The ’Bus Strike—and After by a 'Busman (1937)

From the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May 28th the London 'busmen returned to work. After four weeks of determined effort they resumed without having achieved their object—a 7½-hour working day.

Despite the fact that on May 25th a full delegate conference of the 'Bus Section of the Transport and General Workers’ Union had resolved by 40 votes to 9 to continue the strike for the 7½-hour day, the following day the Union Executive withdrew the powers granted to the Section and ordered a resumption of work. The ’busmen, somewhat taken unawares, and with no time to give detailed consideration to the position, returned unanimously. Dissatisfaction with the step taken by the Executive was expressed in most branches, and the E.C., fearful of a loss of membership, posted to the members of the ’Bus Section a comprehensive document explaining the reasons for its action. The reasons were that the strike could not be allowed to drift on to disaster, with the loss of the substance already obtained.

A few days later the Executive took the further step of suspending all Central ’Bus Committeemen, Garage Representatives, District Committeemen, Disciplinary Board Representatives and Schedule Sub-committee Officers pending an enquiry into the actions of certain members during the dispute.

Following this, the London ’busmen received by post a copy of a new agreement, which has been signed and accepted on their behalf by the Union President and General Secretary without reference to their wishes on the matter.

Next, members of the Central ’Bus Committee were summoned before a Union enquiry tribunal, charged with conduct which was not compatible with membership of the Union. Some branch officials were unable to obtain leave to attend to Union business, thus to a great extent suspending the local representative machinery and embarrassing the members who are on trial.

Although there may have been justification for the action taken by Union E.C., yet that E.C. cannot escape some of the responsibility for having brought about the conditions which made its action advisable. If, as was claimed on May 14th by the General Secretary, Mr. Bevin, the Transport Board had given its final reply and there was no possibility of gaining more than was offered then, even though the strike should be extended t« other sections of the Union, there appears to be no reason why the order to resume work should have been delayed for another fortnight. Unless, of course, the E.C. did not consider it possible to take such a step just then. On May 25th, when the number of garages which were prepared to consider a settlement on a basis which did not include the 7½-day, had grown from three to nine, then it was possible to order the resumption of work.

In the meantime, certain members of the Central ’Bus Committee, and some others, mostly members of the Rank and File Movement, had played into the hands of the E.C. by acting very indiscreetly in dealing with the dispute. So, fully armed, the Executive is in a position to purge the ’Bus Section of the so-called “ Red element ” within its ranks.

The cry has gone up, “Bevin must go!” We, of the Socialist Party, hold no brief for Mr. Bevin, but we must point out that merely to replace one General Secretary by another will not solve the difficulties. No matter who holds such a post, if he must negotiate agreements with employers the result may be less than is possible in the limits placed by capitalism, but it certainly cannot be more. The only remedy for getting less than is possible is an alert and understanding membership which keeps continuous control over Union policy.

Mr. Bevin has lost the confidence of many of the ’busmen, and in consequence his relations with the Transport Board are made awkward. Now he has made a desperate bid to consolidate his position, both by discrediting his critics and by withdrawing from the 'busmen their democratic control over their own Section.

This position is arrived at in Trade Unions, as has been pointed out, because the majority of Trade Union members do not understand the functions and limitations of Trade Unionism.

The struggle between employer and worker is inherent in the capitalist system. So is the discontent of the workers. Their discontent goads them on in the struggle, but until they are fully conscious of their class status they conduct the struggle blindly. Individuals in the Trade Unions who make extravagant promises frequently get elected to prominent positions, only to find that capitalism sets a limit beyond which they cannot go. Their promises unfulfilled, these individuals fall into disfavour, and they have to seek ways and means of maintaining their positions or alternatively they make way for new men.

If the workers fully realised that Trade Union activity can at the most serve only to defend the workers' wages and working conditions against the ceaseless pressure of capitalism, these promises would fall on deaf ears. It would then be understood that there are definite limits to what can be achieved and that loud-mouthed orators do not make any difference to the facts. It would be understood why, in one long procession, men have passed from the ranks to official positions, only to lose their “Red" ideas and to become either tame “yes ''-men or ardent reactionaries.

From such an understanding it is but a step to the recognition of our claim that the only way to solve the evils and problems of capitalism, and to end the class struggle, is to abolish class society altogether.

Whilst class society remains, the working class cannot help but struggle, and the degree of their success will be influenced by their understanding of their class position and the control which they maintain over their organisations.

Failure to recognise and act on this makes the task of spreading Socialist ideas more difficult. The workers become apathetic, and useful avenues for propaganda are closed.

W. Waters.

The trouble in dockland By a Dock Worker (1946)

From the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

A state of "armed truce" exists between the dockers and their employers with the Government concerned only with the smooth running of the system.

Waging a struggle against their masters, and faced with the undisguised hostility of the Labour Government, the misrepresentation and distortion of the press, and the general apathetic misunderstanding of the bulk of the working class, the dockers of Britain have exhibited a high measure of solidarity and determination.

From the first few days in October to the end of the dispute in the first week-end in November, with all the hardships and suffering necessarily involved in a prolonged strike, and without any official backing, guidance or organisation, a developed sense of discipline and organisation was shown by this section of the working class that bodes ill for the master class and their interests when reinforced by political understanding.

All strikes have their basis in the class struggle, and this dispute was the culmination of years of overwork under war conditions, working and living in bombed areas and the inevitable inadequacy of working class diet aggravated by the exigencies of war.

The normal nominal wages of dockers have increased from 14s. per day in October, 1940, to 16s. at the present time. And the cost of living has increased disproportionately, which reveals a reduction in real wages. In order to meet with this the men had to work long hours of overtime under the most harassing conditions imaginable, particularly in the "target" ports. Their efforts in this direction met with the applause of Government and Press. Coupled with this, on the insidious plea of assisting the war effort "to end Fascism," most of their hard-won trade union practices and restrictions were surrendered, and large scale mechanisation and speed-ups introduced. Now, on the equally anti-working class plea of "building up Britain's export trade," the Government and the employers are seeing to it that these speed-ups and mechanisations shall remain.

