EETPU: why electricians should leave the EETPU
Labour Briefing1980sTranscribed by hand from the printed page.
Socialist Worker, Socialist Organiser and Militant all argue that militants should stay in the EETPU following Hammond's belated expulsion from the TUC over breaches of the Bridlington agreement.
They reject the line taken by the main electricians' left grouping Flashlight, which calls for militants to leave the EETPU and join other TUC affiliated unions, as a stepping stone to the formation of a new TUC-affiliated electricians' organisation — the Electrical and Plumbing Industries Union.
A Socialist Worker pamphlet urges a fight within the EETPU to take it back within the TUC. But there is no principle in being inside or outside the TUC. The point is that the EETPU is a hardened business union.
The Hammond leadership, and Frank Chapple before him, has set out to educate the membership in the principles of business unionism. The result of the recent ballot was not just a vote to leave the TUC, but an endorsement of this process.
It is true that the ballot paper was confusing and that Hammond had a monopoly of propaganda — but he won 83% of the vote just the same. This was a vote for business unionism.
Opposition to this procees has been crushed and the EETPU has been stripped of any vestiges of democratic structure.
Wapping was a water-shed. The actions of Hammond & Co. there have still not been matched by any other union: joining with employers to break other unions; replacing printers with electricians; useing their offices to recruit scabs for Murdoch; and using their own centre to train scabs to do the jobs of strikers.
They thus established a relationship with employers qualitatively different to that of any other trade union — even the right-wing AEU under Bill Jordon and Gavin Laird. The union is comparable only with scab organisations like the UDM or the new union formed by the scabs at P&O.
Hammond's plans are not yet completed. His aim is to recruit and build amongst scab layers and extend the principle of business unionism. We must not treat these scab organisations as we do legitimate right-wing unions.
In a right-wing trade union we fight from the inside. With the business unions our aim should be to break them as soon as possible. The whole of the left has called, with some success, for miners to leave the UDM and join a proper union — and we should have the same position with the EETPU.
Hammond's main problem is that expulsion from the TUC puts his union outside the Bridlington agreement and therefore vulnerable to recruiting drives. Other unions should take full advantage of this and do as much damage to the EETPU as possible.
The most effective way to give Hammond credibility is for the militants to stay in the union after they have the opportunity to join other recognised unions in their industry. We should not give him that.
EETPU militants should join either the appropriate union with negotiating rights in their industry or the Electrical and Plumbing Industries Union. The EPIU will have difficulty in getting recognition from employers, most of whom will be loyal to Hammond and his aims, but they are seeking recognition from a number of Local Authorities.
EETPU members may also join holding sections set up by other unions.
At Ford Dagenham 90% of the electricians have left the EETPU, taken out membership of the EPIU, and joined the holding section set up by the MSF who will continue to negotiate on their behalf.
EETPU branches in Liverpool, Manchester, and parts of Scotland have joined the EPIU en block, and electricians working for the channel tunnel have approached the EPIU for discussions.