and Barbara Castle and Richard Crossman continue to dress up a vicious wage freeze as being "socialist" and "what the left has wanted for years." Perheps the most polished and sophisticated defence of Government policy has appeared in the columns of the New Statesman. ‘However, we wonder if these apologists of Wilson have bothered to think things out: If planning = socialism; if control of waces (regardless of ownership) = "what the left has wanted for vears" - then how does one define Nazi Germany, or Johnson's incomes policy? Does Marshall Ky's banning of wage increases for civil servants meke him a socialist 7 It is in this general context of a Labour Government pursuing the most richt wing policy of any Dritish Government since the 1930's that we have to view lr. Gunter's "Sack 'em" call. The workers and shop stewards in the motor car industry, who are advancing the demend of work sharing instead of sacking, must be supported by the whole movenent. The policy of the Government is designed to assist capitalist rationalisation ae “ritish industry by smashing working class resistance to big business reorranisation measures by two methods: increasing _ unemploynent and weakening factory and trade union organisation. When economists end others speek of the present slump being followed by a boom, what they mean is that they hope that the present downturn will be followed by a period of capitalist prosperity in which the relationship of forces between the workers and employers will have been decisively changed in favour of the latter. fhe arguments in favour of sacking because this will help inn the redeployment of labour are indefensible from @ socialist point of view. To say the least it places the whole question at the mercy of market forces and chance. The only socialist methoé of redeployment of labour is that of planning in én economy which is decisively developing to social sige ae a
Oo
Defend. Jobs by Work Sharing _ continued Even from a canitalist viewpoint chance is insufficient and whether we, or the Minister of Unemployment, like it or not, the logical conclusion of present Government policy is direction of labour in some form or another. Every man thrown on the dole is one less potential trade unionist; every change in the unemployment/vacancy equation in favour of the former weakens the whole bargaining position of the trade unions; every time a factory is hit by large j scale sacking, the trade union organisation in that factory suffers qualitatively and quantitatively. The instinctive reaction of shop stewards' committees to call for work sharing shows a very healthy class spirit. hile other workers remain -employed in a factory they can still organise resistance to rationalisation measures: once they are out they are atomised and defenceless. Some motor car manufacturers have let the cat out of the bag by talking of resuming full production next year without increasing their work force - without, in other words, taking back the workers which Gunter is so keen to encourage them to sack now. The class demand of work sharing without sackings of any kind is potentially explosive, It represents an advance in consciousness in the sense that it embodies a complete rejection of the right of the employers to determine hiring and firing policy. As a first step in acquiring a socialist attitude to the probeems of the day it is of great importance, The fusing of this demand to the more general demand of workers' control, and the taking of this demand to the further stage where workers will refuse to be sacked by ‘sitting in!' must be the pattern of the future,