Labour and the unions
Labour Briefing1980sTranscribed by hand from the printed page.
Sponsored by the Campaign Group of Labour MPs as a discussion document, Labour and the Unions addresses the relationship between the trade unions and a future Labour government.
Given the result on June 11th, this is a bit academic; but the arguments are still important.
The pamphlet argues that the last two Labour governments floundered in the face of periods of industrial militancy generated as a backlash against the rightward drift of their own policies. Given this record, it is necessary to get the relationship between a future Labour government and the trade unions on a better footing.
Written from the general political standpoint of the Campaign Group, the pamphlet argues, with some justification, that a Labour government elected last June would have introduced an incomes policy in the shape of a new "social contract". It then suggests a trade union response.
Unfortunately, the response suggested has all the echoes of the old Alternative Economic Strategy of the 1970s. It advocates not opposition to such a policy in principle, but that the policy should be mitigated by:
• tough price controls;
• taxes on "excess" profits above an agreed level;
• measures to protect jobs and avoid redundancies;
• tougher sanctions on firms who refuse to co-operate in "industrial democracy" schemes.
If such demands are not fulfilled, then "socialists should use the pressure of working class discontent to try to push Labour's policies leftwards."
By looking at the problem this way the pamphlet falsely counterposes "the trade unions" and "the Labour Party", failing to draw out that the same political lines are drawn in each.
The backlash against the policies of both Harold Wilson and James Callaghan were essentially rank and file backlashes, with the TUC and the majority of trade union leaders holding at best an ambiguous position.
The pamphlet also presents a confused view of "new realism". Kelly argues that the "new realists" base themselves on the argument that the unions have been chronically weakened by the recession; so it is necessary to make concessions to the employers and the government.
In fact it has not just been the recession which has weakened the unions. The central role has been played by the "new realists" themselves, by their betrayal of struggles from Warrington to Wapping.
In reality "new realism" has been based far more on what it has seen as the strength of the Thatcher government than on the weakness of the trade unions. This is why the Stock Market crash has exposed their politics so completely.
Kelly does take up the "new realists", but he does it by denying that the unions have been weakened significantly during the Thatcher period, backing this up by a largely academic argument. He concludes that:
"many workers still retain considerable bargaining power because trade union organisation, membership and finances have survived remarkably well."
Elsewhere he presents figures to show that the number of trade union representatives remains the same as 1979 and makes the highly controversial assertion that:
"it is a mistake to assume that the break-up of 'restrictive practices' or worker controls based on job demarcations necessarily deminishes workers' power at the point of production."
It is true that the trade unions have not been beaten back as they were in the 1930s, and that the working class remains basically strong and able to fight back. But no amount of figures based on an expansion of organisation in white collar sections of the trade union movement can obscure the serious defeats and setbacks which have been sustained and the effects this has had on organisation.
The industrial policies of the government, and through them the employers, have one ultimate aim — to increase the rate of exploitation at the point of production. It is wrong for John Kelly to minimise this, or its effects on the workers concerned.
It is from this point of view that the Tories have been most successful, even if their successes are inadequate for the requirements of the capitalist system in its present crisis. Round after round of speed-up has been forced onto productive industry, where workers are now working many times harder than they were a few years ago. In the car plants they are reaching Japanese levels of work effort; with working conditions worsening all the time.
Shop floor organisation in most of the previously highly organised sectors of productive industry (sectors which have played a crucial role in the trade union movement) has been very seriously diminished.
The shop stewards movement in those industries is a shadow of the one which existed ten years ago. In some industries it has been almost destroyed, judging against its previous strength.
Contrary to what John Kelly says, the breakdown of so-called restrictive practices, particularly demarcation, always has a serious negative effect on trade union organisation. This has played a central role in both the break-up of organisation and the speeding up of the workforce.
To recognise the reality of present conditions on the shop floor is not to be pessimistic about the future — any more than to ignore it resolves the problem of "new realism".
Continue
That the workers themselves remain able to fight back is shown clearly as workers continue to take industrial action. The effects of the past eight years of Tory rule are shown in the gap which now exists between the rank and file and the leaders at the top; a gap which used to be filled by a layer of experienced activists and shop stewards. John Kelly does not address this problem at all.
This is not to argue that the "new realists" have had it all their own way in the trade union movement — far from it. Scargillism — something not taken up by John Kelly — represents the opposite to the class collaboration of "new realism", and it has played a major role not just in the miners' strike, but since.
The fight which Scargill has put up and the class struggle line he represents (shown most clearly in his decision to go to the NUM membership for a new mandate) is a direct challenge to the "new realists" in both the trade unions and the Labour Party. It is this class response which points the way forward in the new period since the Stock Market crash.
Despite all these reservations about the arguments of the pamphlet, its publication must be welcomed. It is important since it represents an all too rare initiative to promote a discussion on the situation in the trade unions. The opportunity to extend this discussion should not be missed.