|
WSWS : Workers
Struggles : Europe
British union leader denounces unofficial walkout after calling
for a "strike-free future"
By Chris Marsden
24 September 1999
Use
this version to print
Hundreds of electricians walked out from government construction
sites across the country for 24 hours on Tuesday, September 21.
Their union's general secretary, Ken Jackson, immediately denounced
them for "cashing in" on the year 2000 deadline for
the completion of projects like the Millennium Dome. Other union
officials lined up to condemn the strike as "cynical and
calculated".
Jackson, head of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical
Union (AEEU), was not simply venting his spleen against a small
group of his own members. His attack put flesh on the bones of
his call at last week's 131st annual meeting of the Trades Union
Congress (TUC) that there should be a "strike-free future
for industry". At the Brighton conference, Jackson, whose
union has signed many no-strike deals, proposed adopting a joint
agenda between the TUC and the employers' organisation, the Confederation
of British Industry (CBI). The TUC should even abandon its own
congress, he added, in favour of a joint meeting every two years
with the CBI.
His speech did not merely articulate the views of what is arguably
Britain's most consistently right-wing trade union. It found a
receptive audience throughout the TUC. His call was advanced as
a taster for Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair's own speech to
Congress. Blair told the assembled delegates that the notion of
business and employees being "two nations divided" was
"old-style thinking. He declared, Britain works
best when business and unions work together." He then proposed
to organise the joint government/TUC/CBI conference mooted by
Jackson for early next year.
TUC General Secretary John Monks led a chorus of praise for
Blair. Amongst the most effusive was Bill Morris, General Secretary
of the Transport and General Workers Union, who said Blair's commitment
to "the principle of social partnership" and his proposal
for the joint conference were "particularly welcome".
The TUC was founded in 1868 and spent the first 40 years of
its existence seeking to establish the right to strike. To this
end, they were forced on a path that led to a break with their
earlier alliance with the Liberal Party. The Labour Party was
then formed in 1906 as the reformist political arm of the trade
unions. Today, however, the right-wing pro-business evolution
of Blair's party is shared by its counterparts in the TUC.
There is not even a semblance of a commitment to policies of
social reform within the ranks of the union bureaucracy. The organisations
they head may not yet be prepared to officially adopt a universal
no-strike policy, but they have presided over devastating attacks
on their members' wages and conditions while reducing strike activity
to an historic low.
The unions have responsibility for over two decades of almost
uninterrupted defeats for the British working class. They have
worked hand-in-glove with the employers in downsizing industry
and slashing public services. In the course of this they have
lost the bulk of their membership. At the height of their power
in the mid-1970s, the TUC organised over 12 million workers, making
Britain one of the most unionised countries in the world. Today,
that figure has slumped to just 6.8 million.
In his own keynote speech, Monks was forced to acknowledge
that union membership was ageing and unrepresentative. The average
age of a union member was 46, he said, compared to the average
age of a worker at 34, and most young people view trade unions
as "part of the past, not part of the future".
Only one in five workers under 30 are union members, compared
to two in five workers in their 40s. Unions are mainly located
in the public sector and have little representation in service
industries.
Monks, of course, views the problem as one of "perception"
and "bad-marketing". He even proposed that the TUC rename
itself "Unions United" in order to appeal to a younger
layer of workers.
Monks unwittingly indicated the more fundamental causes of
the decline in union membership in a pre-conference interview
with New Times, the journal of the ex-Stalinists in the
Democratic Left. He explains that today "fewer people see
trade unionism as a vehicle for transforming society. So we must
find new representatives who are respected, both by fellow workers
and by managers, rather than individuals who are personally disaffected.
Unions are never strong when their representatives are drawn from
the disaffected."
When Monks speaks of his desire to exclude the "disaffected"
from the ranks of the TUC, he is identifying the very layers of
workers whom the trade unions have proved incapable of attracting.
At the same time he is hostile to the basic concerns of those
sections of workers still organised within the unions, who are
far from happy with the constant erosion of their own living standards.
Like their counterparts in Blair's New Labour, the TUC bureaucracy
constitutes a narrow and extremely privileged social layer who
have done very well for themselves during the past two decades
of unbridled speculation and industrial downsizing. As such, Monks
and his counterparts like Jackson of the AEEU view "disaffection"
and opposition to the pro-business agenda they are paid to enforce
as anathema.
Monks regards even the AFL-CIO in the United States as too
"confrontational" in its relations with the employers.
In the past, he tells New Times, "I believed that
conflict of interest was endemic in the workplace and that unions
were there to resolve those conflicts in the interests of the
workers. But that adversarial approach was part of the reason
for Britain's industrial decline."
The unofficial electricians' strike this week was not the first
embarrassing rebuff delivered to Jackson. Less than 24 hours after
his Tuesday speech, over 400 AEEU members at Ford's Dagenham and
Enfield plants staged a 24-hour walkout over pay and working hours.
These events confirm that the TUC's ability to suppress industrial
opposition to the employers has definite limits. All that the
speeches of Jackson, Monks and company demonstrate is that any
defence of workers' interests necessitates a political and organisational
rebellion against the official trade unions.
See Also:
Britain
[WSWS Full Coverage]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |