Since the last issueof The Red Mole there have been a number of important developments affecting either directly or indirectly the course of events in the engineering dispute in Manchester.
The AUEW were of course defeated by 16 votes to 10 on the National Executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on Thursday, 11 May, when a deal was endorsed giving money and holidays only in a 2-year agreement for the shipbuilding workers. This settlement was a stab in the back for the engineers, who are fighting for more money, including a move towards equal pay, and more holidays than the shipbuilders' agreement and, more importantly, for a shorter working week and only 12-month agreements. (The shipbuilding agreement, affecting about 90,000 workers, amounts to a total of £5.50 extra over the two years for skilled workers, and substantially less for the semi-skilled and labourers. The deal also includes a total of three days extra holidays.)
It must also be remembered that in the first place the Manchester division of the CSEU angered Scanlon and the other national leaders by putting in 'carbon copy' claims instead of bargaining at plant-level, as was recommended by the AUEW National Committee on 10 January, 1972. John Tocher (the divisional organiser of the CSEU and executive committee member of the Communist Party, which dominates the district committees in the area put his career very much out on a limb by recommending this more militant course of action. The dispute didn't spread as quickly as the C.P. hoped, and so Tocher came up against national pressure from the AUEW, and local right wing pressure, to back down and come back into line. Tocher had an awkward choice; he had to recommend either that the dispute should be run on the same lines as before, or that it should be better organised and more militant including the locking-out of management, or that it should be brought more into line with the national dispute. He decided not to put himself further out on a limb and so backed down with as little fuss as possible.
The line taken by the executive committee of the Manchester CSEU on Friday, 12 May, was an agreement to pursue the three points of the claim, but in cases where satisfactory agreements were reached with employers on the first two points it was agreed that there could be a return to normal working, except that only 40 hours should be worked until the employers concede a shorter working week. This was passed by the executive committee only three days after the larger ded to continue as before. The only major events between the two dates were ScanIon's defeat at the national CSEU meeting and a subsequent circular to all branch secretaries of the AUEW engineering section reiterating the three points but pointing out that the decision of the National Committee of 10 January was to proceed with plant bargaining. John Tocher put the executive committee's recommendations to a meeting of about 350 stewards on Monday, 15 May, reading out Scanion's circular as if there had been a change in national policy (which there hadn't) and giving the need to maintain unity as an excuse for moving the resolution, About one-third of the stewards did however vote for a defeated amendment put from the floor which would have deleted the part of the resolution specifying a return to normal (40-hour) working if only the first two points of the claim had been achieved. The resolution was then overwhelmingly passed.
One of the factors in the defeat of the amendment was the presence of about 60 stewards from GEC/AEl, Trafford Park, who had already settled on a poor money and holidays offer, and had gone back to work banning overtime. This delegation was headed by 68-year old Burt Brennan, O.B.E., who is remembered for having sat idly by while the work-force of GEC/AEI, Trafford Park, dropped from 28,000 to 3,500; as well as for having got Scanlon the sack twenty years ago. The C.P. also opposed the amendment. number of settlements at previously occupied factories of between £2 and £3.50 new money and a couple of days extra holidays. These plants are, of course, going back to work on 40 hours only, but on the other hand, these settlements are probably about £1.50 new money and one or two days holiday less than the stewards would have previously accepted. The overall effect of the resolution has been to bring the dispute nearer to plant bargaining and to reduce substantially the bargaining power on money and holidays as well as hours.
One consoling factor has been that all six of the Ferranti plants in the area are now idle, involving about 7,000 workers, including a large percentage of women workers. These plants have put in a joint claim for hours, holidays, money, and a move towards equal pay; and are liaising together quite effectively Of the six plants, Hollinwood, Cairo and Gem Mill are occupying. There is a token occupation at Barry Street and the remaining plants, Wythenshawe and Moston, are locked out. Our intervention on the Social Security front has been very successful, with functioning Social Security committees having been set up on our initiative in the majority of occupying plants, and claims and appeals are being successfully won on a systematic basis. A fuller report of our intervention will appear in a later edition of The Red Mole. The dispute is therefore being continued much as before, but unfortunately in a lower key.
