Labour versus the Trade Unions

There have been several attempts by the employing class to use its political power to pass laws or make judgments designed to render effective Trade Union action illegal. Such laws and judgments have stimulated in the Unions the idea that a political party of their own creation can be used to repeal the laws or amend the injustices.

This idea prompted the British Trade Unions to sire the British Labour Party and, ever since, to accept responsibility for its progress and to pander to its requirements. Like doting parents the Unions subdue their own interests whenever they appear to conflict with the needs of their offspring, even though the offspring has reached adulthood.

Not all Trade Unionists subscribe to the idea of harnessing the Unions to the Labour Party. The majority have little interest in official policies. They regard their Union as a body apart from themselves to which they contribute a weekly subscription and expect to get a service in return. They will commonly use such a phrase as, “What is the Union doing about it?”, as though the Union is some entity over which they have no control but which should be looking after their interests. Union officials heighten this impression by speaking of giving the members a service, as an insurance company might speak of its clients.

It is an active minority in the Trade Unions that keeps the Union’s sails trimmed to the Labour Party’s winds. It is these active Trade Unionists who, in the main, are keen Labour Party supporters, many of them holding office in local Labour Parties or the national body. It is they who sit at conferences and committees and voice the Labour Party’s interests.

For years the reports of Trade Union conferences and of the Trades Union Congress have bristled with speeches and appeals to Trade Union members, urging them to do nothing that might jeopardise the progress and prospects of the Labour Party, particularly when a parliamentary election has been in the offing. Even the expression of unfavourable opinions has been frowned upon as, for instance, a statement by Mr. W. J. P. Webber of the Transport and Salaried Staffs’ Association at the I960 Trades Union Congress:

Such opinions inside and outside this country, shared by friends and enemies alike, can spell disaster and tragedy for the Labour Movement.

At the Transport and General Workers’ Union biennial conference during the same year, delegates ardently appealed to the conference not to adopt certain policies, even though they themselves favoured them, because those policies were contrary to the Labour Party policy and might cause a rift in the Labour Party ranks.

In the early years of this century it was the Taff Vale judgment which rallied the Trade Unions to the Labour Party. In 1924 it was the desire to repeal the Emergency Powers Act; in 1929 to repeal the Trade Disputes Act of 1927; in 1945 is was again the Trade Disputes Act which was still on the statute book, plus government Order 1305; in 1964 it was partly the impatience at .the Tory government’s efforts to put a brake on wage increases.

When, in 1945, with a swamping majority, and again in 1964 with a slim one, the Labour Party was elected to government, the active Trade Unionists rubbed their hands with delight and the inactive ones breathed hopefully. The lessons from previous Labour Governments had not been learned.

Following the 1945 election the Labour Government repealed the 1927 Trade Disputes Act but the only noticeable difference was the increased flow of finance into the Labour Party coffers through the removal of the political levy “Contracting in” clause of the act. Mr. G. D. H. Cole in his History of the Labour Party Since 1914 quoted the rise in Trade Union membership of the Labour Party from 2,635,346 in 1946 to 4,031,434 in 1947. Order 1305 was abolished—but the substituting of order 1375 passed without notice on the part of the majority of Trade Unionists.

The Labour Party fought the 1945 General Election on a programme entitled, Let Us Face The Future, in which they appealed to the Trade Unions with the promise, among others;

” . . . a high and constant purchasing power can be maintained through good wages . . . money and savings lose their value if prices rise, so rents and the price of the necessities of life will be controlled.”

In 1948 the Labour Government published, The Short Economic Survey, which had a very George Brown sound about it. The proposals for better living standards for all were summed up on page 15 with the following:

1. Working harder and more skilfully.
2. Arranging our work so that the same effort produces more goods.
3. Giving up old ways that use too many people on a job. Together with, of course an urge to spend less, save more and please, please, moderate those wage demands, because the danger lies, “ . . . not in producing too much but producing too little—and too dear.” (Government poster, 1948.)

Despite these policies and appeals, 1,333 industrial disputes were reported to the Minister of Labour during 1950 alone, most of them “Unofficial” and the majority in the nationalised industries. From 1945 till the Labour Party left government office in 1951, the workers fought a continuous battle, trying to keep .their wages climbing as fast as the rising living costs.

Labour politicians, who had been loud in their denunciation of their Tory predecessors’ use of troops during strikes, did exactly the same thing a number of times while they were the government and even went so far as to prosecute workers for striking.

Comparing the present Labour Government’s policy on wages with that of their 1945 counterpart reveals that the only difference is that they are exactly alike. Today’s First Secretary of State, Mr. George Brown, has obtained the support of many Trade Unions for his Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy. On December 16th last he got a “Joint Statement of Intent” from representatives of Trade Unions and managements on behalf of their members. It reads:

” . . . to encourage and lead a sustained attack on the obstacles to efficiency, whether on the part of the management or of the workers, and to strive for the adoption of more rigorous. standards of performance at all levels.”

With this goes the proposal for a three per cent “norm” in annual wage increases. It is hard to detect a difference between this and the previous Tory government’s effort to keep wage rises at an annual three per cent level. To Tom, Dick and Mary in the rank and file of the Trade Unions it is all the same.

Workers still have to struggle to keep their wages in pace with rising costs. The recent increases to Passenger Transport workers, for example, were argued for on the basis of the movement of the Cost of Living Index and the general rise in prices since June 1964.

“Unofficial” strikers are no respecters of political parties. Strikes are the direct result of the discontent bred of capitalism and when a Labour Party undertakes to administer capitalism it will still have to deal with them.

The strike is the workers’ ultimate weapon and, if Trade Union officialdom lines up with the Labour Government, it is unlikely that the weapon will be used officially. It is more possible that Union officials will try to assume powers to discipline members who strike without their authority.

Any hopeful assumption that Messrs. Wilson, Cousins and company will achieve better results for the workers than did Messrs. Attlee, Bevan and company, is doomed to disappointment. Good intentions, sincerity, better public images or astute statesmanship cannot make Capitalism function to benefit the workers. Whilst the workers continue to accept Capitalism their ability to maintain their living standards at a desired level will often depend on their industrial strength and its tactical use. Political support to a Labour Party which has no notion of abolishing Capitalism, but hopes to make it run smoothly, will lead eventually to disillusionment and conflict between that party and the workers.

W. WATERS

Leave a Reply