Cock-eyed Trade Unionism
Before the Labour Party became the Government, when Labour propaganda was more exuberant and unrestrained, trade unionists were always told that a Labour Government would push up wages at the expense of profits.
But Labour in power is very different from Labour in opposition, and now the Government devotes its principal efforts to persuading the workers not to make wage claims. This turnabout reached the peak of the fantastic late in December, 1949, when the Government held parallel meetings, with the T.U.C. on the one side and with the British Employers’ Confederation on the other.
The purpose was first to persuade the T.U.C. to accept wage-freezing and recommend it to its constituent unions. The T.U.C. agreed. The Government then appealed to the employers and we are told that they also pledged their support to Government policy on wages, production and profits. Here are some Press reports of the pledge given by the employers' spokesman to Mr. Bevin:—
“The Foreign Secretary gave a review of the present national situation, and asked for the co-operation of employers in the necessary efforts to secure stabilisation and increased production.“Sir Greville Maginess (president), on behalf of the Confederation, gave the assurance that the employers would co-operate fully in the national interest.” (Daily Herald 22/12/49).
The Herald went on to explain:—
“The mention of “stabilisation” is believed to refer to the continued need for restraint on personal incomes, including wage rates, profits and dividends.”
The Times (22/12/49) added a few points, under the charming heading
"Employers promise support for wage stabilisation.”Lastly, Mr. Ernest Bevin appealed to representatives of 50 employers' federations for their help in securing stabilisation and increased production. The last meeting was remarkable in that it found Mr. Bevin, the old trade union leader, appealing, among other things, to employers for their co-operation in stabilizing wages. . . . Sir Greville Maginess, on behalf of the confederation assured him of the employers* support.” (Times 22/12/49).
So we have reached the ironical position that the Labour Government (which promised higher wages) asks for and receives the backing of the T.U.C. (which exists to press for higher wages) for a policy of wage-freezing; and as if that isn't funny enough, the Government then appeals to the employers (whose interest it is to resist wage claims anyway) to promise in effect that they will go on resisting them.
The supporters of Labour Government, of course, defend themselves by saying that circumstances compel the Government to act in this way.
We agree up to the hilt; with, however, the slight amplification that the “circumstances" referred to are that the Labour Government has taken on the job of keeping Capitalism going.
Mr. Horner and the “Daily Worker”
In its issue for 30th December. 1949, the Communist Daily Worker reported that the miners’ national delegate conference had voted in favour of “wage-freezing” by passing a resolution endorsing the policy of the Trades Union Congress General Council. The resolution read: —
“Having regard to the serious economic situation of the country, we approve the terms of the report of the General Council in relation to T.U.C. wages policy.”
The Daily Worker condemned the resolution and urged the miners to reject it; and described the “wage-freezing” policy as one "foisted on the Trades Union Congress by the Government.” The Daily Worker reporter, Mr. George Sinfield, stated that "several leaders” of the miners told him that if the policy of withdrawal of wage-claims is pursued there will be serious repercussions in the pits.
It will be noticed that Mr. Sinfield talked about the matter with several miners’ leaders, but one of them he does not mention. That one is Mr. Arthur Horner who is General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and is a year-long member of the Communist Party. The Daily Worker said nothing at all about their esteemed Communist Party colleague, but the omission is made good by the Manchester Guardian. The latter, on the same day, reported that the resolution which the Daily Worker found so obnoxious and which was presented to the delegate meeting by the Union's Executive, was “moved by Mr. Arthur Homer," secretary of the Union.
Ask the Basutos to come and help us
The following are recent news items: —
“Professor G. I. Jones, lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, has been sent to South Africa by the Colonial Office in an attempt to trace to its psychological source the wave of ritual murders which is sweeping Basutoland” (E. Standard 26/11/49).
The other items refer not to Basutoland, but to crime in Britain:—
”Except for the year 1946 there has been an annual increase since 1938 in the number of indictable offences. The 1938 figure of 283,220 rose to 522,634 in 10 years.The 1948 figure of 40 murders was the highest in the 10-year period. The lowest was 20 in 1944.” (D. Telegraph 6/1/1950).“Number in gaol, highest for 38 years.” (D. Telegraph 29/9/49).
The Professor seems to be travelling in the wrong direction.
The Catch in the "Welfare State"
The Labour Government claims credit for having introduced or extended various social services, and tries to give the impression that they represent a clear gain for the workers. This is only half the story. In the first place part of the expenditure on unemployment pay, sickness benefits, etc., is met from the workers’ own national insurance contributions.
Secondly, as was pointed out by the S.P.G.B. when the Labour Party campaign for social reforms was in its infancy, when the workers are relieved of the need to pay for certain necessities, they have to struggle against pressure by the employers to reduce wages correspondingly.
Bodies responsible for arbitrating on wage claims, even when they do not put it down in black and white, take these factors into account in their awards.
And to put the matter beyond any possibility of dispute we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, stating the position in set terms in Parliament.
He was explaining the Government’s insistence that there should be no departures from the wage-freezing policy except in the case of very low wages, and he made it clear that when you are considering whether a wage comes under this heading it is necessary not only to consider the wage itself but also the benefits provided under the social service schemes.
“The White Paper must, therefore, be observed strictly, and it is only in the exceptional and genuine cases where some wage survives which, together with all the subsidies and social services, is insufficient to provide a family with a minimum reasonable standard of living, that there can be any possible excuse for going forward with a claim for an increase.” (Cripps, Hansard, 27/9/49. Col. 26).