Manchester IMG
PREAMBLE THIS PROGRAMME 1. We leve mcognise that our society is dominated by that dass noun Sunssam mom wintar sur uo ain oum aidood 10 wealth (in the form of capital) in the labour of others not to supt OCICIEKO DT OC 12 2. The self-activity calls to acti this or that ac gle. On the contrary it in daily in a struggle against the employens, and is constantly inventing new forms of strugde suited to obtaining its ends-the NUM's fying pickets, the sit-ins in Manchester, etc. 3. The need for a political struggle. But the spontaneous strueie of the working class is fundamentalls an economic struggle-to achieve better terms for the sale ol labour, it takes place witnin tne tramework of the social order of Capitalism. However, this level of struggle is now proving inadequate even for the defence of past gains, both as regards wage levels and as regards trade union organisation. What is needed, therefore, is a different level of struggle-to achieve the anihilation of the social order which forces the have-nots to sell themselves to the rich. 4. The need for Socialism. We believe that all the problems faced by the working class (unemployment, low wages, bad housing, ctc., etc.) denive trom the continued existence of capitalism, and that therefore they can only be resolved through this struggle for an end to Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. 5. The need for a Programme for this struggle. If the idea of an end to Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism is not to appear to be just "pie in the sky", however, what is needed is a programme for struggle which will drive back, undermine and break up the power of the capitalist class in our socicty: a programme which is both realistic and yet challenges the right of the capitalist class to rulc our Dold au luate Inoae sisten xame ald elsaan lems faced by the working class at the expense of the capitalist class. A programme in short which prepares the ground for the overthrow of Capitalism 1. FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF TRADE UNIONS The most fundamental principle of any workers" organisation is that it is completely independent of the Capitalist State, The trade unions are organisations of workers for workers, or they are not trade unions. The aim of the Industrial Relations Act is not to smash the trade unions, but to use the threat of smashing them to force their full-time officials to police the working class. *Nc can see this clearly in relation to recent events inside the T&GWU, where the National Industrial Relations Court (NIRC) is demanding that the T&GWU pure: iis contempi by dis-associatine itself from its own members, the shop stewards leading the black- BIL5 in defence of dockers jobs. ead of the esecutive committees ade utions norcscntne the rani ent the bosses ACaO OiBE00 TE DO04S O6I8 the needs and wishes of theit members, they are to be framed to suit the needs and wishes of a representative of the capitalist state -the "Registrar But as Mike Cooley (President of TASS) pur it so well, ter to be heid in contempt of the court than mpt by the men"- Therefore we ement the following ental idea of the maintain the independence of the trade unions NO LAWS AGAINST THE TRADE UNIONS NO REGISTRATION NO RECOGNITION OF THE N..R.C. TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT NO TO STATE INTERFERENCE IN THE TRADE UNIONS NO CO-OPERATION WITH THE CAPITALIST STATE. 2. NO TO ANY FORM OF INCOMES POLICY The Tories say they have abandoned any idea of imposing an incomes policy on the trade unions, but in reality they do try to fix a "ciling" for wage increases. Until the Miners' Strike, the "norm" was 7 per cent. At the moment they are trying to hold the railway men to around 11 per cent on the basic And we should note that the Labour Party is still trying to negotiate some kind of a deal with the TUC leaders over what kind of incomes policy they would accept under a Labour Government. For the Labour Party is trying to prove to the capitalist class that it can deliver the goods-by more moderate less risky policies than those of the Tories. Thisis what Roy Jenkins means when he talks about the need for Labour to have both policies that are realistic and policies that are idealistic. They are two sorts of policies the latter (the "pie in the sky" variety of "socialist policies" to which the Labour leadership are always "committing" themselves) designed to give them a "left-wing" look for an election, and the former to be the actual policies they will pursue in the service of capitalism.
Therefore we must oppose the very idea of any kind of Incomes Policy imposed on the working class wneince w is suggesicu by rory or Labeur. For it not only represents another case of state interference - this time in collective bargaining but it also implies that the working class is in some way "to blame" for the prices-wages spiral of inflation. In fact, inflation is the result of the situation of world trade which in turn results from the umplanned nature of world capitalist Prouucuon This fact also shows the total inadequacy of the slogan "Torics out Labour in!", when the Lahour On 15 April there was a meeting in Southampton called by the local Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions, which set out to re-establish local LCDTU's in all the major towns in Hampshire.
That meeting adopted an 8-point policy which was purely defensive and amounted to just a more militant sounding version of the TUC's ill-starred "passive resistance" policy on non-cooperation.
The eight points were: 1. Total non-cooperation with the Industrial Relations Act. 2. That the TUC discipline weaker unions that collaborate with the Act. 3. That trade unions defend and expand the closed shop, and oppose agency shops and legally binding agreements. 4. That trade unions maintain and officially support blacking and sympathetic strike action. 5. That no trade union accepts the 60-day cooling off period when strike action is proposed. 6. That no trade union organises secret ballots except where required by existing rules to do so. 7. That no trade union participates in any industrial courts set up under the Act, that no trade union pays any fines or penalties, and officially supports any refusal to do so. 8. That all strikes be made official and that the national trade union officials take official responsibility for these disputes. By the time the Basingstoke LCDTU held its fiest meeting on April 26th, it was clear to everyone that this programme was not only inadequate to meet the new situation as the Party, working within the framework of capitalism, will obviously be obliged to pursue essentally the same policies as the present Tory Govertment- albeit in a more "moderate" form. Finally, if we ask what sort of demands we should be raising with regard to wages, it is clear that if we reject all responsibility for inflation, then we must protect our wages against it.
ALL WAGE AGREEMENTS TO HAVE BUILT-IN COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES THE COST-OF-LIVING INDEX TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRADE UNIONS 3. THE RIGHT OF VETO At first sight the right of veto on management decisions may not seem to have much relevance to the question of defence of trade unions. But it is in the workplace that the unions are tried and tested. Without a clear programme of how we think they should fight there, the rest of our programme would be reduced to mere abstract theorising.
