Workers on the Defensive (1949)

From the October 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the shrewdest comments on this year’s Trades Union Congress was made by the Manchester Guardian on September 5th. Reviewing the position of the trade unions since the Labour Government came into power four years ago the article pointed out in what a world of illusion trade union supporters of the Government have been living. Their feeling was that now at last they had the power and the opportunity to reach higher standards of living, but in fact “since the fuel crisis they have been for all their power and all the old illusions of what power would bring, on the defensive: the struggle has been to prevent real wages from falling.”

The Guardian, in keeping with its political outlook, argues that it is the “country’s economic weakness” that prevents the unions from gaining higher wages, but on a proper view the present despairing situation in which the workers find themselves is a confirmation of the S.P.G.B.’s contention that there are no ways within the capitalist system of ending the resistance of the employers, backed by the Government, to working class claims. The workers have to struggle ceaselessly to protect their standards and have in the last resort only one weapon, the strike.

This is not to say that the position will be fundamentally changed if the workers do resort to strike action, for the employers and the Government still have the power and the means of seeking to achieve their over-riding aim of cheaper production in other ways. Hitherto, and this was anticipated in these columns in September, 1945, the Labour Government has chosen to offset wage increases by withdrawing subsidies and allowing the cost of living to rise, while at the same time using the trade union executives in the campaign to clamp down on wage claims as much as possible. But the time is fast approaching when the present policy of the Government will have less effect and then we may see the Government forcing a showdown with the trade unions and being prepared to make more use of the threat of unemployment as a method of compelling the workers to work harder.

From the side of the trade union officials the dangers of the present position from their own point of view have long been seen. One delegate at the T.U.C., Mr. Bryn Roberts, stated bluntly the difficulty of trying indefinitely to restrain the workers for the sake of the Government.

“He warned Congress that to pursue the policy of wage restraints indefinitely would damage the mechanism of collective bargaining, destroy the workers’ confidence in it, and bring into disrepute the machinery of arbitration. It would bring conflict within the unions and between the unions. It would transform the class struggle so that instead of being between worker and employer it would be between the trade unionist and his own executive committee. It would provide opportunities for disruptive elements.”—(Times, September 9, 1949)

Mr. Bryn Roberts may or may not realise the full implication of what he said, but what it means is what Socialists have always contended, that a Labour Government administering capitalism cannot support the working class against the capitalists. This has been brought out into the open by the way four years of Labour government have sufficed to eliminate from the speeches of Labour Leaders all the old loose talk about getting rid of profit.

Mr. Tewson, General Secretary of the T.U.C., dealing with demands that profits should be reduced to raise wages, remarked that “It had not been possible to determine what were reasonable profits and dividends.” (Times, September 9th, 1949)

For Socialists, whose aim is Socialism, the problem presents no difficulty at all, for there will be no profits; but for a Labour Government running capitalism the answer has to be as Sir Stafford Cripps put it at a meeting in Manchester last November: “If you are going to allow private enterprise to run you must allow it to run on capitalist lines.” (Manchester Guardian, November 22nd, 1948)

How rigorously the needs of the capitalist system determine the policies of governments that administer it can be seen by the way the Labour Party and the Tory Party see eye to eye on the point that cheaper production must come first and higher wages must wait until some undefined future date. Neither Party now even promises an immediate rise of working-class standards of living. Both are now content to promise that they will try to prevent a fall.

“Higher production at lower cost without reduction of living standards is the main theme of Conservative home policy set out in detail in ‘The Right Road for Britain.' ”

So speaks the Conservative Daily Telegraph (July 23rd, 1949)

And here is Prime Minister Attlee addressing the T.U.C. in almost identical phrases: —

“It is therefore vital that we should reduce costs by greater efficiency.

“I do not believe in lowering wages as a means of reducing costs. I believe that efficient work can only be got by paying adequate wages, but to reduce costs does mean that both employers and employed must seek in every way to attain the highest degree of efficiency.” (Daily Herald, September 8th, 1949)

Instead of asking themselves whether Capitalism is better under Labour Government than under Tory Government, the working class should consider how much better Socialism would be than either.

Edgar Hardcastle

What now for trade unions? (1987)

From the September 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are no doubt thousands of trade unionists throughout the country who believe that the third term of office achieved by the Conservatives will spell disaster for the trade union movement.

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. This has occurred when the economic recession has already limited the unions' effectiveness.

The 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts restricted the right to strike, made individual workers and their unions liable for damages arising from disruption caused by striking and picketing, placed further limitations on picketing and made closed shop agreements still more difficult to achieve. 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 union legislation which will follow proposals outlined in a Green Paper produced earlier this year. If, as is likely, these proposals become law protection for the closed shop will be ended and industrial action to enforce one will be unlawful. Unions will be unable to discipline members who refuse to take part in industrial action. Members will 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 will apply to the election of union presidents and general secretaries. Trustees of union funds will be bound not to allow funds to be used in contravention of court orders. This will be enforced by a new commissioner for union affairs to help members bring court actions against their unions and there will be new powers for the certification officer.

Effects of economic depression

In the 1970s trade unions seemed to be in a fairly healthy condition. They had been largely able to frustrate attempts by the Heath government to weaken the trade union movement through the Industrial Relations Act of 1971. The miners twice gained major victories over that same government over pay claims in 1972 and 1974. The election of a Labour government in 1974 resulted in the Social Contract 1975-8 but with the breakdown of that agreement a new wave of industrial action broke out in 1978, culminating in strike action by low paid public sector workers in the winter of discontent in 1979. That year saw the victory of the first Thatcher administration from which point the influence of the trade union movement has been in decline. In 1979 trade union membership in Britain stood at 13.5 million; by 1984 it had fallen to just over 11 million and it is now estimated to be around 10 million. The 1980s have seen the defeat in prolonged strikes of what were previously seen to be the most powerful groups of workers, most notably the miners and printers.