In the period 1939-1945, the dockers’ real wages having been reduced, what happened to their relative wages, i.e., what they received considered in relation to the profits of their employers?

All the large shipping companies increased their profits handsomely. Even in the worst years for shipping losses, the Cunard Line's profits improved on the previous year's.

In short, the wages of the dockers, considered as real, decreased; as relative, decreased.

For years, especially during the War, the official organisations of the Transport and General Workers' Union were out of touch with the rank and file of dockland, due primarily to the neglect of the members in looking after their Union affairs, rendered worse by overtime and Sunday work, precluding attendance at Union meetings.

Other factors have been the fusion of the Union organisation with the "war effort," and the acceptance by Union officials of administrative jobs in the large dock labour "schemes," and subsequent collision with the men; also the general structure of the official Unions which failed to expedite the claims of the men and to control the full-time officials.

With these facts as a domestic background, when shipping requirements slackened off after May, 1945, and the corresponding diminution in overtime was reflected in smaller pay packets, the dockers were faced with the problem now before the industrial workers of Britain and the other victors of the recent war, that of forcing their wages up to subsistence level.

The dock strike started in the last week of September on a local issue at Birkenhead involving some sixty men, and grew in proportion and changed in quality so that by the middle of October a large proportion of dockers in the country were involved on a national issue of a claim for 25s. a day and a forty-hour week. The full-time officials of the Dockers' Unions attacked the whole movement from the outset. Mr. Deakin, Mr. Donovan, of the Transport Union, and Mr. Barrett, of the Stevedores' Union, made themselves notable in this respect.

At monster meetings, sometimes of 17,000 men, unanimous votes of "no confidence" were passed in the officials of the Unions.

The reply to this, given by the officials, by the employers and the Government, was the gibe "unconstitutional" and a refusal to recognise the democratically elected strike committee.

A fierce barrage of spiteful, and in some cases, stupid propaganda was directed against the strikers. The Minister of Education brought even the derision of the Beaverbrook Press upon her head with her rash and unfounded speculations concerning bread rationing.

The Minister of Labour, forgetting years of Labour propaganda about the need for a "more equitable distribution of wealth," threw his weight in against the striking dockers.

The more sober capitalist press such as the Manchester Guardian, Observer, etc., while decrying the "unconstitutional" nature of the effort, nevertheless admitted on occasion the possibility of the reality of the men's grievances.

Mr. Emrys Hughes, of the Forward, indicated quite clearly his views during the dispute by the time-worn device of treating it as non-existent. One can only conclude that he didn't wish to embarrass the Labour Government. The Daily Worker was strangely reticent about the whole affair The Communist Party printed a small leaflet consisting of excerpts from a speech made by Harry Pollitt on October 13th entitled: "Danger if the Government does not make wage policy clear," in which Pollitt "stressed that economic conflict was not in workers' interests and they must use to the full the T.U. negotiating machinery." In short, don't strike. And to "carry forward the gains made during the war!" The working class should be informed at the earliest of .the nature of these gains, The dockers, at least, have another word for the changes in their position as a result of the war. The "New Leader,” the journal of the I.L.P., rallied to the defence of the strikers with the singularly inept slogans of “Sack the Dock Bosses" and "Nationalise the dock industry with Workers' Control."

The R.C.P. "Socialist Appeal" somewhat softly rebutted the silly stories of the Daily Mail regarding "Trotskyist agitation fomenting the strike.'' With their typically futile and romantic conceptions of "revolutionary upsurges," they urged the dockers to elect a "really revolutionary and militant leadership.”

On the whole, the dockers suffered as much from the attentions of their "friends” as they did from their open enemies.

The strike committees' spokesmen in Liverpool and London expressed finely on occasion the resolution of the men. and with a dignity that put their opponents to shame; but at other times indicated quite clearly their lack of knowledge of the forces arrayed in opposition.

They were, too, possessed of a naive confidence in the present Government.

It is a matter of little doubt, however, that the decision taken latterly by the Unofficial Committees to recommend a general resumption of work was prompted by the strategically sound desire to keep the men together with an unbroken organisation, and to indicate to all concerned that they retained the democratic support of the men.

Had the strike lasted any longer, there might have been the danger of a section of the strike movement weakening and resultant confusion. It is a truism that the working class learn as much from their defeats as from their victories. What, then, are the lessons to be gained from this strike, the first national dispute since the end of the war?

The first, that the dockers as a hitherto relatively backward section of the working class, are "growing up,'' and can display discipline and solidarity of a high order. Their unofficial organisation thrown up by the strike did in some respects match all that is best in working class industrial history. The second, that the employing class with their united hostility and the impudent counter proposal of an actual wage reduction in some ports, combined with the demand for a continuation of the war-time restrictions of Trade Union conditions, are determined to fight bitterly any attempted inroads into their profits. Well they know that a wage increase can only be granted at the expense of their profits.

The third, that the Labour Government does not, in fact can not, encourage workers to improve their status at the expense of their masters. And that the smooth running of the wages system comes first, as it must, in their calculations.

The fourth, the dockers must realise that a change in leadership is not the solution to their industrial and union problems. Given the same degree of apathy and rank and file inattention to their industrial problems, given the same naive confidence in a reformist Government attempting to run capitalism more efficiently than their masters, then the new officials will become like the old.

The fifth, the dockers must, like all other workers throughout the world, recognise and understand the class structure of society and the commodity character of their labour-power. That their wages are based, in the long run, on the cost of living and that the operation of the economic laws of Capitalism will defeat all their efforts to materially improve their lot.

And that the solution lies in an intelligent political movement to replace the private ownership of the means of life by common ownership and democratic control, and that in the Socialist Party there is to hand a fitting instrument for the task.

Tony Mulheron

[This article, received too late for our December issue, was written before the offer of an increase to 19/- a day. Ed. Comm.]

Recent books on trade unions (1973)

Book Reviews from the December 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Strike at Pilkingtons by Tony Lane and Kenneth Roberts. Fontana. 50p.

Ford Strike by John Matthews. Panther. 40p.