Old Age Pensions in the U.S.A.
The same issue is arising in U.S.A. in a slightly different form. There is an old-age pension scheme covering 35 million workers, the fund being financed by equal contributions from employers and workers, supplemented by additional income raised by taxation. The old-age pension is 26 dollars a month for a single man and 41 dollars for a married couple.
But in recent months workers in some big industries have, by strikes, forced the employers to agree to pay a non-contributory old-age pension in addition to the Government old-age pension. According to the Manchester Guardian, from which the above details are taken, the steel employers and the Ford Motor Co. have agreed to pay whatever amount is required to make up the old-age pension to 100 dollars a month. Workers in other industries are threatening strikes for similar agreements, and “it is likely that this system of industrial pensions, to which the employees do not contribute, will spread widely through American industry.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/1/50.)
Just at this moment the Truman Government, with its eye on forthcoming elections, is proposing to extend the Government old-age pension scheme both by bringing in millions of workers now outside and by increasing the amount of the pension, which at present is small by American standards.
The cost of the scheme will of course go up but the interesting point is that the American employers have an obvious financial motive for supporting the increase in the amount of Government old age pensions because the larger the Government pension the smaller will be the amount the steel and other employers will need to bring the total up to 100 dollars a month.
“Industrialists have therefore a strong motive for supporting, or at least accepting, a liberalisation of the Federal scheme. It will put some additional weight on their shoulders, both in taxes and in levies on wages; but it will relieve them of the threat of a much greater weight" (M. Guardian 5/1/1950).
It will be seen that capitalism works in much the same way whether it be called a Labour “Welfare State” or a Truman “New Deal ”.
No Wage-freeze here
The Government's attempts to get the workers voluntarily to refrain from demanding wage increases to compensate for the rising cost of living are meeting with more resistance and there is no doubt that one of the reasons is that trade unionists note and resent the way in which lucky individuals vastly improve their own position by being appointed to highly paid jobs on the Boards of nationalised industries.
In the issue of the House of Commons Hansard for 8 December, 1949, the Prime Minister gave a complete list of all the members of the Boards and all their salaries and allowances. The full-time posts range up to £8,500 (plus allowances), which is the amount paid to Viscount Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, to Lord Citrine, Chairman of British Electricity Authority, and to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission.
Other full-time members mostly receive £3,100 or £5,000, and part-time members £500, £750 or £1,000.
Many are former trade union officials and the large difference between what they were paid for that job and what they get on the Boards sufficiently explains the competition for appointments. The Labour Correspondent of The Times (31/12/49) points out that about a quarter of the members of the T.U.C. General Council in 1945-6 are now on State Boards. He writes:—
“In addition to Lord Citrine, then T.U.C. general secretary, the list includes seven general secretaries of important unions—Mr. Ebby Edwards, of the miners; Mr. Jack Benstead, of the railwaymen; Sir Joseph Hallsworth, of the distributive workers; Mr. E. W. Bussey, of the electrical workers; Mr. W. P. Allen, of the locomotive engineers and firemen; Mr. George Gibson, of the mental hospital workers (who later resigned), and Mr. C. N. Gallie, of the railway clerks, who has a part-time appointment."
Apart from these ex-members of the T.U.C. General Council many other T.U. officials have been appointed to National and Regional Boards.
The Times Labour Correspondent also, for comparison, summarises the position in the trade union world:—
“One striking feature is the difference in the salary levels of members of boards and of trade union officials, who have often increased their earnings by four or five times by the change. Salaries of trade union officials probably average less than £800 a year. They vary from £400 or £500 a year up to about £1,500, or in one or two cases may be as high as £2,000. There are still chief officers who earn less than £1,000, though actual salaries are often augmented by such things as a free house and expenses arrangements." (Times 31/12/49).
Wisdom from Nigeria
To protect themselves and their dependants against destitution in old age people who can afford it take out life assurance policies and do so voluntarily. The Labour Government boasts that its national insurance and old age pension schemes are a very good thing, yet so little do the workers want to be compelled to contribute that the Government has to threaten them with legal penalties if they fail to do so. The purpose behind it is to even out the poverty of the working-class by taking contributions from the young to be returned when they are old; and from the more healthy to be paid out to the less healthy; and from those who are working to those who are unemployed. Some individuals can say that they gain out of this and welcome it, but in the final analysis the capitalist class anticipate that it is cheaper for them than was the old arrangement when the sick, unemployed and aged had to be given State relief and charity.
It appears from evidence given to the official inquiry into the troubles at the Nigerian mines that the miners have seen that there is a catch in the social reform argument. The following is from a report in The Times (19/1/50):—
"Mr. L. P. Ojukwu, one of the three I.B.O. members of the colliery board . . . told the Commission that steps had been taken to induce the workers to resume normal work when information of the go-slow strike had been received. On each occasion that he spoke to the men the reply was always that they wanted money. When he explained proposals for the extension of housing schemes, hospitals, and maternity homes and for the provision of other amenities he had been met with the argument: ‘Give us more money and we will provide these things ourselves.' "
They have something there and it is a pity we do not know what kind of answer they were given. It is an aspect on which our Labour Party defenders of reformed capitalism are always silent or obscure.
Edgar Hardcastle