In looking at the future prospects for the trade union movement it would be wrong to conclude that the problems of trade unionists are simply due to recent Conservative legislation. As the decline in membership indicates, much of their present weak state is due to the economic depression and this can be shown by looking at previous periods of trade depression. For example in the great depression in the latter part of the nineteenth century membership of TUC affiliated unions fell from 1,192,000 in 1874 to 464,000 in 1881. In the depression between the two world wars union membership fell from 8,337,000 in 1920 to 4,387,000 in 1933. As at the present time, in these periods the working class suffered major defeats, the most notable examples being the collapse of the 1926 General Strike and the subsequent defeat of the seven month coal strike in the same year.

Under capitalism labour power is a commodity. bought and sold on the market and as with all commodities it is subject to economic laws such as demand and supply. At times like the present, when the demand for labour power is low the weapon of industrial action to improve wages and conditions is blunted. The year 1980 saw the lowest number of strikes since 1941. Out of the 11,910,000 working days lost in industrial disputes 8.954,000 were in the metal manufacturing sector and these were almost entirely due to the national steel strike, which accounted for 74 per cent of all working days lost during that year. The return of mass unemployment has meant that workers are unlikely to win strikes particularly long ones. It has also affected the willingness of workers to engage in strike action as those still in work feel insecure. Whereas in the 1950s and 1960s between one in 20 and one in 30 workers were out of a job the proportion since 1982 has been around one in eight.

Divide and rule

These conditions also create divisions in the working class. In the normal respect competition in the labour market is divisive and so hinders working class unity. With the effects of an economic depression this division is further heightened. Unemployment and increased competition for scarce jobs divides workers on the basis of gender since, owing to socialised patterns of belief, a woman's role in the labour market is regarded as secondary and employment of female labour is seen as being at the expense of male employment. The division of workers along the lines of race also gets worse as black workers are seen to be taking "British jobs" (even though they are most probably "British” themselves). Workers are also divided on the basis of where they live as some regions are worse hit than others. Such an example is the so-called North-South divide. That such a divide exists in the minds of workers was clearly shown in the June election. The major point is that economic conditions reduce the effectiveness of trade union action and in the end these factors are even more important than anti-union legislation.

Popular misconceptions

There can be little doubt that the Conservative policy of reform of the trade union movement was an important factor in their election victory as even after eight years of repressive legislation unions still remain unpopular with much of the electorate. This unpopularity of trade unions is based on three misconceptions — that unions are too powerful and are capable of bringing down elected governments; that part of British capitalism's economic decline was due to a high level of strike activity; that unions are undemocratic and operate against the interests of their members.

On the first point it is impossible for a government to be brought down by industrial action on its own. even a general strike. In such a situation the repressive and ideological apparatus of the state will remain in control of the government and such action would soon be crushed. In reality strikes are almost entirely due to workers seeking to defend and improve their living standards. For example in the period 1965-74 pay was the dominant reason for strikes; 83.3 per cent of the working days lost due to disputes in that period were due to conflicts over wage related issues. The conflict of the late 1970s after the breakdown of the Social Contract showed a similar pattern. In 1979 3,804,700 out of the 4,120,800 workers involved in strikes were in dispute over issues connected with pay.

Official figures also indicate that Britain is not particularly strike prone. The Department of Employment paper no 15, 1978 Strikes in Britain, showed that on average only two per cent of UK manufacturing plants, employing only 20 per cent of manufacturing workers, experience strikes long enough to be recorded by the department. As far as comparison with other countries is concerned different analysis shows that in the recent past Britain's strike record is far from being the worst in the industrialised world. Depending on the data used Britain is sixth or seventh among countries for which adequate information is available.

The third claim is that unions are undemocratic and that members need protection from them. While trade unions may not be perfect models of democratic organisations the Conservative Party and business leaders have nothing to teach them in terms of democratic procedure as an examination of the structure of industrial and financial organisations would soon reveal. Trade unions are organisations of the working class which as long as capitalism exists are needed if workers are not to be completely degraded, even though their ability to protect workers is subject to limitations in times of economic recession.

If workers are to make full use of these organisations of self defence they cannot afford to rely on the so-called democracy imposed from outside. The idea behind the latest Conservative proposals is to weaken working class organisation. What should also be rejected is the new type of unionism — the no strike deals preached by leaders like Hammond — or any moves to divert unions away from their class role. Members do need to gain more control over their unions but this can only come about through participation. involvement and a developing political class consciousness. Pressure for increased union democracy must come from members themselves. Decision making at all levels including decisions regarding industrial action need to be based on democratic discussion and a freeing of information so that members can make decisions on a knowledge of the facts. The election of union officers at all levels requires that members have knowledge of who they are voting for and what the candidates stand for.

Trade unions and capitalism

Workers should join trade unions, take an active role in them. However this defensive battle is one where workers have to run ever faster in order to remain in the same place. History has shown us that these same battles have to be fought over and over again. Instead of simply organising to get the best out of a system where the majority are economically coerced to spend much of their lives in unfulfilling and soul destroying employment, a system where they are treated not as human beings but as economic units who are simply to be used to create values over and above that of their labour power, workers must set themselves a higher goal — creation of a society where the differing skills of the people can be used to benefit society as a whole rather than only a small minority.