Trade Unions ed. by W. E. J. McCarthy Penguin, 60p 

Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism by Richard Hyman. Pluto Press.

Strikes by Richard Hyman. Fontana. 50p.

The New Militants by Paul Ferris. Penguin. 25p.

The increased trade union militancy of recent years has brought a rash of books on the subject. Of these listed above the one by Paul Ferris is a short and very readable journalistic account of meetings with various union leaders such as Scanlon, Jones and Daly.

The first two books describe two particular strikes, the unofficial seven-week strike at Pilkington glass works in St. Helens in 1970 and the official strike at Fords in 1971. Of the two Lane and Roberts’ is by far the better. Matthews sees only four parties involved: the unions, the rank and file, the employers and the government. In other words, he uncritically accepts the shop stewards’ claims that they represent the ‘rank and file’; indeed that they are the rank and file. In fact, however, though at times they may more faithfully represent the ordinary worker than the official union they too are just as much a minority leadership group. They are no more the rank and file than are the full-time union officials, but are essentially one of two rival groups seeking the leadership and support of the rank and file. This is fully recognised by Lane and Roberts.

The men at Pilkingtons were members of the General and Municipal Workers Union, one of the most bureaucratic and conservative unions. In April 1970 the men went on spontaneous unofficial strike, ostensibly over a wage miscalculation. The union told them to go back to work, but the strikers’ demands soon escalated to a claim, for a £10 wage increase. The union did in fact manage to get them a £3 increase (a sign of how it had failed in its job over the years of course). This wasn’t enough for the strikers, at least for some of them. A Rank and File Strike Committee (RFSC) kept the strike going in face of the opposition of the GMWU.

Lane and Roberts paint a sympathetic picture of the members of this Committee: they weren’t seasoned militants but ordinary workers who suddenly found themselves in the unexpected role of strike leaders. But the two authors don’t let this sympathy cloud their judgement. They recognised that after the union had negotiated the £3 increase a majority of the men, a small majority, but still a majority, wanted to return to work. Why then did the strike continue for another four weeks? Because, argue Lane and Roberts, those who wanted to continue the strike were better organised and led by the RFSC.

The GMWU would have been the natural organiser and leader of those who wanted to return to work, but it had been completely discredited by its role at the beginning of the strike. It was widely held to have let down its members. They, it was felt, had been paying dues to the union as a kind of insurance for just such a situation as happened at the beginning of the strike. “Something went wrong” but, instead of the union supporting its members, it told them to go back to work. The members, understandably felt betrayed; in fact they were betrayed. Hence the RSFC emerged as an alternative organisation which the workers turned to.

In the end the superior resources and skill of the GMWU leaders led to the defeat of the amateurs of the RFSC. The men went back to work for £3 a week extra, though with a pledge of no victimisation. The RSFC then made the mistake of organising a rival Glass and General Workers Union. This provided the GMWU with an excuse to deal with them. With the help of Pilkingtons the Glass Workers union was crushed and most of its members lost their jobs.

The Pilkingtons' strike, as can be seen, raised many issues of trade union tactics—democracy, strike ballots, unofficial committees, breakaway unions—all of which are intelligently discussed by Lane and Roberts. In fact it is an excellent book and essential reading for those who want to understand trade unionism, its uses and limitations.

Trade Unions, edited by W. E. J. McCarthy, is a collection of readings for management students, but it still contains material of interest to Socialists. The picture emerges of trade unions as bureaucratic organisations trying to defend the wages and working conditions of their members. "The aim of the union”, says one author, “is to primarily to benefit the group of workers concerned, rather than the workers as a whole or society as a whole”. Writes another, “Most unions seem to have come into being originally as defensive organisations to preserve a standard already enjoyed”. Both views we ourselves have often made. The unionization of an industry is estimated to have had a once-for-all effect of raising wages by 10 to 15 per cent, but thereafter to have maintained them at the same level. This would fit in with Marx’s view that at best all unions could do was to ensure that their members got paid the value of their labour power and that without unions employers would drive wages down below this level. The 10 to 15 per cent would presumably be the measure of the extent to which this had happened.

Marx’s views on unions, together with those of Lenin, Trotsky and Michels, is the subject of one of Hyman’s books. Apart from the conclusion—Hyman is a member of IS and seems to favour creeping ‘workers management of production’—this is a useful book which discusses the various different and contradictory (employers need unions to discipline and regulate their work force) roles played by the unions. Hyman’s book on strikes, however, is not so good. The obscure sociological jargon and hundreds of references make it difficult reading. Nevertheless, if you wade through it you’ll get a more accurate picture of strikes than you get in the press or on television.

None of these books state the attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on trade unionism (though they do provide evidence to confirm its correctness): trade unions are essentially only defensive organisations whose actions should be supported insofar as they perform this job of defending working class living standards, but whose other activities in support of capitalism—co-operating with employers or governments or reformist parties—should be opposed along with any manifestations of the narrow sectionalism to which they are inevitably prone.

Adam Buick

An Open Letter to Dave Douglass (1972)

From the December 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Dave,

I see from the News of the World for November 15th that you are the editor of the Trotskyist magazine ‘Mineworkers Internationale’, and that you have published articles addressing the miners on union policy.

You appear to have upset the editor of the News of the World, and the officials of the Communist Party, who say that you are getting the “sane militants” (the C.P.) a bad name.

You wrote (apparently) in one issue of your magazine

“The only long-term justice for the workers will be under a system which they themselves control—a Socialist system.”

and

“Launch the General Strike immediately and occupy the factories, docks, railways without charging, capture the supermarkets and food wholesalers and distribute the food free.”

Hard Enough

And you claim to work for the overthrow of Capitalism.

One can sympathise with your indignation with your exploitation and the fact, as you say, “that Capitalists are making a fortune out of my sweat, discomfort and forfeiture of human dignity”. Fair enough!

But, Dave boy, indignation is not enough! In this business (the class struggle) brains are more important than heart, because our enemy, the Capitalist, is immensely powerful, and helped by a large staff of cunning labour leaders and T.U. Officials.

