Willis' surrender at Fortress Wapping
PAT HICKEY THE STRIkE by the National Graphical Association and SOGAT '82 against Rupert Murdoch's News International Group of newspapers is one which has the gravest implications for the trade union movement ir Britain. The sacking of 5,500 printers and their replacement by members of the EETPU (Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union) is the most important union-busting operation since the 1920s. It is a further sigmficant step in the process which began with the split in the NUM and the emergence of the UD)M as an openly scab trade union.
A coalition of forces has emerged which includes the most class conscious warriors of the bourgeoisie, and the most reactionary and collaborationist wing of the trade umon bureaucracy. The mass sackings and the razor wire should not delude anyone into thinking that Wapping is an aberration in the normal course of industrial relations in Britain — a case of a maverick and particularly ruthless employer condonting particularly archair and blond minder group of trade unionists.
Events at Wapping underline ir pro blems now hitting the trade union movement as a result of mass unemployment, industrial decline and anti-union legislation The price industry is a clear example of the wity in which a combination of technical, political and legal changes have undermined the traditional basis of the unions - and the failure of the trade union leadership to develop an adequate strategy to deal with the problems.
News International is not alone among Fleet Street employers in seeking to break the power of the unions in the industry. Th Mirror Group has secured agreement for 2,100 redundancies ('in the British manner' as Maxwell puts it). The Express Croup is seeking 2,800 redundancies - about 35% Associated Newspapers has similar plans. «» has the Gnardian, and the Telegraph. Evr these cuts are only an interim stage 11l f the major employers have plans for introdor ing the kind of new technology used by News International.
Most of the Fleet Street employers are not yet ready to go as far as Murdoch. They do not have the facilities at the moment, but the cut-throat competition between the newspaper barons of Fleet Street will lone them on to the same path. After all, I was Eddie Shah's decision to move into the na tional newspaper scene that provided the catalyst to current developments in Fleet Street.
Shah has already demonstrated his ability to take on the unions — and the TUC - and international, No. 3, March/April 1986
win. The Warrington dispute was the first major demonstration of the decisive imporlance of the anti-union laws in defeating the unions. The dispute cost the NGA nearly £2 million in fines, damages and legal costs. The NGA appealed to the TUC to honour
•Warrington was the first
demonstration of the
decisive importance of the
anti-union laws in defeating the unions' Its decisions to oppose the anti-union laws and to support any union penalised under the laws. The TUC rused. The NGA's own policy of confining the strike to the Stockport Messenger and refusing to call a national stoppage contributed to this defeat, as did the failure of the print unions to present a united response.
WUSS BER RUPERT'S REWARD. RUPERT MURDOCHS NEWSPAPER WORKERS HAVT MADE HUM MILLIONS IN PROFIT THEIR REWARDTHE SACK! * Show Golidarity, BOICOTT.. M3:(2) SUNDAY TINIES
The ruling class drew two lessons from . The first, and most important,
was that the TUC had faced the first big test
of its Wembley conference decisions, and
had failed. This was undoubtedly a major
factor in the decision that the time was right
to attack the NUM
In the print industry, the employers decid-
ed it was opportune to open a major assault.
Shah announced plans for a new daily, and
did a deal with the EETPU ignoring the
print unions. Provincial newspapers also
moved in. The Wolverhampton Express and
Star, The Kent Messenger, the Birmingham
Post and Mail, and the Portsmouth and
Sunderland Group all introduced the new
technology. The unions in the industry
showed little unity in the face of this attack.
SOGAT '82 and the NUJ both came into
conflict with the NGA, which was the main
loser from the new technology. It has pur-
sued a 'follow the job' strategy, which meant
NGA members moving into departments
This point is essential. It would be wrong objective, whatever twists and turns may oc-
traditionally dominated by the other two unions. The result was SOGAT and NUJ members crossing NGA picket lines at the Kent Messenger, and NGA members crossing NUJ picket lines at the Portsmouth
This disunity opened the door to the employers — and to the EETPU. In this, the print unions mirrored the TUC. The print unions face an industry-wide attack, demanling an industry-wide response. That will mean a major confrontation with the anti-union laws which in turn means calling on the TUC for support.
The Warrington dispute and the miners' strike are not encouraging experiences for this strategy, however, not to take this course means defeat at the hands of the employers and the law. It also opens the door to those
opportunities
The print unions have not adopted this course. On the contrary, their strategy has been to limir the dispute to News International and to have the minimum possible conflict with the law. Picketing is kept to a
The aim appears to be to win publir sympathy and to pressure Murdoch into being more reasonable. Murdoch has irsponded by indicating that he !" parm! to make some rolandancy payments on 'humanitarian'
This approach has the complete agreemone of the TUC which also was involved in an ofter to Murdoch which gave him all of his demoils except a legally binding nostrik deal. The offer was rejected because Murdoch loes not believe in the ability of it: Hect Street unions to discipline their member in the way the EETPU can. In any case, why stop half way when complete victory is within one's grasp?
It this is true for Murdoch, it is also true tor the right wing in the TUC. Using the threat of the creation of a rival right wing federation, which would include the EETPU. the AUEW, the UDM, and the PTA -least -. they are effectively determining TUC policy on cash for ballots, anti-union laws, single union deals and other key issues.