On June 11 last the overwhelming majority of the working class, both trade unionists and non-trade unionists, voted for parties committed to maintaining the present system. As expected this election showed that the working class remained down on their knees asking leaders to do their thinking for them. At present the prospects for the trade unions look bleak. With an economic upturn they could improve but at best we can look forward to a continuation of this vicious circle. Only when the working class develop a political awareness of the need to establish a different society that ends minority control of the means of producing the things we need to live, will we begin to see workers creating a different kind of trade union movement. We shall see unions that are democratically controlled by their members, able to defend workers in their struggles within capitalism.

Ray Carr

Labour and the unions: back to square one (2002)

From the September 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most people join a trade union for a practical reason: to get some protection at work from arbitrary decisions by their employer over pay, hours of work, promotion, safety and working conditions generally.

Some do so in the same sort of way as they might take out an insurance policy or join the AA. Others are more committed and take advantage of the structures most unions have that allow some degree of membership participation. They see unions as a collective way of getting a better deal for themselves and their work colleagues. Others take a broader view; they see unions as a collective way of getting a better deal not just for those in their own workplace but for all those in similar workplaces, be it a coal mine, a car factory, a hospital, a school, a local council, or a government department.

The next step up is to see unions as a way of improving the position of the whole class of wage and salary workers under capitalism. This is the highest degree of what Lenin called “trade union consciousness” which, writing in 1903, he described as “the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc” (Lenin was wrong on most things, but not on this).

There is nothing revolutionary about trade unionism, even at the highest level of trade union consciousness. It’s only about trying to get a better deal for yourself, your work colleagues and perhaps for all wage and salary workers within capitalism. There is nothing wrong with that in itself and socialists, who do want to replace capitalism with socialism, as wage and salary workers ourselves also join unions to try to get some protection from—and to fight against—employers. But clearly trade unionism by itself is quite inadequate.

Trade union party

A hundred or so years ago in Britain active trade unionists recognised this and proposed what to them seemed the next step: to sponsor a political party that, once it got into parliament, would “strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc”. Hence was born the Labour Party, which in 2006 will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of its first MPs. In this sense, the Labour Party was originally an expression of trade union consciousness on the political field, an attempt to get a better deal for wage and salary workers within capitalism by political means.

Some who called themselves “socialists” welcomed this development; in fact it was they who had actively worked for it. But our predecessors in the Socialist Party (we go back to 1904) took a different position: a political party to further the interests of the whole class of wage and salary workers was indeed necessary but not one whose main aim would be to “strive to compel government’s to pass necessary labour legislation, etc”. What was needed was a workers party that would have as its only aim the replacement of capitalism, its class ownership and its production for profit by socialism and its common ownership, democratic control and production to satisfy people’s needs. In short, a socialist party not a “Labour” party. It is for this reason that we have always opposed the Labour Party and that the unions should have any links with it.

 

What are they thinking now?

Now, a hundred years later, there can be absolutely no doubt who was right and who was wrong. The Labour Party still exists but it is no longer a trade union party as it was when it was first set up. In fact, the first step away from this was taken as long ago as 1918 when Labour adopted a new constitution and a new aim: not simply to compel governments to pass laws to protect workers within capitalism, but to itself form a government that would pass such laws and that, if re-elected again and again, would pass more and more of them so that eventually capitalism would have been gradually transformed step by step into socialism.

This was a new doctrine that was distinct from trade unionism: reformism, or the view that capitalism could be gradually transformed into socialism by MPs passing reform measures. Trade unionism never had this pretension. It does not aim at trying to replace capitalism, but only at protecting workers within capitalism against the constant pressures from employers. As it happens, generally speaking, unions have not fared too badly in pursuing this more modest aim, even though they have done – and can do – little more than follow labour market and productivity trends, pushing up wages when there’s a labour shortage and applying the brake a bit or negotiating redundancy terms when there’s a slump – and even though, at times, especially under past Labour governments, trade union leaders have put the interests of “the country” (i.e. the profits of capitalist employers) before those of their members and been rewarded for so doing with knighthoods and seats in the House of Lords.

But hopes that the Labour Party would be able to gradually reform capitalism into socialism have been completely shattered. Today nobody thinks that Labour has anything to do with socialism and nobody joins the Labour Party with the aim of furthering the cause of socialism (however understood, or misunderstood). Instead of Labour governments gradually transforming capitalism into socialism, the opposite happened. The experience of governing capitalism (in 1924, in 1929, in 1945, in 1964 and in the 1970s) gradually transformed Labour into the open party of capitalism and proud friend of the City and Business that it is today.

Labour management of capitalism

There was a certain logic and inevitability about this. Capitalism, being based on the exploitation of wage labour for profit, can never be made to work in the interest of the class of wage and salary workers. Even though political pressure can sometimes extract a few, precarious concessions from capitalists, capitalism can only function as the profit-making system that it is, in the interest of the one class in society that lives off profits, the class of capitalist employers and owners. So, all governments, whatever their original intentions, have to give priority to profit-making over pro-worker reforms.

Once you’ve had one experience of being in government you’ve already begun to learn this, but once you’ve been in government five or six times, as Labour has, then this lesson has really sunk in. Pressures begin to build up to drop the pretence of wanting to change society into socialism; in fact, even of wanting to change existing mixed private and state capitalism into full-scale state capitalism (everything nationalised) which was what Labour used to be committed to on paper and which those who took it seriously imagined was the same thing as socialism. This point of view began to be expressed in the Labour Party as early as the 1950s but did not finally triumph until the 1990s under Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson.

