A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike
To the Editorial Board,
The Socialist Standard.
Woolwich, S.E.18.
Dear Comrade,
I have been invited as a member of the Communist Party to express my opinion on your article, “ A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike.” (See July The Socialist Standard.)
Your article, in the first place, does not examine the economic history and the relation of the class forces leading up to the agreement, but takes part of the agreement, without regard to the situation, and then condemns Arthur Homer and the Communist Party. You are content merely to repeat what a capitalist paper says, instead of as Marxists examining the whole question in the light of its relationship, taking into account as many facts as possible. Had this been done you would have been in a position to express an opinion.
Although not in any way connected with the mining industry, I submit the following facts:—
In 1933 the Bedwas Lodge was driven off the colliery it had controlled for many years. Under police protection the pit was filled with blacklegs and two thousand men were out. From 1933 to 1936 things were relatively quiet, but in 1934 Emlyn, Parc and Dare had been won back to the S.W.M.F. and Taff Merthyr had been weakened, but Bedwas was still 100 per cent. Miners’ Industrial Union. This had cost the Union money and funds were low. It was obvious that the strength of the Industrial Union was at Bedwas. In 1936 the attack on Bedwas started, and eventually 900 men signed revocation cards. Provisional strike notices were handed in. Ninety per cent. of the coalfield supported them. The Bedwas owners left the Coalowners' Association in order to fight. The huts were ready at the pithead to house the blacklegs.
On the last day of the expiry of the notices the owners said they would be willing to meet the Union if they withdrew the notices. There were stay-in strikes.
The owners met the Union. It now became clear that there would not be a strike. If a strike took place the Company would be smashed, the Company was carrying a million pounds of debt and not another penny was available. If the output did not provide the wages, the wages could not be paid. It was easy to close the colliery and destroy the men’s employment as the price for wiping out the Company Union. Therefore the Bedwas agreement was entered into.
In most instances the agreement is the same as that covering the coalfield agreement, and in some instances there are advantages in the Bedwas agreement. Double shift and new machinery are dealt with in the same manner as the coalfield agreement. Wages differ very little from that in the coalfield agreement.
It is Clause 13—machinery for settling disputes —which has caused uneasiness, but after consultation with the men and the old Bedwas Committee, it was agreed to. Either the agreement or close the fit.
The Independent Arbitrator takes the place of the Finality Committee now functioning in the coalfield, but whereas in the cases of dispute 99 per cent. of the cases of “failure to agree" implied defeat for the appellants, every dispute must now reach a conclusion.
If there is a coalfield fight, Bedwas can do as every other colliery, each individual can terminate his contract and secure release from the agreement. In the event of the Company failing to carry out the agreement there can, and probably will be, strikes.
The Bedwas agreement has not endangered coalfield agreement, although it contains formulations agreed to under duress.
Finally, the agreement has paved the way in a period of relative weakness for die final elimination of Company Unionism in the coalfield. Then is your article justified—you must make the choice—is this an advance from the 100 per cent. Company Unionism and the isolation of the Federation from Bedwas or not? You say that “at best it could be described as compromising and dangerous." Do you understand that the class struggle is full of compromises and dangers for the working class? It is a question whether you will face up to them or not.
Yours fraternally,
S. Rodgers.
Reply.
Our correspondent’s letter criticising the article, “A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike," is not very convincing. He says that the alternative to the Bedwas Agreement, signed by Arthur Horner, was closing the pit and throwing the miners out of employment. Such situations can indeed arise, but when faced with a demand by the employers that the Union shall sign a degrading agreement, the workers at least have the alternative of refusing to give their officials authority to sign— in other words, of giving up official recognition of the Union for the time being. The employers would enforce the terms, whether the Union signed or not, but there would be a certain value in the workers refraining from giving collective endorsement to them.
Our correspondent’s letter is, however, hardly consistent with itself. Having stated that the Bedwas workers had to accept the agreement or lose their employment through the closing down of the colliery, our correspondent goes on to say that, in the event of a coalfield fight, the Bedwas workers can individually terminate the agreement and come out on strike. Surely in that case they will be again faced with the closing down of the colliery and the loss of their employment: if it applies in one case so, it will in the other. This “right" of individually terminating his agreement is possessed by every worker, organised or not, but what a right ! It is an admission that real trade union organisation is for the time being impossible.
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment