Will the TUC break with now a real possibility that Eric Hammond's EETPU could be suspended, or even eventually expelled,
Hammond?
from the ranks of the TUC, ALAN THORNETT writes. AT THE CENTRE of the latest crisis is a key point of principle: the question of single-union deals with emplovers and their implications for the working class. However, the problem is that while the Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunications and Plumbing Enion (EETPU) position is in open violation of trade union principles, the TUG majority is far from upholding a principled stand
A TUC special review body is currently discussing a proposed code ot conduct through which the TDC could control rather than prevent the introduction of single union deals. No agreed test has yet been produced, since TUC officials are keen to reach accomodation with the leaders of the Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU) who have already said they will not accept anything which restricts their right to enter into such agreements. Much of the discussion is whether such a code should be compulsory or advisory.
The rue has developed a dual position over single union no-strike deals. They are declared not acceptable (or more precisely in some taser ley are not acceptable) in existing work places where other anions are arcady organised, but they aTe deemed accoptable on new or 'greenfield" SICCS.
This ignores the reality of single union deals, on greenfield sites or otherwise. The problem with them is what they represent as a method of organisation. With this type of dcal, union officials approach the employer with a proposition for a single inton arrangement, rather than the hold fashioned" traditional approach of recruiting workers to union membership, and then demanding recognition.
This type of arrangement of course prevents from the very outset any strong shop stewards" organisation; the union structures created are burcaucratised and under the thumb of full-time officials from the beginning, with union membership seen as a means of delivering subscriptions to the head officc rather than a way of
UNIONS AMNESTY
GENERAL COUNCIL
improving workers' pay or conditions.
This is the method that most of the general unions now see as an easy way to boost their flagging membership figures.
The TUC could be on the eve of'a historic split. Barring a last-minute and desperate attempt at a fudge, there is
E NUM
Saut
SOLIDARI
JOB
TUC
General secretary John Edmonds at the
General, Municipal and Boilermakers
(CMB) conference recently said that single union deals 'are the way of the future for 5
EETPU: the left and the ballot the trade union movement. Bur he said •We have got to make sure they are respectable and that they are sigued by unions who will represent members pro-
It is very difficult to have good agrcements under such conditions, however. This is because in order to convince employers that it is in their interest to sign an agreement with a particular union, the union has to offer something the emplovers want —and itis casy tosee what
Single union deals are csscntially a collapse into class collaboration. However, while they show the union Icaders desperately secking collaboration from the employer, they offer no guarantee that the employer will offer any real cooperation in return. The deals do not even necessarily result in the workforce joining the chosen union: In Nissan in the north cast the AEU has a single union agreement covering the plant, but only a minority of the workforce has ever joined the union and thanks to the deal, the rest remain unorganised.
On Tuesday IO May the KETPU refused to accept a TUC directive requiring them to withdraw from two single union no-strike deals — onesigned with the Japanese electronics firm Orion near Port Talbot, and the other with the haulage firm Christian Salvesen, based in Warrington. They also decided to ballot their 330,000 members, calling on them to endorse this
At the same meeting the EETPU decided to refuse to appear in front of the TUC
Tr ERic HaMMoND, rightwing general socretary of the
Electrical, Electronic and
Telecommunication and
Plumbing Union (EETPO), cannot get open season for business umionism within the
FDC, he wants our of the TUC altogether.
At the time of writing, the results of the ballot of EETPU members on future TUC allibation are not known.
Hammond is secking endorsement, through the ballot, of his whole strategy of sangie-umon, no-strike and sweetheart deals. It is more than likely that there will be a September.
majority behind him and the
How should the left within Lie union respond?
Hammond is openly loating the idea of a rival union
UNIONS general Council to roccive a formal censure for breaching a previous TUC directive which instructed them not to organise or recruit membership at Ruport Murdoch's
News International plantat Wapping,
It is of course a scandal that the LETPU was not expelled for its seab-herding role in the Wapping dispute, but TUC general secretary Norman Willis has fought long and hard to avoid any disciplinary action against them. In the end, he only decided to support a 'strong censure' of the union to head off calls from the print unions for its expuision:
Willis had the same attitude over the single union deal signed by the AEU in respect of the proposed Ford plant in
Dundee. Willis defended Bill Jordan and the ARL, accepted the principle of the agreement (which involved jeopardising every existing union agreement with Ford in Britain), and even few to Detroit to try to get Ford management to acceptit.