Trade union leaders and activists have been rather slow to realise this. There was evidence from the time of the first Labour governments of 1924 and 1929 that Labour in government was not and could not be a party furthering the interests of wage and salary workers within capitalism, which is what they wanted it to be (see the Fifty Years Ago column in this issue for how the ruling class viewed the Labour Party at this time). They entertained the illusion that, if only they exerted enough pressure on Labour, from inside and from outside, it could still become the political arm of the trade union movement. It seems that it is only now that it has at last dawned on them that Labour is not only not a party seeking to further the aims of socialism but that it is not even a party pursuing the same aims as the unions of protecting the immediate interests of wage and salary workers against employers within capitalism.

Back to 1900?

So, what conclusions are they drawing from this? Some, such as Arthur Scargill, have given up on Labour and are seeking to . . . form another Labour party on the same basis as a hundred years ago, despite the evident failure of the whole idea of a “Labour” party as a trade union party. Predictably, Scargill is followed in this by the 57 varieties of Trotskyism who, true to form, are trying to jump onto a moving bandwagon (even if this particular one is moving back in time) pretending that they too want to re-create “Old Labour”.

Others, such as the Labour MPs and trade union leaders who met at the TUC’s Congress House in London on 20 July for a conference on “After New Labour”, still think, believe it or not, that there is some chance of recapturing Labour for the unions. They still imagine Labour can be transformed back into (in the words of an Australian union leader where a similar debate is going on, for the same reasons) being “advocates of working people dedicated to a fair society”. But there is absolutely no chance of transforming Labour back into such a reformist party, even if it were desirable. Which it isn’t, since reformism as the attempt to reform capitalism into becoming a “fair society” was a mistaken tactic anyway as the whole history of the 20th century has shown. There is nothing fair about capitalism and never can be.

The most these trade unionists have done is to cut back on their payments to Labour, so, apparently, provoking the biggest financial crisis in Labour’s history. Good, we’re not shedding any tears about that. If we had our way, the unions would give no money at all to the Labour Party. In fact, even today nothing obliges a union member to pay towards supporting Labour; they can opt out of paying the “political levy” as Socialist Party members of unions do.

So the 20th century proved to be a dead-end for the working-class movement. But the mistake made a hundred years ago was not to try to move beyond pure-and-simple trade unionism to a workers’ political party but over the nature of that party. Political action is indeed necessary if capitalism is to be got rid of and, for this, a political party is needed but a real socialist party not a “Labour” party.

Adam Buick

Blogger's Note:

Page 11 of the September 2002 issue of Labour Left Briefing carries a short report of the “After New Labour” Conference.

Letter: The Socialist Attitude to Trade Unions (1952)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent sends us the following letter of criticism:

S.E.19.

Dear Sir,

In dealing with the question of “Trade Unionism” in the July issue of the S.S., you state that the S.P.G.B. supports T.U. action, whilst pointing out that such action can only be defensive in character.

I take it that you are opposed to reformist activity on the ground that reforms cannot achieve Socialism.

There seems to be something faulty in your reasoning here.

If your support of Trade Unionism is for the reason you give, why not support reformist activity for precisely the same reason? On the other hand your statement implies that you would oppose T.U. action if such action were offensive in character. This is of course absurd.

Again, are not Trade Unions reformist? If so, why not oppose them as you apparently oppose reformist action?

It seems that you have placed yourself in an impossible position. Is there a way out of the dilemma?

Or could it be that T.U.s are after all not reformist bodies? And that your support of them is upon grounds other than those stated by you. If so I would like to know what these grounds are.

Yours sincerely,

D. Smith.

Reply:

The statement to which the above letter refers was on page 110 of the July issue:—

“We support trade union activity that is genuinely in the interest of the working class. But we recognise that such action can only be defensive. It is only organisation on the political field that will enable the class system to be abolished."

We support the efforts of the workers through trade union organisation to defend and improve their wages and conditions of work. If they did not struggle they would be worse off. As Marx phrased it in “Value, Price and Profit,” if the workers abandon the struggle “they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation. . . . By cowardly giving way in their every-day conflict with capital, they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiating of any large movement.”

But trade union action is action against the effects of the capitalist system. It cannot achieve the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Trade unions have to take the workers as they are and most of them are not socialists and therefore are not in favour of establishing Socialism.

The establishment of Socialism requires political action, but not just any political action. Political organisation to secure reform of Capitalism can no more achieve Socialism than can strikes for higher wages.

What is required is political organisation and action by socialists, to gain control of the machinery of government for the purpose of introducing Socialism.

Some reforms of Capitalism may be of limited use to the working class or sections of the working class, though most reforms are not, but organisations that advocate reforming Capitalism are of no use whatever for the task of establishing Socialism. Such organisations can only maintain themselves by encouraging the delusion that the basic evils of Capitalism can be reformed, out of existence. Such an organisation must attract reformists and seek the support and votes of reformists, and when its support among the non-socialist electorate becomes big enough it has to take on the task of forming a government and carrying on Capitalism and waging its wars.

Organisation and propaganda for Socialism can only be carried on by a party whose members are socialists. If a party aiming at Socialism were to diverge from that aim by advocating reforms it would likewise attract non-socialists. It would be submerged by them and the socialist message would be lost.

That is why the Socialist Party does not advocate reforms, and why it tells the working class that trade union struggles against the employers are useful, but the creation of reformist political organisations which just serve to perpetuate Capitalism is useless.

Editorial Committee.