And I’m going to tell you straight out, that your stuff is doing more harm than good.

First “seize the pits” or “the Supermarkets”, or “the railways”, is rubbish. The workers have a difficult enough job trying seize half-a-pound of steak on a Friday night, without you try to feed them this baloney.

You must begin to learn that the control of the public apparatus of production and distribution is political, not industrial. It is maintained by the Government of the day, if necessary by armed force, although the workers don’t show much evidence of doing any “seizing”, do they? Could it be they’ve too much sense?

The Wrong Interests

Neither are you doing any good trying to cod the miners into taking action for “workers’ control”. The workers will never control Capitalism. What determines class control is ownership, and that ownership is legalised and maintained through Parliament, by the Government of the day, backed by an electoral majority.

It is no business of trade unions to try to usurp the job of a political party. Control of the whole of industry is a political matter concerning the whole capitalist class. The strongest, most militant trade union in the world can do nothing about it and won’t want to, anyway, because people join unions to look after the trade interests, not class interests.

Dave, I’m sorry, but your other stuff urging the miners on strike last year to do as much damage as possible is nonsense too. This is a hang-over from early Russian days when the isolated Bolsheviks sought to create as much dissension abroad as possible, for political propaganda materials.

Strike What For?

I now come to what, for me, is the most stupid and ridiculous nonsense of all. “Launch the General Strike and occupy the factories”. Are you really in your right mind, mate? Don’t you know that whenever the workers have occupied factories, after a few weeks with the wives bringing meals and drinks, they have unoccupied them again?

The capitalists will always beat you at this game; they own everything; they can retire to the Hilton or the country, and starve you out. In fact, the French authorities have said they approve of the strikers occupying the factory because “It keeps the place clean”.

And lastly, the General Strike! What stupid bloody rubbish. First of all, General Strikes for industrial ends are difficult enough, because workers’ action on such a scale concerns the whole capitalist class who have shown repeatedly, all over the world, that they will not hesitate if necessary, to crush strikes by armed force.

But even worse, you are urging a General Strike for “Workers’ Control”, which because you are not clear about it, you call a “Socialist system”.

A Socialist system will and must abolish classes! What are you on about? Will there be wage-workers under Trotskyist “Socialism” then ?

But, worst of all, you are trying to control trade unionists in General Strikes for political purposes — and this is disastrous.

If you claim that all the workers (or a lot of them) are militants, anxious to overthrow Capitalism, why have they got to lose their wages (and some of them, their personal freedom) in General Strikes?

Consciousness Wanted

If they want a General Strike why do they vote for Tory and Labour parties?

If the workers are Socialists, they have a perfectly safe and sane method of abolishing Capitalism, which also happens (as time will show) to be the only possible method — the ballot box.

It is for this reason that the Socialist Party of Great Britain will never support calls for General Strikes for political purposes. People like you, Dave, may feel very strongly, but you haven’t thought very much.

Socialists, in their capacity as trade unionists, because we are exploited like you, and have to join them, say to their fellow workers : Political action is for political parties! Trade union political independence at all costs!

Socialism will be established by a class political party, not the T.U.C., or any trade union.

It Can be Done

Let trade unions mind their own business, the interests of their members.

Let the affairs of the union be run democratically, by the rank-and-file vote, make strikes short and sharp. Procrastination is the death of strikes.

And, lastly, some advice to you, by one who has been right through the Leninist mill himself.

Forget all your Trotskyist dreamworld; it never was right. Look where the Leninist “boring from within” the trade unions has landed the C.P. The very nominees the Communist factions have got “elected” as officials have at times been the first to kick out Communists.

Study Socialism! Get clear on the necessity of conscious political actions by the workers, organised in a political party to take political power, to abolish capitalist control; and replace it by “democratic control”.

This is the road of Success, to Victory.

What you are doing now will only spread apathy as a result of bitter disappointment.

Forget Trotsky, and remember Marx!

Yours for Socialism,

Horatio

11 November 1972.

50 Years Ago: The London Bus Strike (by a busman) (2004)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October 18th, London was in the grip of an ever spreading bus strike. As each issue of daily and evening newspapers reported more and more garages affected and more services withdrawn, so the streets of London became increasingly crowded with motor cars and other vehicles and extra police had to be detailed for traffic control. The strike, which by October 18th embraced 43 out of 84 Central London bus garages was the boiling over of a feeling of resentment that has been simmering amongst busmen for a long time ( . . . )

    

As with every other commodity, the price of labour power fluctuates with variations in supply and demand, but the fluctuations are not automatic. They are brought about by the efforts of employers to obtain cheap labour power when the supply is plentiful and by the struggles of workers to get more when the demand exceeds the supply. London busmen are working on sound lines in using the present high demand for their particular brand of labour power to force up its price ( . . .)

   

It may seem to busmen and all other workers that the position is impossible of improvement. Not so. There may be improvements for some of the workers for a long time and for all the workers for a short time, but the range of improvements is very limited within capitalist society. Not a reduction in the amount of interest paid on investments but the abolition of investment; not struggles for higher wages but the end of the wages system; not joint consultation between employers and employees, but the elimination of employment and unemployment, a world wherein everyone produces to his best ability and has access to the wealth produced, in a word – Socialism. That is the only alternative to an indefinite continuation of the struggle to get enough to live on for those millions who constitute the working class.

    

Busmen have always had one weakness in their struggles – inter-garage rivalries, inter-section suspicions, inter-service jealousies and a lack of close communication to allow of concerted action. The overtime ban did much to overcome those difficulties and give it a common purpose. The strike, as it was not complete, has recreated the difficulties. To achieve Socialism there must be a breaking down of the rivalries and antagonisms between all workers in all industries and a unification, on the political field, on the basis of a clear understanding and awareness of their interests – AS A CLASS.

(From front page article by W. Waters, Socialist Standard, November 1954)

The Busmen's Problem: New Unions or old (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the Socialist Standard will remember the bus strike of May, 1937.