The Orion and Salveson deals, however, are a bit more difficult for Willis to ignore. Like Wapping, they involved the introduction of new deals into existing workplaces where other trade unions already exist. In cach case these deals were signed over the heads of other trade.
unions already organising in the workplaces, who were overridden by the new agreements. Thosc unions have naturally protested strongly to the TUC, and it is this pressure whuch Willis has been forced to take into account.
Suspension or even expulsion of unions
From the TUC is not a new thing in Britain.
Many unions were suspended in the carly federation, involving the scab
IE, us we expert, the ballor
Union of Democratic goes against us and moves arr
Mineworkers and the Royal set in traan for the split of our
College of Nursing, However, it union from the TUC, tie positen of socialists — and all principled is not ruled out that he will use a!
successful ballot result to put trade unionists — within the pressure on the TUC to
EETPE would become untenable.
capitulate, rather than break
Shop stewards from other unions away immediately.
have already said that ther
It is certainly possible that would refuse to work with
TUC Ieaders will Indeed reach non-TUC stewards.
agreement with Hammond.
Arrive stewards from Le specially given their willingness
London Electricity Board have to take on board the principle of agreed that they will call depor single-union deals, One thing is meetings and argue strongly for dear, there will be an awful lot an organised transfer of all of'toing and froing in the run up
EETPU members into a TUC union. This procedure will have to the TUC congress in so bie fought for across the board
Socialists in the BETPU have
I workers currently in the campaigned hard against the
HETPU are to face up to thie cxecutive, delening baric trade imminent threat of privatisation union principles and the and other attacks on wages and organisational integrity of the conditions @
AN EETPU SHOP STEWARD labuur movement.
1970s, for cxample, for registering under the Heath government's industrial relalions act. But if the EETPU are expelled it would represent a more decisive break than in the past.
This is because the EETPUT — along with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and to a lesser extent the AFU — represents a development in Britain of Us-style business unionism', which is to the right even of the new realism'. The hall-mark of business-unionist is not just rightwing, collaborationist policies, but a qualitatively different relationship to the cmployers, which shows itscif most clearly in being willing to join openly and directly with employers to destroy other trade
A split in the TUG is now a very real possibility, and it is a necessary development if the trade union movement is to be defended. It is true that a split would be the end of a unitary trade union federation in Britain, and as such will bring new problems. But there are higher issues at stakc. Unity is important, but not at any price - and the cost of unity with the Hammond leadership would be that the TUC remain hamstrung, dritting rightwards towards the policies of the KETPU, while Hammond plots with ever-more employers to destroy genuine trade unionist. This is what compromise' issue really means:
This is shown clearly by Hammond's actions even while these things have been under discussion at the TUC. The EETPI has concluded agreement to work alongside a consortium of construction
Eric Hammond: seeks endorsement of his single union, no-strike deals through the EETPU membership ballot SOCIALIST OUTLOOK
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 8 July/Sepramber 1988
companics to train workers for the London docklands development project. The possibility, chercfore, looms that the FETPU: will be moving beyond plumbing into other building trades such as bricklaying and plastering!
Even Union of Communication
Workers (UCW) leader and hard-line right winger Alan Tuffin, speaking at their conterence in Junc, has added his voice to the calls for the EETPU to be expelled from
Hammond knows that leaving the TUC is a very difficult option. Once outside the TUC he will lose the protection of the Bridlington agreement (which outlaws the poaching of members between affiliated unions) and the EETPU would be immediately vulnerable to recruiting campaigns by other unions.
P&O strikers stand firm
SINCE SEAFARERS leader Sam McCluskie ordered Scalink hack to work in May, one thousand P&O strikers have been left to light done. They are determined to continuc the struggle, and mass pickets still attract hundreds, Socialist Outloot spoke to P&O striker JASON GROOMBRIDGE. What is the latest rituation ith the strike? We've come to a brick wall at the moment. We are waiting for die next move by P&O who are going through the courts to get the picket line at Dover removed. We have got six people on the line and the rest demonstrating. The judge calls this intimidarion and says it is against the law. He wants the picker line temoved and until it is removed he will not lift the sequestration.