The fundamental question as before is to undermine the power and authority of the capitalist vis a vis unc workeral muans setline new resticuons on the employer's "rights" that will make it easier for workers to defend their rights. (The Industrial Relations Act, we should note, tries to do the same thing in reverse-to set new testichons on workers rights so as to make it casier to defend profits.)
The right to veto management decisions affecting workers jobs has two main functions: (b) It rejects any responsibility for the running For tne nirm unact capitansm. (2) It asserts an alternative social regulator (worAkers" mass meetings) over against the vagaries of the capitalist market.
Thus the right to veto job loss would mean that workers could not be made unemployed just because of a "down-turn" in the market for the products of the firm he works for.
The right of veto would take the form of imposing a comprehensive series of "status quo" clauses in all agreements, such as the following:
THE RIGHT OF VETO ON MOVEMENT OF WORKERS WITHIN THE PLANT THE RIGHT OF VETO ON SHIFT WORKING AND OVERTIME THE RIGHT OF VETO ON PAYMENT SYSTEMS THE RIGHT OF VETO ON DANGEROUS WORKING THE RIGHT TO VETO SPEED-UP THE RIGHT TO VETO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANT.
THE RIGHT TO VETO JOB LOSS 4. FOR THE EXTENSION OF TRADE UNION DEMOCRACY For a really effective campaign in defence of trade Act began to be applied, but it was also out of date in view of the fairly rapid capitulations to aspects of the Act on the part of leaders of even very powerful trade unionsnotably the T&GWU and the three rail unions-not to mention the TUC itself! So while the 8 points were accepted, it was agreed that what was needed was a campaign of active opposition to the Act.
A brief document presented by IMG comrades on the Committee was accepted as a basis for such a programme, and the comrades were asked to prepare a fuller document for the following meeting. This they did, and after a further week (to give the Committee a chance to study the proposals carefully) the document was finally accepted (with minor amendments) on 12 May as the policy statement of the Basingstoke LCDTU.
The policy-entitled "A Socialist Policy for the Defence of Trade Unions"-consists of two parts.
The first is an analysis of the political background to the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. This shows how it is not an isolated law, nor simply the product of "Tory dogma", but an integral part of the strategy of the British ruling class to try to deal with its economic problems in the current crisis at the expense of the working class. The second part, reproduced here in full, is the programme which the Basingstoke LCDTU adopted to resist this attack. We see this as leading on naturally to the LCDTU not only holding public meetings, but also intervening in local and national struggles, more as a left fraction within the trade union movement than as merely a "ginger group" to "get things moving".
Lawrie White unions, the largest number of workers possible must ne invoivco i nc sc. Dur uouuE nucuu cratic practices, and failing to pursue their memben' interests on the part of many union leaders and officials, many workers have ceased to be involved in the affairs of the trade unions. This is most dramaticauy mustraica in tne miscrabty iow numocn ai tending branch meetings.
Most people who end up as full-time trade union officials began as good militants. But there is an inbuilt tendency for the emergence of bureaucratic interests in the workers movement-interests. that is, which are in contradiction to those of the rank-and-file membership, Continuous contact with employers (who often turn out to be quite pleasant personally) accompanied by a relatively higher standard of living and style of life than their members, and psychological pressures such as praise from the employers (the captains or industry y and une covernment (nor to mention the press!) for persuading members to "exercise restraint"- all these make a powerful impact on full-time trade union officials. And in addition, unofficial rank-and-file action serves to disrupt the routinism of a trade union office-and with it, the possibility of a smooth quiet life!
This is why so many trade union officials become ready and willing to stop or moderate any rank-and-file struggle. Indeed, they are almost obliged to attack any rank-and-file moves outside their control since their social position depends on them being able to "deliver the goods" -to the employers as well as to the workers.
As long as they feel they cannot influence decisions, the mass of workers will tend to be indifferent to their trade unions.
Therefore, in order to involve the mass of workers, there must be a massive extension of trade union democracy.
There must be an end to executives over which the rank-and-file have no control, and an end to officials who are selected from above instead of elected from below.
ALL OFFICIALS TO BE ELECTED AND SUBJECT TO INSTANT RECALL NO OFFICIAL TO BE PAID MORE THAN THE AVERAGE OF THE MEN HE REPRESENTS (should donate extra to workers" organisations) NO BANS OR PROSCRIPTIONS NO SECRET NEGOTIATIONS ALL DECISIONS TO BE TAKEN BY MASS MEETINGS, OR BY MEETINGS OF DIRECTLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEN.
CONCLUDING NOTE The concept of the programme elaborated above presupposes that the Liaison Committees for the Defence of Trade Unions should see themselves not as a "ginger" group to "get things moving" (and then disband), but as the nucleus for a series of left fractions in the trade unions which will fight for the adoption by the unions of this sort of socialist prog ramme of struggle-against capitalism itself.
----- pull-quotes -----
LL YE
NO NO