Letter From Europe: The Belgian public sector strike (1983)

The Letter From Europe Column from the December 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September civil servants and other public sector workers in Belgium carried out a nation-wide strike, lasting for over a week, against the government's proposals in its draft budget for 1984 to economise on its spending at the expense of their wages and pensions.

The strike started on Friday 9 September, after a section of the railwaymen heard the details of the government's proposals from their union officials. Against the advice of their officials, they immediately stopped work. The strike, still at this stage unofficial, quickly spread to the rest of the railway network. The unions then decided to follow the movement and declare the strike official from the following Monday. On the Monday some other public employees unofficially joined the striking railwaymen, leading to the unions calling an official general strike of all public sector workers as from Thursday 15 September.

The strength of this strike lay in its essentially spontaneous nature. It was not something that had been planned and called by the union bureaucracies, but arose from a general feeling that, in view of the cuts in living standards workers have suffered in recent years, enough was enough. The present government — a coalition of Christian Democrats and Liberals that emerged from the general election held in November 1981 — had assumed, soon after entering office, “special powers" to deal with the economic situation, which meant that it could rule by decree rather than by act of parliament. These powers had been used to end the automatic indexing of wages and salaries to rises in the cost of living, to increase social insurance contributions and to reduce benefits. It was the fall in living standards resulting from these measures that made the public sector workers so determined to resist any further cuts.

Trade unions in Belgium organise workers on the basis of their political opinion. This, of course, is absurd and has led to workers being divided into three more or less rival union federations: the Christian Democrats (SC. 1.3 million members). The “Socialists” (FGTB. 1.13 million members) and the Liberals (CGLSB. 210,000 members). But on this occasion the strength of feeling among ordinary union members was such that the rival unions had to act together in a “common front". This, together with the fact that the strike took place in Flanders as well as in the traditionally more militant Wallonia, greatly strengthened the bargaining position of the strikers.

At first the government was somewhat bewildered by the strike, the Minister of Communications declaring: “I have absolutely no idea why there is this strike; there was no warning, no notice, no presentation of demands. It is a rather amazing action" (Le Soir, 14 September 1983). The government soon realised however that the strength of feeling of the ordinary strikers was deep-rooted and that, in proposing its attack on increments, bonuses and pensions of public employees — the section of the working class best able to resist downward pressures in a crisis because their work still needs to be done whatever the economic situation — they had perhaps gone too far. In the background too was the fear that the strike might spread to the private sector, resulting in a general strike as happened in 1960-1 (also sparked off by workers in the public sector reacting against a proposal to reduce their pensions). So instead of refusing to negotiate “under duress", as governments often do in those circumstances, the government agreed to start negotiations straight away as from the Friday, indicating that they were prepared to make concessions. The Civil Service Minister spoke of a “misunderstanding" as to the government's intentions.

An agreement was reached on 21 September. The government guaranteed that the increments, bonuses and pensions due to public sector workers would remain unchanged at least until the end of 1985; salaries would however be paid at the end instead of at the beginning of the month. The Christian Democrat and Liberal unions accepted straight away and the FGTB on Friday evening after consulting its members.

A number of lessons can be drawn from this strike. First, any strike against a government decision inevitably has political undertones. The unions managed to avoid this by concentrating on the decision as it affected the wages and conditions of their members rather than on challenging (other than verbally) the government's general policy of spending cuts. Having obtained a relatively satisfactory result on the bread-and-butter issue, they wisely called off the strike. Otherwise they would have provided the government with a stick to beat them — that the strike was politically aimed at a change of government which, in the Belgian context, would only have meant a change of coalition partners. The Belgian PS, in opposition since 1981 and forgetting its role in helping to impose austerity when it did share power, did, in fact, try to exploit the strike for its own party political ends. The leader of its French-speaking wing declared that “the government must go" and clearly hinted that his party was ready to enter the government again. Fortunately neither the trade union leaders, nor even less the strikers. took any notice of this. If they had. the result would have been disastrous. If the strike had become political in the sense of demanding a change of government, it would have broken ranks, the resulting division among the workers would have strengthened the government’s bargaining position. In any event, the participation or non-participation of the PS in the governing coalition is of the utmost indifference from a working class point of view since, whatever party or parties are in power, capitalism can only function against working class interests.

Second, like the majority of strikes, it was entirely defensive, a reaction against an action taken by the employer — in this case the government. In the event the government employer was forced to withdraw' the main proposals, but the workers still had to make some concessions, which meant that their conditions of employment had deteriorated even if by a great deal less than their employer had originally intended. In other words, the strike only slowed a downward movement. This, of course, is necessary and was worth fighting for, but shows up the limitations of trade union action. The workers are always on the receiving end under capitalism, however militant they are.

Adam Buick (Luxembourg)

What’s wrong with the unions? (1990)

From the September 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who said:

  When British industry is successful, we have near full employment, rising wages and salaries, and expanding social service . . . For Britain to provide a rising standard of living for all its people there must be a modern, efficient and competitive manufacturing base. Only manufacturing industry has the potential to keep our trade with the rest of the world in credible balance. Without this essential balance, economic growth will inevitably be slow or stagnant?

Was in Margaret Thatcher or Neil Kinnock in a party political broadcast? The President of the CBI? The Governor of the Bank of England? A Daily Telegraph leader berating a group of “greedy" workers engaged in industrial action? It was, in fact, Ron Todd, General Secretary of the TGWU. and Ken Gill, General Secretary of MSF. writing in a joint pamphlet Making Our Future. Manufacturing in the 1990s.