We won't lift the picket for anything because we know we are in the right How do you see the role of the leadership since they send Sealink hack to work? MeCluskie should be putting his job as Icader of the NUS before being treasurer of the Labour Party. He should be leading us. If he had Arthur Scargill's head on he would be all
I think McCluskie would have liked to continue the secondary action but he didn't call for a national strike which he should have done. He said the rest of the country was rebelling and that rather than see the union split he would see people go back to work.
I don't think it was the rank and file but the delegates who argued for stopping the secondary action — about three-quarters of the delegates voted for a return to work. A leader of a union should have put his foot down instead of going along with it. MeCluskie keeps trying to act within the law hut the law is against him.
The rank and file are not bothered about the lunds being sequestrated — we know the union is its membership, not just its funds. The funds could be built up again once the
UNEONS
Even now, left wingers inside the EETPU are beginning to mobilise, in the first instance to deal a blow against Hammond by building the biggest possible vote against any move to leave the TUC. If (as seems certain) this fails to halt the split, the fight will be on to prepare the best conditions to break off whole sections of the union to join appropriate atfiliated unions.
The EETPU would also be seriously isolated once outside the TUC. If, as seems likely, the AEU stays in the TUC,— since the AEU membership is too vulnerable to poaching from unions like the Transport and General Workers' Union (TOWD) for Jordan and Laird to risk Icaving — Hammond could be left to seek a new alliance with a ragbag of ill-assorted scab organisations like the UDM and even the pro-
LEASE ELP US O HELP
TOGETHER
PULL
NATIONAL UNION OF SEA
Thousands demonstrate in support of the P&O strikers, May 1988 strike was won. Before 1 go back to work l'd car grass. How strong are the mass pickets nute? Welve still got abour 1000 sacked and refusing to go back. We are standing firm. The people left on strike realise that the ships sailing are unsafe and that people going un board are risking their lives.
There's a mass picket between 7.00 and 10.00 every morning and we are asking for other unions to show their solidarity by turning out on Saturdays to the picket. We're getting about 400 to the moring pickets. Hose do yos see the right to picket after the judgement and the referal to liz the sequestration?: We feel that if it's true and we are not allowed to demonstrate then this applies to every person in Britain. That's why we feel we are right, If the judgr was righr, the police would have moved in on us by now and they How is the support coming in? Before the Labour Party and the TUC set up the fund administered by the TUC, support was coming in fine. Now everywhere we go people say they're sending funds to the TUC. So things are getting hard.
We have built up the kitchens and there is a community around them now, We would like to see the funds still going to the support fessional' strikebreakers of the Royal Col lege of Nursing-
However Hammond may try to put on a brave face to dress up such an arrange ment, he knows that this type of coalition is scarcely Ikely to attract substantial support or enthusiasm from even right
This isolation should be compounded by the disaffiliation of the union from the Labour Party as well. It is an outrage that Michael Meacher has declared himself opposed to kicking out the EETPU. This is something which needs to be fought out at this year's Labour Party conference.
Only by taking the hardest line against the EETPU can the worst effects of a split in the TUC be combatted. Thuse who look for compromise with business unionism must be rigorously opposed •
•O STRIKE
HELP US TOS 1988 MAKE THE -FERRIES" SAFER YOU FEEL GAFER THE
N.U9
•NEEL
HELF
groups. Since the strike started we've had (320 (of official money) in total — including C120 last week from the TUC Fund. The rest came from the NUS which said we couldn't get more because of the sequestration.
There are six different support groups. Here in Deal we are feeding 300 facilits a week - so we need abour E4000 a week. We need money sent directly otherwise the support group will run out of funds. What are the main things you need in solidarity? We need financial and moral support. We would like political support too. It would be tremendous if peuple could come down on the Saturday pickets and join us • • Rush Jinuncial suppert to. Aylesham Support Group, 61 Castle Drise, Whitfield, Dover, Kent. Tel: 0263-840202. Canterbury Support Group, 75 Tenderden Drier, Canterbury, Kent. Tel: 0227-66768. Deal Support Group, Magnen Houre, Mill Hill, Deal, Kent. Tel: 0304.367840, Dover Support Grup, 210 London Road, Dover, Kent. Tel: 0304-214113. Folkestone Support Group, 7 Tennyson Place, Folkestone, Kent. Tel: 0309-5/997. Thanet Suppurt Group, 147 High Street, Ramigate, Kew. Tel: 0843-587990, Cheques payable to the groups named abore.
