TUC'86: workers sacrificed on electoral altar
Labour Briefing1980sTranscribed by hand from the printed page.
The twin right wing developments of Kinnockism in the Labour Party and the "new realism" in the trade unions were strengthened at the TUC Congress where union leaders avoided the many serious issues facing the movement and lined up dutifully behind the Labour leadership in preparation for the next election.
The first sacrifice on this particular altar were the print workers. The General Council was defeated on the NGA resolution criticising them for not instructing the EETPU to stop doing other unions' work and calling on them to do more to stop the scabbing at Wapping. It was not a decision, however, which will help the 5,500 News International strikers in their struggle with Murdoch. Nor will the General Council be unhappy with it — it did not commit them to any fresh action. It was no more than a mild rebuke; a small price to pay to get off the hook on such a major issue.
The problem for the print workers was compounded by the leadership of the NGA which withdrew its demand for the EETPU to be expelled from the TUC.
An equally important victory for the new right wing coalitions which are shaping up within the TUC came with the moves towards accepting labour legislation aimed at the rank and file of the trade unions under a future Labour Government. This came in the shape of the TUC/Labour Party statement which calls for the continuation of mandatory strike ballots from Tory legislation.
The ground work for such a disastrous step had been well prepared in advance of the Congress as part of the general slide to the right which is taking place in the unions. Most significant has been the position of the T&G. Ron Todd and the General Executive Council have supported strike ballots under a Labour Government in flat contradiction to long established T&G policy. This led to a situation at the Congess where even the NUM delegation voted for the statement.
This is the clearest indication yet of the developing influence of EETPU business unionism in the trade union movement.
Nor is this collapse in front of Tory laws something which has developed in the past six months or even since the defeat of the miners. We are now facing a problem which has existed since the Tories took office in 1979.
It was active opposition to the Industrial Relations Act from the rank and file of the trade union movement and to a lesser extent from the TUC which ensured that Act would be repealed by an incoming Labour Government.
The fact is that even the inadequate opposition of the TUC at that time has never been present with either the Prior or Tebbit legislation. They collapsed in front of the Thatcher administration from the outset, now having formally dropped all opposition to the Tory laws they are voting to continue parts of them under a Labour Government even before a Labour Government is in office.
If we look back to 1969 to what the Labour Government of Harold Wilson was trying to do with In Place of Strife and the similarities in terms of the use of the courts with Tory laws today, we should not assume that it will only be the ballotting which will continue.
The political basis for this was strongly reflected in Kinnock's speech on the Tuesday afternoon. Ignoring the fact that the last Labour Government destroyed ½ million jobs he went onto tell us that the next one would this time create a millon jobs. He told us there would be some form of wages policy — which had again been accepted in the forefront despite a long held policy of free collective bargaining voted at conference.
He made it clear that the employers' offensive at shop floor level which has been successfully developed by the Tories would continue under Labour — "we", he told the Congress, "will have to work our way out of the crisis." In other words, continued speed-up and attacks on working conditions at the point of production.
In contrast to some of these things the Congress went on to vote to call for a statutory minimum wage, something which could be a major advance if it could be achieved at a high enough level. Part of the enthusiasm for it is no doubt motivated by a fear of tackling the huge problem of low pay which now exists by industrial means, but if achieved it would be of major benefit to the army of low paid workers which now exists, the majority of them women.
We should reject the arguments of those like Ron Todd who try to argue that it would be contrary to the principles of free collective bargaining. Yet when those principles really are in danger, as they are now from Kinnock — they have been more than willing to compromise!
If the General Council looked in a progressive direction over a minimum wage they soon put that right over nuclear power where not even Chernobyl was able to convince them that nuclear power is dangerous! They successfully opposed — by a very narrow majority — a resolution from the FBU and the NUM calling for nuclear power to be phased out as a priority. They successfully proposed that there should be a "moratorium" on nuclear power until a review of the industry had been completed and the matter discussed again next year!
Nor could the spectacle of people dying every day on the streets of South Africa shift them into action. A resolution was adoped which can be built on to some extent but there were no proposals for the trade union sanctions being imposed as called for by the black South African trade unions.