Laying down the law to the unions
Dear Sirs.
In the Socialist Standard. July 1987, in an article on trade unions, the following paragraph appeared:
Those who predict the permanent decline of the trade unions also have a lot to say about the anti-union legislation of the Thatcher government. They overlook the fact that, with one exception, the same and worse has happened before and the unions have known how to survive. The one exception is the Act which requires unions to have ballots for the election of officers and ballots for taking strike action. Along with the need for ballots before any strike settlement is agreed to. these are measures which the unions, ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway.
In your September issue, in another article on trade unions, the following appears:
Since the Conservatives were returned to office in 1979 they have introduced legislation to restrict the ability of trade unionists to take action to defend and improve their living standards.
The article goes on to cite restrictive legislation in the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts and continues in the same vein: "The 1984 Trade Union Act made it compulsory to hold secret ballots for union elections, strike decisions and political funds. The new Conservative Administration is committed to further repressive legislation". The article points to Green Paper proposals for legislation enabling "members . . . to be able to prevent unions calling for industrial action unless they have won majority support in a ballot. Union ballots will have to be fully postal, independently supervised and to apply to the election of union presidents and general secretaries".
As you claim in a reply to a letter in the same issue, the Socialist Standard provides a forum for discussion of ideas about life in capitalist society, I look forward to reading the discussion you will no doubt wish to publish on whether this proposed legislation is "repressive", or "something which the unions ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway".
(Name and address supplied)
Reply:
In considering the trade union legislation enacted by the Thatcher government it is important to distinguish between the government's intentions and the consequences of the new laws. Looked at in this way it becomes quite clear that what the government has consistently tried to achieve is restrictions on the power of trade unions. This is quite obvious in relation to some of the new laws (ie restrictions on secondary picketing, powers to sequestrate union funds) but perhaps less obvious in relation to the laws regarding the holding of ballots. Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, the government's intention in compelling unions to ballot their members was. once again, to reduce union power by making it less likely that strikes would take place. It is the government's belief that trade union members are less militant than their leaders and that this more conservative view would prevail if there was greater internal union democracy. The same kind of thinking is evident in the latest proposals contained in the government's Green Paper which, if enacted, will strengthen the position of individual strike breakers against their union thus undermining the most important source of trade union strength solidarity.
The Socialist Party's position is that there should be maximum democracy within trade unions but that the government has no place in imposing it on trade unions. The moves towards greater union democracy would be far more welcome if they had been demanded by union members themselves rather than being legislated for by a government committed to reducing the power of trade unions. Finally it is perhaps worth mentioning the hollowness of Tory rhetoric about democracy by pointing out that trade unions are, in fact, fairly democratic organisations. Indeed they are models of democracy when compared to the companies. corporations and public institutions they oppose in their battle to maintain workers’ pay and conditions.
The Editors.