The Transport and General Workers Union remains Britain's largest union with a membership of over one-and-a-quarter million at the end of 1989. The T & G is made up of 14 trade groups ranging from Docks and Waterways to Textile, Food, Drink and Tobacco to Administrative, Clerical, Technical & Supervisory Staff. The ACTS personal organiser (filofax) contains a simplified guide to the T & G. In it, Ron Todd writes:

  For the TGWU the aim of a just and fair society has not changed in 100 years. What has changed is our understanding of what is fair. Justice today means the right for all who want to be able to sell their services for a good decent wage, in a safe working environment, and for those who cannot work to be treated as human beings.

Them and Us
So there we were. Monday morning, nine ack emma. Sixteen individuals whose last experience of a classroom learning situation was donkey's years ago. Sixteen individuals glance apprehensively at each other with the uncomfortable expression of those caught in the no man's land between workers and management.

Sixteen relatively new shop stewards on their induction course. As the tutor walked slowly into the hall the collective nervousness disappeared to be replaced by a frisson of anticipation. It was difficult to control the desire to leap up and chant in unison “Norman Willis, TUC! Norman Willis, TUC!" The prospect that the next three days would initiate us into the secrets of trade union power that the media is always going on about, and the passing on of the knowledge that would access us into the band of activists able to withdraw the labour of their members at the wave of a rule-book, was a giddy one. The reality, that trade unions are a product of the class struggle which is a component part of capitalism, was a constituent sadly lacking from an induction course that turned out in the end to be an indoctrination course.

The emphasis in this type of union course is concentrated on the practical skills required by a shop steward in the day-to-day industrial struggle—handling grievances, the internal organisation of the union, health and safety, and issues involving law. Role-playing exercises in grievance disputes and wage negotiations assume a them-and-us attitude. However, the them and us as presented by the union is not that of the capitalist class and the working class. It is not presented as the economic division between the minority who own and control the factories, the land, transport, communications, banks and shops and the majority working class who are forced to sell their labour power in order to live. It is presented as a division between management and workers.

If you have no alternative but to sell your physical or mental ability to work, your labour power, then whether you be a fitter/welder or finance director of a multi-national company, you are a member of the working class. The working class—us—is engaged in a battle with the capitalist class on two fronts, the economic and the political. The economic power which the ruling class enjoys derives from its grip on political power. The ruthless pursuit of profit, inherent in capitalism, requires that workers should group together in order to protect themselves from the worst excesses of capitalism.

It does not require that workers allow trade unions to be run by those who profess that capitalism can be reformed or restrained in favour of the working class. The trade unionist fixation with the pursuit of “a good decent wage" remains a forlorn objective when there is a world to win. The transition from a society based upon production for profit to a moneyless, wageless. classless, stateless society— socialism—requires concerted political action on the part of the working class.

Working with capitalism
In 1983 the TUC published a pamphlet Hands Up for Democracy, designed to "set the record straight” and "answer some of the grossly misleading anti-union propaganda which has become increasingly common in recent years". It says:

  In the real everyday world we live in, more and more people see a trade union as their best chance of security—an insurance policy, or even a passport to a better way of life. Most people don't have very much power. Big decisions always seem to be taken by someone else. Unions are the way ordinary people try to turn the they into we, to claim for themselves some of the power over the decisions that shape their lives.

The pamphlet goes on to list some of the things trade unions are involved in. These include “working with employers to increase productivity, to sort out problems of work and to make industry more efficient". The aims of trade unionism as seen by the TUC are "to build a better future" and to see “successful industry competing in world markets".

The prevailing ideas in society are those of the ruling class. The continuation of capitalism is dependent upon the support of the working class, those who run capitalism on behalf of capitalists but who derive the least benefit from a society based upon production for profit not use. Trade unions pay no small part in upholding and re-inforcing capitalism's contention that there is no alternative to a society where there are wage-earners, employers and industries competing on world markets.

Many trade union members and officials would, no doubt, be shocked at the suggestion that they are actively supporting capitalism. For do they not profess themselves socialists? In the A-Z of Trade Unionism and Industrial Relations (Sphere. 1986) Jack Jones, a former TGWU General Secretary, wrote:

  The trade union movement, while working within a capitalist economy to do the best for their members, has traditionally espoused policies aiming at the extension of public ownership and control or the replacement of private by public ownership and control, usually described as nationalisation.

Maybe. But what has nationalisation to do with socialism? It is just state capitalism

Despite the cosy relationship with capital—private or state—that trade union bosses try to foster, the ruling class has a greater awareness of the social relationships inherent in capitalism than does the working class. Over the last decade, there has been almost annual legislation designed to weaken the position of trade unions.

Yet the need is not for better-educated trade union members, shorter hours or more wages. The need is for socialism. As Marx told the British trade union leaders of his day in an address to the General Council of the International Working Men's Association in 1865:

  Trades Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerrilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organised forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system.

Dave Coggan

Editorial: Socialism the answer (1981)

Editorial from the October 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

There was a a time, not so long ago, when the politicians could talk as if slumps and unemployment, and the power these gave to employers to enforce wage cuts, were all in the past. We now had a new breed of wiser, cleverer leaders who had learned from those days and the unenlightened thirties would never come again.

Well once again the real world of capitalism is upsetting the dreams of its politicians’ speeches and programmes. And the people who are suffering in this are the working class; the screw is being turned on their wages, their working conditions, their sense of security.