This is the nub of the problem. The TUC has been moving to the right since the Tory victory in June 1983. The process was begun with the September 1983 Congress and its policy of 'new realism'. It was interrupted by the Warrington dispute later that year, and even more of course, by the historic struggle of the NUM. Since those defeats, however, the rightwards move has resumed. The main vitors from these defeats were the centre/right bureaucracy. The extreme right of the TUC has seized the opportunity to accelerate the process, by exploiting the central contradiction in the TUC's policy - that while the 'TUC has a policy on paper of opposition to the anti-union laws, in practice all of the unions are taking steps to comply
The right has proclaimed publicIy what the others are doing privately, albeit morr slowly and more reluctantly. Each time the nerd and opportunity arose to fight, the TUC has backed off.
to see the dispute between the EETPU and the majority of the TUC as similar to that which led to the split in the NUM. In the NUM the right wing split because the left leadership of the union, the forces around Scargill, insisted on mobilising the struggle forces in the ranks. The left did not expel the Notts miners who form the overwhelming bulk of the UDM. It was the right who decided to split, basing themselves on those who had actively scabbed throughout the dispute. Even then, the choice was posed for the Notts miners on whether to leave the
The left in the TUC has not followed the policy pursued by the NUM. The division over Wapping is not one between those who have actively pursued a class struggle policy and those who have scabbed. Undoubtedly, the EETPU has scabbed — but not in the way that the current membership of the UDM has done, as we shall see. Equally, the TUC has not pursued a policy of class struggle as did the NUM leadership.
"The print unions face an
industry-wide attack, demanding an industry wide response'
The UDM was created from those who consciously decided to leave because of their hostility to the struggle. The same cannot be said of the 350,000 members of the EETPU. It would be wrong simply to expel the EETPU, and not deal at the same time with the failure of the TUC leadership to provide a lead on the major issues facing trade unionists — or even to live up to their own promises, policies and when the chips are down.
The bureaucracy poses the problem in terms of the EETPU's incursion into areas
sphere of influence of other unions. They ignore the case of Shah's deal with the EETPU. They are less concerned with the scabbing of the EETPU than with the Bridlington agreement. Hence, the farcical 'instructions'
condemn not the class character of the EETPU's actions, but its breach of the bureaucratic conventions.
While overall trade union membership is declining the pressure on the bureaucracy is tremendous, response is a more cautious policy, avoiding costly strikes and even more costly brushes with the law. The concern is to preserve spheres of influence, and this is the central objective of the 'TUC's present stand. The EETPU itself, has not been slow to take advantage of this policy. In 1983 it brought in the TUC to prevent its 1,500 Fleet St electricians joining SOGAT '82.
Although these questions are important, they are not fundamental. under its present leadership, and in alliance with the AUEW and other right wing led unions will exert political pressure on the TUC whether in or out of the TUC. Its main
cur en route, is to win a solid right wing majority in the TUC. The threat of an alternative right wing federation is a poweful weapon in this project. But they do not, at this stage, intend a permanent breach with the TUC. As Hammond put it, the ship when it's going in our direction??
It is noteworthy that no major section of the bourgeoisie is pushing for a split in the TUC. They do not wish to see their companies become the arena for open inter-union warfare. They consider that to a considerable extent the unions have been tamed — figures for 1985, if the miners are excluded, show the lowest number of strikes for 50 years. They have noted the TUC's unwillingness to put militant talk into action. And they consider that the right wing is doing a very good job on their behalf within the TUC. A split which removed the right, leaving a weakened but still powerful 'TUC in the hands of the left is not in their interests,
The question for the left is how to deal with a right wing which is determining the policy of the TUC, and how, if a split is to occur will it be carried through? Our answer must be a policy of open warfare against scab
In the case of the EETPU there should be no question of expelling 350,000 members along with Hammond. He and the other EETPU leaders should undoubtedly be expelled — but he should not be allowed to walk away with his union intact. The left does not regard the union as the property of its leaders. The TUC, and certainly the left shouldbe helping the left in the EETPU to organise against the leadership to remove it, and in any case to remain loyal to the TUC, and their fellow trade unionists. The onus for splits should be placed where it belongs — on the right.
Cof course means breaking the bureaucratic protocol that one union leader does not interfere in the domain of another. It will, however, mean that the threat of a split ceases to be a useful blackmail weapon. Moreover, to give such a policy teeth the TUC will have to start delivering on its policies, which currently mean the TUC declaring its intention to give full backing to an all-out strike by the print unions and to confront the law in order to defeat Murdoch.
Such a course has real prospects of success with the government weakened and under considerable pressure. For the current retreat by the TUC is occuring when there is genuine opportunity for advance. Similarly, in the Labour Party, where the leadership has adopted a range of policies which could well be embraced by the Alliance, avoiding putting forward a radical alternative and relying on 'style' and appeals to public sympathy rather than struggle
Rather, the labour bureaucracy is waiting for the Tories to lose, than fighting to win.
If these policies become the basis of a future government, (and the general election
Sever closer) then the increasingly fragile unity of the TUC will come under even greater strain. In the meantime, every retreat and concession will make it harder to
International, No. 3, March/April 1986
The