John Horris/iFL SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 8 July/September 1998
Step up the figh!
in the unions!
Every passing day brings a new policy statement or bureaucratic measure from Neil Kinnock which proves how necessary it i for Tony Benn and Eric Heffer to challenge for the Labour leadership. PETE FIRMIN argues. LONG GONE are the days when thew tealisa could be said to be creepine. Only those who don 1 wish 10 Gice facts can now den that it is rampant.
But the Benn-Heller leadership campugn shows that it can be challenged from the lefi. There can be no doubt that it is the leadership contest which hasser te contest for the recent setbacks sullered he party leader Neil Kinnock and his fellow:
Kinnock's dramatic doble T-turn on disarmament (from unilateralism to unimulteralism and back again in the space oftwo weeks) is a case in point. The failure: of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWE) executive to nominate the Kinnock-Hattersley sicket and it decision. instead, to_nomunate nobods for the time beg. musquestionably had a major impact on the Kimmock camp Such a decision would have been most unlikely had it not been for thir fier that the party leadership is being challenged this year.
In a sense, thei, we have Benn and Heffer to thank for the fuet that moves to abandon unilateral nuclear disarmament hase ber temporarily beid in check Bur Kinnock's initial willingnese to abandon this policy should serve as a warning to party and trade umon acinosis: this is what they can expect if thes do not thro their support behind the Benu-Heller campaign.
The solation of the Peo strikers in Dover after the short-lived national strike in their support by the National Limon of Seameni (NES) is a remnder to every worker that the dillerences between the left and union leaders like Sam MeChuskie who support Kinnock are not the niceties of abstract debate but vital issus in the delence of pay. jobs. Safety and trade union righis.
Benn and Heller mtervened just in time 8 The longer a challenge was put off, the
SOCIALST OUTLOOK no B
freer had been Kinnock's hand to do as he pleased with party policy. Benn is right to warn that the new policy papers emerging from the various working groups represent a further scrious shift to the right.
Maybe Benn and Heller stand no chance of winning against Kinnock: but an enthusiastic campaign in their support, taking up all the policy issues and reaching out to those in struggle can begin to forge links and organise a serious challenge to all the Kinnockites who are ditching socialist policies in their grovelling to the press barons.
Local Benn-Heffer campaigns have been set up in many areas, and Tony Benn has already addressed extremely large rallies in places including Liverpool and Edinburgh. Yet organisational and political problems are limiting the impact of the campaign.
Despite the existence of democratic, non-exclusive local campaigns, regional organisers have simply been imposed, often with no connection to them. Some of them, such as Socialist Action supporters, initially opposed any challenge for the lea-
Nor is there any sign that the campaign has prioritised the crucial fight to win support and strengthen the left at rank and file level in the fight against new rcalism' in the trade unions. The National Union of Public Employees (NUPF), for example, is balloting its membership on the Icadership issuc: but no Benn-Heffer coordinator has yet been appointed to make sure the left's argument is heard.
The Benn-Heffer fringe meeting at NUPE conference was poorly organised and held at a lunch-time, meaning that it attracted only 120 from a conference of over 1,200 in a union holding one of the largest block vores. The National Union of Kailwaymen (NUR) is one of the few unions deciding its position on the leadership at conference: yet Benn and Heffer pulled out of a planned fringe meeting ar that conference in Swansca!
These episodes are symptomatic of some of the political problems of the campaign, They stem from an underestimaLion of the crisis of leadership in the labour
When Tony Benn ran for deputy leader against Denis Healey in 1981, there was a strong mood throughout the movement against any return to the right wing poliSOCIALIST OUTLOOK no B July/September 198B
LABOUR PARTY Eric Heffer at Chesterfield cies that had brought disaster to the Wilson-Callagitan government. That mood even influenced sections of the union burcaucracy, who supported BennLarge rallies could be called at the drop of a leafler and there was little need to urge activists to campaign.
Now after eight years of defeats at the hands of Thatcher and retreats by the union bureaucracy, and five years of Kin-
'Kinnock moved from unilateralism to "unimulteralism" and back again' nock building on these defcats to push back the left wing policy gains of 1981, the mood is very different.
No union executive can be expected to declare its support for Benn and Heffer new left executive of the TGWD will not push matters this far for fear of losing the support of the middle ground'), and many activists have become demoralised:
All this means thar the campaign has to:
be taken cot into the union memberships, and those