It is ironical, that this pressure is especially severe on workers in the aircraft industry, both those making aircraft and those operating them. For this industry was a post war boom spot which, because it was comparatively young and had obvious scope for development, was widely regarded as one where jobs would be safe for a long, long time. Then there was the glamour of big airliners with their uniformed crews roaring off to far away places, which made a job with them seem very desirable.

But much of the glamour is now being rubbed off, by some stern economic realities. The staff of British Caledonian have recently accepted a management suggestion that they forego a pay rise this year, although they have a contract which allows them an annual increase. Pan American has a plan to cut its employees' wages by ten per cent. British Airways has announced its intention of cutting its workforce by 9,000 by June 1982 and imposing a wage freeze until the end of September 1982.

In this grim situation the unions seem almost powerless; at most they can protect some of their members from the worst of the effects. It would be useful, if this were to prompt trade unionists to ask themselves why their organisations can do so little and why it all happens anyway.

In all industries, whether glamorous or not, workers are employed so that their employer can make a profit. If there are no profits, then workers are likely to be sacked; for example, the Chief Executive of British Airways said, when announcing the airline’s economy plans, that BA is losing money at the rate of £200 a minute: “No business can survive losses on this scale”, he added. Part of the process of profit production is the workers selling their ability to work — their labour power — for a wage. Labour power then is a commodity, like everything else which is produced to be sold.

The price of a commodity fluctuates around its value, or what is needed to reproduce it, but at any one time it corresponds to the balance struck between the competing pressures of supply and demand. If there is a shortage of bread, its price will tend to rise; if there is a surplus (in terms of the market) of labour power its price — workers’ wages — will be under pressure to fall.

This is a fact of capitalist life which is often obscured. For example an airline pilot, as he jets across the oceans, will not easily accept the idea that he is doing something as sordid as selling his ability to control the aircraft. But at times it is made compellingly obvious by our very living experience. This is happening now to airline crews, whose wages are under the squeeze along with all the other employees and who are likely to have to face some forcible redundancy.

Just as workers are up against capitalist reality, so are the trade unions which are there to protect them. And this illustrates the important fact that, at best, the unions can only be defensive of workers’ wages and conditions (at other than best they can, and do, operate against their members’ interests); they can only try to ward off the harsher effects of capitalism but they cannot deal with the basic cause of those effects.

This must be the act of the working class on the political field and here we are discussing a social revolution with the object of fundamentally changing society. Such a revolution will end the private ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution and make them the property of the entire human race. It will abolish all the relationships typical of capitalism, including the all-pervading one of wage labour to capital, in which labour power is a commodity to be bought and sold—or, when it is not required, thrown onto the nearest scrap heap of social security.

Yet the human ability to work, to conceive, to design, to make, is a vital, precious force in human society. When socialism is established it will be applied to produce wealth which will not be commodities but will be objects produced solely for use. Socialism’s wealth will therefore be freely available to all its people. Socialism will liberate labour power and allow it to realise its full range of ability for the benefit of the human race. The possibilities of this are awesome.

So how do we achieve this? It will be a start, in the growth of working class consciousness which is needed for the establishment of socialism, for frustrated trade unionists to grasp the reason for their lack of power in face of the slump. The next step for them is to stop thinking in terms of defending their position as workers and in terms of abolishing it, by setting up a classless society. This will involve the world working class cooperating to take over the society which they now design, build and operate. In their concern for human welfare and progress, trade unionists need look no farther than the case for socialism.

Grangemouth and the Limits of Trade Union Action (2013)

From the December 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent conflict at the Scottish oil refinery shows who holds the whip hand under capitalism.

Grangemouth oil refinery and petrochemicals plant on a 1,700-acre estate on the Firth of Forth 25 miles from Edinburgh is owned by INEOS, the world's fourth largest chemicals conglomerate, and also the largest privately owned company in Britain. The Grangemouth plant is Scotland's only oil refinery providing 85 percent of Scotland's petrol, processing about 200,000 barrels of oil per day, it also powers the Forties pipeline which supplies a third of Britain's North Sea oil. INEOS, launched in 1998 is owned by its management, headed by chairman and chemicals industry veteran Jim Ratcliffe, and now has a turnover of $43 billion (£27 billion). PetroChina bought a stake in Grangemouth in 2011 in a deal that was meant to secure its future.

INEOS repeatedly stated that Grangemouth was financially ‘distressed” and that without more investment it would close in 2017. INEOS director Tom Crotty stated 'We have a business that's losing £10 million every month. We've put £1 billion into that business. We need to put another £300 million into it to get it sorted out, to build a new terminal that will allow us to bring new sources of gas in, because the gas in the North Sea is running out' (Guardian 18 October).

The trade union UNITE released an analysis of Grangemouth's finances by tax consultant Richard Murphy. He disputed INEOS's claims and said Grangemouth Chemicals made a profit in 2012 and was expecting £117 million of tax gains that could only occur if the company earned £500 million over the next few years. Murphy said total labour costs, including exceptional pension expenses, were 16.9 percent of revenue and total labour costs 'should not be a critical cause for concern' (Guardian 16 October).

In 2008 INEOS production was subject to adverse economic conditions and in an effort to increase profits entered into dispute with the trade union UNITE over the pension entitlements of the workforce at its Grangemouth plant. INEOS decided to close the final salary pension scheme to new employees. UNITE stated that Grangemouth workers were paid £6,000 less than those at comparable facilities. A 48-hour strike that followed caused panic buying of petrol throughout the country and the Forties production pipeline was closed. INEOS has been accused by some of buying assets then cutting costs through the introduction of new working practices, lower wages, and terminating pension schemes. According to Ratcliffe, some 65 percent of salary costs at Grangemouth related to pensions.