The Busmen's Rank and File Movement, an unofficial “ginger up" organisation, operating within the Transport and General Workers' Union, had secured a majority on the Central Bus Committee, the negotiating committee of the London Bus section of the Union. When the General Executive Council of the T. & G.W.U. granted powers to the Bus section to strike for a 7½ hour day, this committee was the one upon which fell the responsibility for the conduct of the strike. After four weeks the G.E.C. withdrew the powers previously granted and sent the Busmen back to work. An agreement was negotiated on the basis of proposals which the men had rejected only a few days before the end of the strike.

Following the strike an enquiry was held by the union into the activities of certain of the more prominent members of the section with the consequence that a number of the leading Rank and File Movement members were suspended from office and others expelled from the union. These suspensions and expulsions were subsequently endorsed by the 1937 Biennial Conference of the T. & G.W.U.

Mr. W. J. Brown, Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, offered his services to the London Busmen if they desired to form a breakaway union. His offer was rejected by the Rank and File Movement leaders.

Responsibility for the conduct or misconduct of the strike is in doubt. Lacking further evidence there are no grounds for accepting the conflicting statements made by either side. Many Busmen were disgruntled at the treatment they had received, and when, on February 18th of this year, the National Passenger Workers' Union was formed, it was from this disgruntled element that this organisation recruited its membership. The promoters of the N.P.W.U. are, in the main, ex-members of the now disbanded Rank and File Movement. Mr. W. J. Brown is the Hon. President.

In a pamphlet entitled, “A Real Union for Passenger Workers," the promoters of the new organisation state their case. Briefly it is ". . . that the Transport and General Workers' Union has not only not been an asset, but a positive obstacle in achieving a remedy . . ." for the grievances of the Busmen, and that ". . . there is no hope of ever making the Transport and General Workers' Union an effective instrument to this end " (page 13). The existing Central Bus Committee of the T. & G.W.U. replied with a pamphlet, “The T. & G.W.U. IS THE REAL UNION for Passenger Workers," in which it is claimed that “this union IS an effective instrument to this end.” Further literature appeared, but nothing else of much interest was contributed to the argument.

It is not the business of The Socialist Party to take up the cudgels on behalf of either the new Transport Union or the old one, but there are certainly factors relating to this position which require examination in order that the workers may learn from the experience.

For a breakaway union of this kind to be successful, from the Busmens' point of view, the first necessity is that the bulk of the Busmen should pass into it. At no time have there been grounds for expecting to be able to gather all the Busmen into a new organisation. If those responsible for the breakaway considered otherwise they deluded themselves. Alternatively, they must have conceived that the Busmen split into two camps could be no worse off than they were under the leadership of the T. & G.W.U. In fact that is their claim in the pamphlet mentioned. But is this so? If it is, then no harm has been done.

That the London Busmen have grievances which have not been remedied is undoubtedly true, but it is equally true that they have been able to maintain their wages and working conditions at a level which would certainly have been lower were it not for their resistance. This has been made possible by the readiness of the Busmen for united action. Negotiations have often faced them up with the need for united action and their readiness for this has frequently resulted in success. The result of negotiations by a union always reflects the preparedness and the ability of the members to act in unity. If the Busmen have not been involved in a larger number of strikes it is because of this ability to act unitedly that a single organisation has been able to afford them. Negotiations on behalf of a body of men split up into two camps will reflect the weakness that this position gives rise to, since the ability to act unitedly is destroyed. So, with two organisations in existence, antagonistic to each other, the conditions of the Busmen are menaced. Numerous times in the past the London Busmen have been engaged in disputes which have not received the official sanction of the T. & G.W.U., but the Busmen were at no time disunited among themselves. That is why their unofficial strikes have so often been the means of gaining them some slight improvement in their working conditions. Now they are disunited amongst themselves.

If the new organisation can capture the membership then, of course, the split will be healed. But will such a new organisation be able to offer more than the old, or will it embody the same weaknesses? If it can offer more then it is reasonable to expect that in time it will attract all the transport workers to its ranks.

The form which the new organisation would take, assuming, of course, that it secured recognition, would be determined by the circumstances in which it had to work. It would be bound by certain limits, which, if it attempted to go beyond them, would only serve to wreck it. These circumstances under which it would be bound to function are dictated by the needs of the industry. In this instance, by the needs of capitalism organised as a public service.

Recognition must be sought, but will only be conceded if the organisation is capable of disciplining its members and binding them to agreements. Where the membership is taught to expect so much from its leaders, as in the case of the T. & G.W.U., the leader must be in a position to pledge his membership and sign agreements in their name. With any such organisation based on the principle of leadership this must apply. The membership will look for agreements as the result of successful negotiations, with the consequence that the leadership will tend to degenerate into the function of special pleading. It is a matter of time, with developments along these lines, when the new union would become indistinguishable from the old. Leadership is the weakness of the older organisation, it can well become the weakness of the new.

The supporters of the National Passenger Workers* Union claim that permanent officialdom will not be tolerated in that organisation. All officials are to be elected. The constitution of the N.P.W.U. is modelled along similar lines to that of the old London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle Workers. That union was absorbed by the United Vehicle Workers, which eventually amalgamated to form the Passenger Section of the Transport & General Workers' Union. This development was, to an extent, in line with developments in the passenger carrying industry. Attempts to build a new union along the lines of the old Licensed Vehicle Workers' Union should be critically examined to be sure that such a step, instead of being a step forward in working class organisation, is not really a step backward.

The elective principle of securing officials prevailed in the old L. & P.W. of L.V.W., but was not found to be so very beneficial. Negotiators require to have great experience to be able to explore all that an agreement implies. The gaining of such experience is rendered difficult where the elective principle applies. There is the further point that elected officials have to pay much attention to attempts to usurp their positions by other job seekers. Intrigue, scandal and carping criticism are the weapons so often used by would-be officers that the time of an elected officer is all too frequently devoted to combating such schemes as his opponents embark upon in an endeavour to bring him into disrepute with the membership. It is not always the experienced man who gets elected under such conditions, but the most popular man, the man who is often the most unprincipled and unscrupulous.

