Passing trade union laws (1982)

From the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade unions are at their weakest in a recession. When unemployment is high and profits fall the ability of the workers to improve their wages and conditions is seriously curtailed, and governments take advantage of this situation to introduce legislation restricting their activities. The Tebbit proposals as outlined in the 1982 Employment Bill are the latest and follow the 1980 Employment Act.

In April a conference of trade union executives met to consider a report by the TUC General Council on Industrial Relations legislation. The TUC’s recommendations to its members included refusal to participate in secret ballots under conditions laid down in the new legislation; refusal to accept government finance for union ballots; financial assistance for unions that suffer legal actions; withdrawal of trade unionists from participation in Employment Appeals Tribunals; and a 10p levy on members to cover the cost of a TUC campaign.

Response to these proposals has been mixed, with many predicting little active support among the majority of workers. But there is another question; the choice faced by those who oppose the legislation is between breaking the law or supporting the return of a Labour government that will repeal the Act. Both of these responses show a failure to understand the really important points at issue.

Present society is based on a division between the owners of the means of production and distribution and the majority of people who have to find an employer in order to live. Workers can organise together to try and improve wages and conditions but this necessarily means eating into the profits of the owners. In a recession, when markets contract, profits are liable to fall and consequently the ability of workers to gain increased wages is reduced. With declining markets many firms go bankrupt, which means increased unemployment and more competition for jobs. This also reduces the ability of workers to gain better conditions of employment.

Where then does legislation fit into this? Governments are likely to take advantage of weakened trade unions in a recession in order to place restrictions on their activities. In the decade or so since the Labour government's White Paper In Place of Strife there has been a wave of trade union law, with different governments adopting different approaches; some seemingly favourable to trade unions and some obviously hostile. But it must always be remembered that all governments exist to maintain a society based on the class ownership of the means of producing wealth. Irrespective of the prevailing industrial climate, the purpose of trade union law is to strengthen the capitalist class, whatsoever form the legislation may take. To see this more clearly it is necessary to look at some examples of trade union law.

In the 1870s there was a wave of legislation concerning trade unions, on the face of it introduced under direct pressure from organised labour. Among other things, these laws provided a measure of protection for trade union funds and allowed some picketing. But this legislation was not simply a result of growing trade union organisation. In 1867 an electoral reform law had been introduced which extended the vote to skilled workers in the towns. For some time there had been agitation for this extension of the franchise by a number of movements, one of which was led by the industrial capitalist John Bright, who had been prominent in gaining working class support against the Corn Laws in the 1840s.

Bright realised that it was necessary to gain working class support in order to transfer political power from the landowning capitalists, who still dominated parliament, to industrial capitalists like himself. The extension of the vote to skilled workers, many of whom were prominent in the trade unions, facilitated this transfer of political power. The Tory leader Disraeli also supported the 1867 Act. He saw it as necessary because, as an associate said, he 

'would rather drag the working man within the pale of the constitution by force than suffer them to organise themselves into a separate community outside it’. [1]

Once the vote was given it was necessary to try to keep this working class support and the trade union legislation of the 1870s was a means to this end.

The years of recession that followed this legislation necessarily weakened labour organisations; in fact, many trade unions disintegrated or reverted to being purely friendly societies. Trade union law served the purpose of strengthening the political power of the capitalist class but did nothing to protect the organisations of workers.

In the years leading up to the First World War. more legislation concerning trade unions was introduced. The Trades Disputes Act of 1906 protected trade unions against employers seeking recompense for losses arising from strike action. This Act was a response to the famous Taff Vale decision, which followed the suing of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants by the Railway Company. The Taff Vale case certainly stimulated the trade unions to create the Labour Party, but what is not often made clear is that a new political party was not needed in order to reverse the decision. This was accepted both at the time [2] and by later writers of labour history [3].

The Liberals accepted that the Taff Vale decision was an anomaly and that the original trade union laws of the 1870s, which gave the Liberals working class support, had covered the protection of trade union funds. The anomaly had arisen because, since the 1870s, the expansion of capitalist production had led to a large number of unincorporated companies being formed; all that was needed was an updating of the law. But of course the Labour Party has had to present the Taff Vale case as their unique concern in order to provide some justification for its own formation. In fact the Liberals were just as concerned about working class votes in 1870 as they were. Neither party differed on economic policy and both accepted the need to introduce various reforms.