Suspended

In the summer of this year Stephen Deans, convener for UNITE at the Grangemouth plant, and also head of the Falkirk branch of the Labour Party, was suspended from his employment at Grangemouth by INEOS while they investigated what they said were accusations that he had been using company resources for political campaigning; this was related to recruitment of UNITE members in the INEOS workforce to the local Labour branch, where the selection of a new parliamentary candidate was taking place after a de-selection. This had nothing to do with proper trade union activity.

However, the Deans dispute became conflated with the production demands of the INEOS company and an industrial dispute developed with UNITE over changes to terms and conditions for nearly 1,400 workers at Grangemouth refinery. INEOS demanded abolishing the final salary pension scheme, freezing wages and scrapping bonuses until 2017, reducing shift allowances, overtime pay, holidays, redundancy terms, and new agreements with UNITE to have only part-time conveners. Workers were given three working days to agree to what has been called a 'sign-or-be-sacked' ultimatum if they wanted to secure the one-off compensation payments for the concessions. It is important to remember that unions cannot push wages up to a level that prevents profits being made and can only work with labour market forces, pushing them up quicker than they otherwise would or slowing down any falls.

Unions arise out of the wage-relation that is at the basis of capitalism. The working class are forced to sell their mental and physical labour in order to live. The wage which workers receive is the price of their labour-power and the price of this commodity fluctuates, like that of all commodities, around its value as determined by the amount of socially-necessary labour incorporated in it. The strike weapon is the only defence the organised working class has against the capitalist class. Strikes are necessary if the working class are to prevent themselves from being driven into the ground by the never-satisfied demands of profit. The working class must organise to defend and improve our wages and conditions of work. The strike is a weapon that can limit the capitalists’ aims.

INEOS shut down the Grangemouth plant on supposed safety grounds in the face of threatened industrial action by UNITE. UNITE attacked INEOS for going ahead with a 'cold shut-down' that would put Grangemouth out of action for a month even after the plant was reopened. The union had called for a partial 'warm' shut-down during its strike to allow the plant to tick over and resume operation quickly. A strike at the plant requires an orderly shut-down for safety reasons. INEOS could have used a 'hot' shut-down where the plant is on standby so that operations can be quickly restarted. The closure could also disrupt the flow of North Sea oil into Scotland because BP's giant Kinneil processing terminal next door relies on Grangemouth for its power. But despite the union's decision to cancel its strike, INEOS went ahead with its shut-down and upped the stakes by raising the prospect of permanent closure putting 800 jobs on the line by declaring the permanent closure of Grangemouth's petrochemicals site.

INEOS director Tom Crotty said the company would be ready to reopen Grangemouth if it received formal assurances from UNITE that there would be no strike between now and the end of December 2013. Grangemouth's Labour MP Michael Connarty said 'This isn't 1970s management; this is 1920s management. Big companies shouldn't be able to hold our country to ransom. Major national assets shouldn't be left to the whim of a couple of hard men from the chemicals industry. INEOS acquired the plant when the economy was booming, enjoyed a year or two of bumper business and then suffered as demand fell in the global recession. They made the mistake of buying these things when the world economy was turning down and now they blame the workforce' (Guardian 16 October).

UNITE official Pat Rafferty said the union was willing to abandon the working class strike weapon; 'We would happily sign up to having no more strikes until the end of the year. We will enter happily into an agreement right now that will take us to Christmas, where we will have no industrial action and no ballots. In return for that, all we ask the company to do is sit down with us at the negotiating table over the next 45 days and look to try and seek agreement. The plant should be turned on. There's no reason right now why that plant shouldn't be turned on, because there's no industrial action' (Guardian 18 October).

Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond agreed with Rafferty and urged INEOS to 'fire up the plant and do it now. I think UNITE should give a no strike without strings guarantee. Once that is done INEOS should fire up the plant and then the various discussions, negotiations, consultations on terms and conditions, should take place against the background of a working plant, not a plant that is lying cold' (Guardian 20 October).

INEOS said that Grangemouth was losing £10m a month and the workforce would have to accept changes for a planned £300m investment plan to be viable. INEOS rescinded their decision to close Grangemouth when the trade union UNITE hurriedly acceded to INEOS's demands. INEOS will now make a £300 million investment after UNITE agreed a three-year no-strike pledge and pensions overhaul linked to a three-year pay freeze, moving to a 'modern' pension scheme and changes to union agreements on the site including no full-time union conveners. Stephen Deans, the UNITE official at the centre of the Grangemouth industrial dispute quit his job rather than face dismissal over his political activities at the plant.

Defensive struggle

Trade unions are defensive organisations of the working class with the limited role of protecting wages and working conditions and it is by this criterion that the actions of UNITE at Grangemouth and their effectiveness or otherwise ought to be judged. Trade unions are open to criticism when they depart from the principle of an antagonism of interests between the working class and the capitalist class; when they collaborate with the capitalist class, the state or political parties notably the Labour Party in the running of capitalism or support the interests of a particular section of working class above that of the general interest of the working class as a whole.

Marx argued that 'Trade Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerrilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.'

Capitalism cannot be made to operate in the interests of the working class as is very evident by events at Grangemouth. Unions can achieve limited victories for the working class in capitalism. They can and do generally enable the working class to get the best available price for their labour-power, but they cannot stop the exploitation of the working class. This exploitation is inherent in the wages system and can only be abolished along with it through the conversion of the means of production into common ownership under the democratic control of the whole community. And that requires political action.

Steve Clayton