A full-time official of a union is an employee. A capitalist, when he requires an employee, goes to the labour market and selects the man who is best suited to serve his purpose. He employs the man and dispenses with him when he no longer suits. The trade unions have found this to be the most satisfactory method of staffing their offices. The elected official on the union administration staffs has practically disappeared. On the executive side the elective principle is necessary in order that the organisation shall retain its democratic basis. The Executive Council must always remain an elected body and, as such, it can only reflect the degree of understanding and the amount of activity of the members.

When officials have to go to the membership for re-election they quite often find it to their advantage to keep their members ignorant of many affairs and they find an apathetic membership a great help towards re-election. Active minorities within a union’s ranks are always regarded with disfavour by the official element. Even where active minorities exist, apathetic majorities will often be the means of keeping incompetent and unsatisfactory officials in their jobs. The Vigilance Committees of the old Vehicle Workers' Union found this to be true, as also did the Minority Movement and, later, the Rank and File Movement. Should it be necessary to repeat the lesson ?

One function of trade unions is to endeavour to obtain some security of employment to its members. The members must expect to have to guarantee some security of employment to their officers. An apathetic membership allows officials to entrench themselves in their jobs by surrounding themselves with cliques and by adapting a union’s constitution to suit their purpose. The London Busmen, and, for that matter, the workers as a whole, still appear to want to be led. Thus can more be expected from a new union than can be obtained from an old one? Just a change of leadership with the right to be able to change it again when desired is rather poor satisfaction.

The pamphlet issued by the National Passenger Workers’ Union contains a criticism of the officials of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. It claims that they have done nothing for the Busmen. That means that in maintaining their wages and conditions at the present level, despite attacks by their employers, the Busmen have no one to thank but themselves. It means that the men have by their own effort, and without official aid, been able to defend their position. That being so, there must be scope for the Busmen to express themselves in the Transport and General Workers’ Union. If there is not, then the credit must go to the officials.

We fear that too much is being made of the domestic grievances of the Bus Section of the Transport Union and not enough attention paid to its functional results. The interests of the Busmen are likely to be sacrificed in the struggle over domestic affairs.

Advocates of the breakaway union continually make reference to “progressive unionism.” The impression they convey is that trade unionism can lead to some condition of society wherein the workers’ lot will be a satisfactory one. Trade Unions can be considered progressive in only two senses, in their ability to adapt themselves to the changing conditions of capitalism, i.e., to the growth of Transport Boards, etc., or by their ability to improve the conditions of life of their members. In either direction the T. & G.W.U. can make good claims despite its many faults and weaknesses. As regards a union being progressive in any other sense, those who consider this possible are living in a vacuum. They are Utopians.

Men do not join a union merely because they desire to be members. They join because a union offers them the means of improving their working conditions by collective bargaining. Trade unions exist in conditions where the worker sells his labour power to the capitalist. They serve to regulate the conditions of sale. So long as the worker has to sell his labour power to live, so long will his status be one of an exploited wage slave. No trade union organisation can alter that. The poverty, insecurity and other attendant evils which beset the working class will remain as the source of the grievances which trade unions cannot eliminate, no matter how “progressive” they may consider themselves.

Emancipation for the worker lies in the abolition of the relationship of buyer and seller of labour power. This achieved, then trade unions as a means of regulating this relationship will become redundant.

Arguments are being advanced in favour of a breakup of the existing trade unions in this country. The criticism of the promoters of the N.P.W.U. against the T. & G.W.U. to the effect that the Busmen are at the mercy of the various other trade and industries who constitute the majority of the membership of the older organisation, is partly justified even though exaggerated. With the workers still subjecting their class interests to sectional, trade interests, and with various trades represented in one union, conflict of opinion is sure to arise. The fault lies more in the lack of class consciousness by the workers than in the nature of the union organisation.

The old, old lesson must be repeated. Active minorities cannot push or drag the workers against their will. Impatience to achieve something worth while is admirable, but when it causes men to act prematurely it is often disastrous. Many sincere and hard-working fellows become the dupes of unscrupulous and self-seeking schemers because they are too impatient to spend the time getting down to the task of convincing their fellow workers of the need for a certain line of action.

When the workers give up their sectional outlook and realise that they have a common class interest, then they will establish a new social system in the place of Capitalism, but this will be achieved by political organisation. Until then we suggest that all workers, if faced with a similar position to that of the London Busmen, should look before they leap. They may be acting without due regard to all the circumstances which surround them; just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

W. E. W. & F. W. J.

Blogger's Note:

With regards to the authors of this article, 'W. E. W.' was Bill Waters, a longstanding and very active member of the SPGB, who also happened to be a militant rank and file trade unionist in the bus workers' union over many decades. My (educated) guess is that 'F. W. J.' was the initials of Frederick William Johnson who, before joining the SPGB in 1931, was a member of the Communist Party. Johnson retained his membership of the SPGB from 1931 until February 1962, when he had to resign his membership because he emigrated to Australia. Waters also joined the SPGB in 1931 and retained his membership of the Party until his death in 1970. (There's a pitifully short obituary for Waters in the March 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard.)

Why did this particular rank and file union dispute receive so much coverage in the pages in the Socialist Standard? Arguably, it was because there were SPGB members involved in both sides of this union dispute. Though it's not mentioned in the article itself, one of the prominent leaders of the breakaway union was an SPGBer, Frank Snelling. Snelling, a former member of the Socialist Labour Party, was from South London - he originally joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in 1929 - and was an on/off member of the SPGB up until he was lapsed from membership in 1952. 

Adam Buick goes into greater detail about this dispute - and the debate amongst party members involved in this dispute - in his review of Ken Fuller's book, Radical Aristocrats: London Busworkers from the 1880s to the 1980s,  which appeared in the April 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard.

The Rank and File (1943)

From the December 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

[The article below is reprinted from "Socialist Comment," May, 1943, published by the Sydney Branch of the Socialist Party of Australia.]

We remember the time when the "militants” used to claim that the rank and file could do no wrong. The rank and file were exhorted to make their voices heard, and not to be the dumb, driven cattle which they had been. They should assert themselves. We were told that trade union officials should be the servants and not the masters of the members.

