The dispute over the railwaymens pay claim and over the blacking of lorries in the Liverpool docks has not been as spectacular as, for example, the shootings in Ireland. the previous miners' strike and so on. Nevertheless the outcome of these struggles is having important effects on the form which the class struggle will take in the nest lew years.
The first thing to note is that the govern ment has in no way altered its fandamental policy with regard to the tactic of dealing with the trade unions. it has upped the accepted norm for wag cases by a few percentage points hat is all. The basic strategy of the t in still not to seek a deal with the of the trade union bureaucracy, but rather to weaken the trade unice ement as a whole. It is precisely in such a situation that the hopeuptcy of the TUC is because it is a situation oeuvre is virtually nil.
The ion whích the TUC in partis ght was one where it was the arbitrato between the men engaged in a struggle and the employers. The two great "conciliation" services for the bourgeoisie were the government and the TUC. They were supposed to stand outside both parties in a dispute and arrange a just? settlement. Now, however, this is no longer the case. The government no longer even makes the pretence of being neutral, and intervenes directly and immediately on the side of the employers. In that situation there islittlerole for the TUC because its only real role has been as messe nger boy between unions and government, and where the government does not want to talk then the TUC has no message of importance. The situation of 'free', independent bargaining, and therefore the idea of impartial' arbitration by TUC and government is now severely dented. The big political danger for the ruling class in all this is of course that the working class will draw lessons as regards the nature of the law and the State. Of course the implications of the Industrial Relations Act have been spelt out on paper for a year and a half, but the working class does not have legal training. It is only now, when the act is actually being used, that it can clearly begin to understand what all the fuss was about. From now on a long drawn out and bitter fight is certain.
Amongst the first to feel the reality of this new situation have been the TUC and the "left' trade union leaderships. Previously they appear to have thought that they could maintain an apparent image of militancy simply by doing a lot of talking and making a few empty gestures. Tribune probably re flected their opinion when it said that it was "out of the question" that the government could use the Industrial Relations Act against a work to rule. Now they have been brought down to earth with a jolt. The £55,000 fine on the TGWU ensured that. This has been rapidly followed by the finding that a union is responsible for all the acts of its members, and reports that the TUC will be held in contempt of court if it expels the National Union of Seamen. Their windbags punctured, the TUC has begun to beat a hasty retreat. The government is indeed correct in believing that the decision to allow unions to appear before the NIRC will only be the thin end of the wedge to complete de facto recognition of the Act. The Union leaderships of the railwaymen have of course already gone a long way down the slippery track by their recognition of the Court's ruling. Once however the TUC embarks on this course it has to face new dangers-this time from the left. The fear of the TUC leadership must be that if they do comply with the Act the leaderships of the TGWU and AUEW, in order to maintain their own positions in their unions, will start a process of differcatating themseives from Feather and Co., The first sign of this may be the decision of the AUEW conference to oppose any recognition of the NIRC, at the same time that Feather is hinting that unions will be allowed to appear and defend themselves in the Court. Typically, however, the AUEW also decided to call on the TUC to set up a fund to pay any fines incurred under the Act-when to pay is de facto to recognise the right of the Court to impose such fines. Once however the facade of unity is destroyed anything could happen. An eventual split in the TUC along purely political lines could not be ruled out.
The Labour Party is caught in even more of a cleft stick. If it is to become an alternative government to Heath in the eyes of the ruling class then it must show it can keep control of Scanlon and Jones. The best way to do that would be if the TUC can maintain its own internal unity. To achieve that, however, Feather must be able to give some indication that the Act will be removed from the statute book by any future Labour government. But the ruling class is extremely unlikely to swallow that, and it is hardly likely to accept Jack Jones' scheme for the setting up of 'independent' arbitration machinery as a substitute. What is likely to occur is simply vague promises of modifications' to the Act which will satisfy neither working class nor bourgeoisie. Wilson is in fact relatively trapped in a dead end with little obvious way out. The Labour left is equally trapped. Not one significant dissenting voice Lorry is blacked by Liverpool dockers law must be observed in the railwaymen's dispute.
THE NEED FOR RANK AND FILE ORGANISATION In a situation where trade union militants will be squeezed by government, employers, and trade unions, caution is likely to become the watch word. On the one hand many militants are likely to think twice before launching even a local struggle which will run into head on conflict with the government and power of the State. On the other many trade unionists will be swayed by arguments about not being responsible for dealing the union a financial blow. Isolated unco-ordinated actions are hardly likely to be successful in such a situation. A more solidly built rank and file organisation to fight both the government and inside the union will be needed. There is almost certain to be the intensification of a process which is already underway-the creation of rank and file movements, newspapers, tendencies and groupings. The success of these will depend on how far they are capable of thrashing out a real programme for struggle. But from now on one thing should be clear-it is impossible for any rank and file organisation to avoid the question of government. It is not possible to fight the power of the State simply through one or a few trade unions. The only way the trade unions can be defended is through a struggle at the level of government and the State. To convince trade union militants of this fact is the task of revolutionaries in the coming period.
and I disagree even more now. I feel that this is an abnegation of their responsibility to lead a national struggle in the engineering industry which I think we could have fought and won, and if we had adopted the policy myself to a certain extent. We didn't think that the work to rule would result in a confrontation so quickly. When we were all suspended we had to take a decision quickly and we hadn't given this much thought. So, when cent attacks on the railwaymen and the T& GWU suggest that they might now be intending to use the full force of the Act against the Trade Unions. Do you think that the government are now going to intensify their