The other piece of trade union law in this period was very different. The Osborne Judgement of 1908 prevented trade unions from using their funds for financing parliamentary representatives. Now here was an issue of some concern to the working class. The Osborne Judgement meant that workers who wished to give financial support to a parliamentary candidate had to do it from a voluntary fund; trade unions could not make it compulsory for their members to contribute. The Osborne Judgement was therefore in workers’ interests but the real tussle over whether it should be maintained had nothing to do with workers’ interests. It was purely a struggle between the three political parties. Liberal, Tory and Labour, over who should be the party to take power and run capitalism. Labour MPs were largely dependent on finance from the trade unions, whereas the other two parties were in fierce competition to maintain their own positions in parliament which Labour Party candidates threatened.

It was therefore in the interest of both Liberals and Tories to maintain the Osborne Judgement. Yet in 1913 the Liberal government passed a new Trade Union Act enabling trade unions to keep a political fund for the purpose of financing MPs, while allowing those who did not want to pay to contract out. The explanation for this move by the Liberal government is to be found in the political, social and economic environment between 1908, the year of the Osborne Judgement, and 1913. Firstly, the Liberal government was partly dependent on the votes of Labour MPs; they did not have an absolute majority in parliament and needed support from either the Irish Nationalists or Labour.

The Liberal government tried to get over the Osborne Judgement by introducing the payment of MPs. But that was not enough for the Labour politicians who had “fastened their hungry jaws on the vitals of the labour movement” [4] and in the end the Liberals conceded. There was, however, also another reason why the Osborne Judgment was not maintained: 1911 was a year of widespread strikes and riots with troops being used on a number of occasions to fire at workers. It was a period when, especially after the two General Elections of 1910, workers lost interest in the abilities of government to solve their problems. As one witness put it:

Nothing was more noticeable about the last two General Elections than the rapidity with which the mass of the electorate has become disillusioned as to the worth of the vote. [5]

All manner of actions, consultations and legislation was tried by the government to solve the unrest and restore their authority. The strikes continued and in the following year the stoppage by the miners led to the government intervening directly to try to solve the dispute. This was in fact an abandonment of traditional Liberal policy of laissez faire. In desperation the government introduced a Minimum Wage Bill to try to placate the miners. This, like so much similar legislation, guaranteed nothing in the long term; it was purely a crisis measure. Speaking on the Bill in parliament, Asquith the Prime Minister said: “We have exhausted all powers of persuasion and argument and negotiation". [6]

In the end the Liberals backed the legislation changing the Osborne Judgement, partly because they believed that Labour MPs would be of use to the government in reconciling the workers to their class position within capitalism. Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Party leader, had already helped to end a major rail strike. This was perhaps a foresight by the Liberals into the role the Labour Party would play in the future, as a government and as an opposition.

More recent trade union law, including the Labour government’s proposals In Place of Strife and the Tory Industrial Relations Act of 1971, has the same purpose as earlier legislation. Government proposals may arise from actions taken by the working class, whether because of restrictions placed on trade unions or because of strikes and disputes. But the law will always ultimately serve the interests of the capitalist class. Yet laws, whether they are supposed to assist trade union organisation or place restrictions on it, can do nothing to change the actual power that unions have. The laws of the 1870s did nothing to prevent the fragmentation of trade unions in the years of recession that followed, but they did increase the political power of the industrial capitalists. Similarly, the legislation of the 1974-79 Labour government, which included the Employment Protection Act, did nothing to prevent unemployment rising from million to 1½ million during that period. Nor has it protected workers from massive redundancies and unemployment since.

There is no substitute for the workers consciously organising to defend their interests. They should not look to leaders, whether in trade unions, the Labour Party or in government. Legislation, whether for or against unions, does nothing to change the fact that governments exist to serve the interests of the capitalist class, to maintain the system in which the majority of people are exploited. Workers need to organise to defend their living standards whenever possible; but they should also organise consciously and politically for the purpose of abolishing the system of society that can only operate in the interests of the owning minority.

MD

References:

[1] Quoted in Victorian People, Asa Briggs. Penguin 1970. p203.

[2] See Lloyd George speech at National Reform Union meeting Bacup. 5 November 1904.

[3] See G.D.H. Cole: A Short History of the British Working Class Movement. Allen and Unwin 1947, p293.

[4] Socialist Standard November 1910.

[5] Stephen Reynolds: Seems So! A Working Class View of Politics. Macmillan 1911, p!30.

[6] Parliamentarv Debates, 5th Series. V36, p234.