Many officials were denounced as "social fascists," "defeatists,” "class collaborators,” and "bureaucrats.” To advise the use of the Arbitration Court was treachery and a betrayal of "the masses.” The workers were badly in need of a new "leadership.” (This latter, of course, the "militants” could supply.) The strike was the means whereby our demands were to be made known and enforced. Such were the arguments advanced.

Aspirants to Trade Union official positions waxed eloquent over the virtues of rank-and-file control, their fervour equalling the fanaticism of the founders of a new religion: their creed became Rank-and-File worship.

Time marches on; many of the apostles of rank-and-file control have been suitably rewarded and now the Grand Organ plays a different tune. "Trade Union Bureaucracy” has given place to "Leadership of the Masses”; what was previously condemned as ”Class Collaboration” is now hailed as "National Unity.” Actions once denounced as a "betrayal of the masses” are now proclaimed essential to “Proletarian Discipline.” Any worker who suggests strike action is likely to be denounced by the former "militants” as a "fifth columnist," a "wrecker,” a “saboteur,” or even a "Trotskyist .”

Erstwhile advocates of direct action and rank-and-file control now fawn before politicians and Arbitration Judges; the Arbitration Court has become the "holy of holies” of a new found industrial faith. A fashionable practice among "militants” and some Trade Union officials was the denunciation of the low wages which were held to be inadequate to ensure a decent living standard. The fashion among those people to-day seems to be to regard the workers as a newly rich class squandering their substance on riotous living instead of investing in War Loans. Further, the same "militants,” including the General Secretary of the Communist Party and certain Trade Union officials, unite with other supporters of capitalism in urging working people to support a "Labour” Government which attacks the wages of the workers; the attack upon the pay envelope is disguised as “taxation.”

Don't you think, fellow workers of the rank and file, that it is high time you ended this state of affairs? A study of SOCIALIST literature will help you recognise the folly of placing your trust in "leaders.” Replace blind faith in “leadership” by Working Class Understanding.

International Socialists . . . the Tripe Factory (1974)

From the April 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The crisis which we have been predicting for the last 20 years is now upon us . . . Every single area of the organisation needs to be strengthened if we are to reply to Heath, Wilson and the union leaders with real Socialist answers” (Socialist Worker 5 January 1974).

Not at all a bad idea! If by “real” Socialist answers is meant sound, correct Socialist answers.

Unfortunately the International Socialists are not giving “real” Socialist answers; but very unreal mistaken ones.

Socialist Worker for 12 January includes a whole page of “replies to readers’ queries”, headlined by the statement that "the only answer” is not “Socialism” but “Workers' Control”.

Now the first point about so-called “Workers’ Control” is that there ain’t (and can’t be) any such animal. Workers’ control is a simple contradiction in terms. Those “in control” can never be the workers. Control of society comes from ownership backed by a Parliamentary majority. Even Chris Harman is forced to admit this. Lower down answering somebody else he writes: “What is needed is a mass movement of workers prepared to fight for control of every pit, dock, factory and office, replacing the present system by one run democratically by elected workers’ delegates.” But he adds (ruefully) “such a really massive movement does not yet exist. Most workers continue to take the existing system for granted and only want small gradual changes in it.” (Socialist Worker 12 January 1974).

Too true — only too true, Chris. But even supposing that friend Harman’s idea actually worked and a "massive movement” of workers fought for control of every factory — AND WON IT — WHAT THEN? Would it be Socialism? NO! On the same page we are told that the "problem of shortages” would be transformed by "dividing up the immense wealth in very few hands; enough to give the six million lower paid workers an extra ten pounds a week.”

Is this Socialism? NO! It’s the same old wages system. All it could do would be to perpetuate the same old class struggle. Even if every worker got ten pounds extra next Friday, nothing would be fundamentally changed. Capitalism would go its own sweet way and whittle away the "increases” by inflation, speed-up and all its other devices. As Tony Cliff rightly says (misquoting Lenin) "Capitalism always has a way out of the crisis if the workers are ready to pay the price” (Socialist Worker 5 January 1974).

The Socialist Worker actually writes that this "dividing up” would "pay the miners a decent wage so that they saw no reason to strike”. (What is a "decent” wage?)

This is definitely comical, seeing that the International Socialists spend most of their time fomenting strikes for political ends. Of course we are not quite so naive as not to know that the object of all the International Socialists’ hysteria about the present crisis is simply "the mixture as before”. It is a reprint of the old outmoded and discredited Communist Party tactics — calls for a Labour Government, new versions of the election of Soviets by the Trades Councils and establishment of "dual power” on the Petrograd model.

Its support of any and every strike, or potential riot, its absurd idea that any crowd breaking a few windows is preparation for the "revolutionary situation” and slavish idolatory of the Leninist “tactics” is the real reason for the formation of Rank and File (T.U.) movements, organization of fractions in the Trade Unions and factory branches. It’s all been tried before, ending with the virtual non-existence of the CPGB.

Behind the organization of strikes to overthrow Governments is the idea of seizure of power by “Workers’ Committees” backed by mutiny in favour of the workers by the armed forces! What a hope!

By their rejection of Parliamentary methods International Socialists show that they are confused on the method of establishing Socialism because they do not understand Socialism itself. Socialism is NOT control by the workers. Socialist society concerns every citizen in his capacity as a human being, not as a miner, bank clerk or whatever.

Cannot International Socialists see that if the massive movement they envisage was Socialist it would inevitably express itself politically at elections, capturing political power in the only way possible (which is not street fights or riots) by a majority vote?

By their hysterical and unthinking fomenting of disorder they discredit and besmirch Socialism, reducing it to the level of hooliganism and street brawling.

Will they never learn? It’s all been tried before and is foredoomed to disaster.

Horatio

An unofficial Workers' Committee (1968)

From the June 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are unofficial committees made up of wreckers? Does the Communist Party finance them? Do the communists and trotskyists work together? A member, formerly associated with one such committee in the printing industry, describes how it worked:

The printing unions, as is well known, are amongst the strongest in the country and are especially well-organised in the national newspapers in Fleet Street. As is also well-known, there are a number of craft unions which feel themselves threatened by the general printing union, the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades. SOGAT organises certain craft sections and also warehousemen, semi-skilled printers, clerks and cleaners. By the autumn of 1966, after the passing of the anti-union Prices and Incomes Act in August, active unionists were growing dissatisfied with Labour. Sensing this mood, a few anarcho-syndicalist printworkers decided to call a public meeting of printworkers to discuss what ordinary trade unionists might do to oppose the wage freeze and the anti-union laws.

At a second meeting, held in a Fleet Street pub on 25 October, thirteen printworkers, mainly SOGAT members, met to discuss the formation of an unofficial workers' committee. Those present besides the anarchists were two trotskyists of the "international socialism" brand, and a few ordinary pro-Labour militant unionists. The promoters had intended that any committee should come out clearly against the Labour Party but the trotskyists opposed this. The week previously, a delegate meeting of the 10,000 strong London clerical branch of SOGAT had carried a resolution calling upon the SOGAT EC

to prepare the Union for a policy of independence from all Governments and political parties and, to this end, suggests that the EC ballot those members who pay the political levy as to whether our present affiliation to the Labour Party should continue.

The trotskyists, both of whom ironically were members of unions not affiliated to Labour, dismissed this. One of them, journalist Paul Foot, said that these people had voted against affiliation because they did not see the point of paying money to a party that froze their wages, and not because they wanted fundamental social change (which was quite true, but their reason seems sensible enough). Foot described this as "mere trade union consciousness". The time to leave Labour, he said, would be when the workers were deserting it for a revolutionary policy.

After much discussion, in which those opposed to Labour made it quite clear that the disaffiliation issue must be raised as this was one of their reasons for proposing an unofficial committee, a compromise was agreed. One of the aims of the Association of Rank and File Printworkers which was established that evening was "to campaign within the printing unions for a ballot of the membership on the question of continued affiliation to the Labour Party". The other aims were: to fight the wage freeze and anti-union laws, including encouraging "sympathetic industrial action" should Labour invoke the penal clauses of their act; one union for printing; and to work with other "rank and file movements".

The Labour government used their anti-union Act three times against printworkers, each time playing on other workers' prejudices against people they believed to be higher paid: against printers and clerks in the national newspapers, against some inkworkers (who, incidentally, did break the law by forcing their employers to pay them more despite the Order. Significantly, the government did nothing) and against clerks in the news agencies. After issuing a journal, the Printworker, the Association, through a SOGAT chapel (as the workshop or office unit is called in the print), organised a meeting to protest against the wage freeze. A left-wing Labour MP. Sid Bidwell (ironically once an IS trotkyist), agreed to speak but withdrew when he learned that the Branch Secretary had declared that, under the rules of SOGAT, a chapel had no right to call a meeting.

At the meeting, held on 29 March and attended by about 70 people, including SOGAT officials Brady and President-elect Flynn, a resolution to organise a strike on 30 June was carried by 36 votes to 12. Brady, a branch secretary, argued that the union leadership was militant enough but they could not act without the support of the members. He felt that most members were apathetic and would not follow a militant lead. Although this was probably true, it was not well received by the meeting. Brady's dilemma was that of all elected officials who want to be militant—elected by a minority of union activists they are responsible to an apathetic majority. Other, conservative officials readily use the apathetic majority to oppose the militants. A committee of eight, including two dissatisfied supporters of the Communist Party, was elected by the meeting to organise any action.

The committee decided to organise a march through Fleet Street on May Day proper, a working day as it fell on a Monday. Some other workers' organisations, mainly influenced by IS trotskyists, agreed to take part and on the day some 200 hundred people marched. A meeting, held after the march, again voted to strike—this time on 3 July, the day the government was expected to invoke Part II of their Prices and Incomes Act, giving them power to delay wage increases. By now it was evident that some members of the Association had grandiose plans for organising a national rank and file movement that would use industrial action against the government. That this was a totally unrealistic aim was soon grasped and it was later agreed to drop industrial action and concentrate on spreading the aims of the Association amongst printworkers.

The Cameron Report on unofficial committees in various London building sites which came out last year refused to believe Lou Lewis, a Communist unofficial leader, when he said that his committee was financed by donations and collections from supporters. The report called him a liar and implied that the Communist Party provided the money. The Report, due to ignorance of working class organisations, could not believe that unofficial committees really had so informal an organisation as they seemed. Though it is true that informal organisation (no constitution, no dues, no minutes) does carry with it the danger of take-ovwer by eltist groups like the Communists and trotskyists, the Report's charge is not backed by any evidence. Certainly, the Association of rank and File Printworkers was financed entirely from donation, collections and sales of the Printworker.

In fact, the Communist Party was opposed to the Association. As the June issue of the Printworker noted:

Already within the Printing industry the people who took part in the demonstration are being branded as 'communist troublemakers'. In fact, although individual members of the Communist party attended the demonstrations and actively worked to make it a success, the official Party made no secret of their opposition to it, and in fact went as far as to describe it as 'adventurist'.

Jack Dash also advised dockers not to take part in the May Day march through Fleet Street.

Present Communist Party industrial policy is to organise discontented workers behind Labour's left and left-wing union leaders like Cousins, Scanlon and, for that matter, Briginshaw of SOGAT. This was one of the reasons why the Association turned down a proposal, sponsored by an IS trotskyist (and Gunther can make what he likes of it!), to join the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unionism, in which the Communists are very prominent.

The theory of the most active members of the Association tended rather to the syndicalist idea of so-called direct action, scorning all political action as useless. Some of its members, and once again they were wrong, saw the Association as a rival and possible replacement of the existing "bureaucratic" unions. From a Socialist point of view (and of course each Socialist Party members makes up his own mind as to what organisation or action is best suited in the place or industry where he works) unofficial committees are a useful adjunct to the unions, putting pressure on the officials from below to act more in the interest of the working class. Certainly they are not an alternative to the unions. 

 

 

Blogger's Note: 

Though unsigned, this article was probably written by Terry Lord.