missed opportunity for the
miners
By ALAN THORNETT suggest that miners would be unwise to expect anything tangible to arise from the formal decisions to halt the movement of coal and oil across NUM picket lines, and to refuse to use any which had been carried across picket lines.
The last few days as we go to press have seen the breakdown of a week of
negotiations, followed by the decision of the unions in electricity supply to take no action in support of the miners, but merely to meet NUM leaders "without commitment". The bitter attack on the NUM case delivered by John Lyons of the power engineers, who has been acting as spokesperson for the power unions gives no reason for confidence that this meeting will bring the needed supporting action.
This situation is consistent with the results of the Brighton Congress, where Len Murray's "new realism" — born out of the betrayal of the NGA last December and which resulted in the out-lawing of trade union membership at GCHQ — reemerged after being rendered irrelevant for six months by the miners' strike and the correct policy of the NUM leadership in keeping away from the General Council.
This dangerous development was helped by the mistaken decision of the NUM leaders not to put a resolution for serious action on the Congress agenda, but to restrict themselves to calling for verbal "total" support for the strike and the honouring of NUM picket lines. It must have been clear to them that, given the attitude of the key unions involved, this could never have more than a marginal effect. Yet they knew that the TUC conference is substantially different the General Council and with the tremendous authority that the strike has generated in the labour movement, it would be very difficult to defeat their resoltions there.
The eve-of-conference compromise, even on this very limited objective, came out of this approach.
MINEP NUM Scargill: mistaken decision not to use authority of strike to demand real action. The TUC leaders were prepared to accept the picket line resolution, providing there was an escape clause built into it. If not they would fight against it and the result would be a serious division within the conference, whichever way the vote went. The NUM leadership decided not to split the conference over such limited objectives.
The escape clause they accepted - "The NUM acknowledges that the practical implementation of these points will need detailed discussions with the General Council and agreement with the unions concerned" -was a serious mistake. It not only gives the General Council a lever for involvement but it was bound to be interpreted to mean that unions inside the establishment will have to agree before the TUC endorses the picket line.
On top of this they agreed, as part of the deal, to request other unions with resolutions calling for various kinds of support for the miners to withdraw them in favour of the compromise. This involved the resolution on the day of Socialist Viewpoint, No. 1, Autumn 1984. Page 2
action and the 10p levy. Instead they agreed to be pushed into a fresh round of fruitless talks with the NCB, which the TUC leaders desperately hoped would lead to a negotiated settlement.
The compromise resulted in a unity display on the first day of the conference, which, whilst giving a useful propaganda boost to the strike by endorsing the NUM case and calling for general support, contained nothing which could materially strengthen the strike or provide any kind of strategic way forward for it.
The 'Daily Telegraph' last Saturday, in an editorial which was clearly speaking for a section of the employers, argued that a negotiated settlement is not what is required. The necessity now, they argued, is that the NUM be decisively defeated along with those unions who are supporting them; and more important that they are seen to be decisively defeated. The model, they said, was the way that Eddie Shah successively used the law against the NGA.
YOUR DAY AT VL.. 15 YOUR DRY OF SHAME TOUR FIGHT NET, The strike goes forward — relying on tenacity and solidarity of rank and file miners.
In other words the question for them is a change in the relationship of forces between the trade union movement has been seriously weakened, but unions like the NUM still have a strength which is unacceptable to the Tories. At the end of the negotiations last week Ian MacGregor said he was now ready to face up to a long strike!
This points to the new conditions which the strike will now face, under conditions where generalised support from the TUC will be very difficult indeed to get. Having achieved the 'compromise', the General Council will try to stick to it through thick and thin.
Not that these problems spell the end of the strike; far from it. The strike is strong and goes forward under the new conditions. That is ensured by the remarkable tenacity and solidarity of the rank and file striking miners. Tenacity and solidarity, however, are not enough on their own. What is also needed is an adequate strategy to win the strike, which essentially means breaking the isolation which the miners face in terms of being the only section of the movement out on protracted strike action after six months.
The most effective way to break the isolation remains — as it has been from the outset. — for other unions to adopt the same policy as the NUM; put in their claims, defend the jobs of their members, dig in their heels, no compromise, and fight alongside the miners.
Unfortunately even those union leaders who have been supporting the miners have been conspicuously reluctant to do this. The rail unions are the most important example. They have
been cynically using the miners' strike as a negotiating ploy, in order to avoid taking action over the defence of jobs in the rail industry. Twice they have set dates well into the future as a negotiating ploy. Now the London day of action has been put back for a month. Yet if the action had begun on rail it would have changed the situation significantly for the miners, stiffened the dock strike and escalated the situation, creating the best conditions to defend rail jobs.
The other example is the dock strike. It was remarkably strong given the conditions under which it developed and the role of the media. But the settlement was a shabby sell-out on the basis of quotas of coal into Ravenscraig (enough to maintain full production) which is not what the strike was about. BSC has specifically given no assurance over future use of scab labour.
The NUM and militants and activists in other unions cannot settle for this situation. If the miners have to fight for a further extended period alone there is little doubt that they can and will do that; but it is not the best way to ensure the victory of the strike.
This is not to say that the TUC compromise came out of any back-sliding on the part of the NUM leaders to continue with the strike and fight for victory. Quite the contrary. They are still making no concessions to the NCB. They still firmly reject the "viability" argument — something unique in the national leadership of a British trade union; and they still defend the miners on the picket line against all the attacks of the government and the media, was a political and tactical mistake which Socialist Viewpoint, No. 1. Autumn 1984. Page 3
GRIMETHORPE NUM ADMAN XEMAN ORRUPT RUESOME OBBER EXTORTIOMIST GARGOYLE O GRE LO EPULSIVE (OVER AGED UNWANTED THATCHERITE has left the strike still isolated from any real support from the rest of the trade union movement.
It did, however, hand the initiative pretty decisively to the right wing. The debate on the anti-union laws on the second day ofthe conference reflected it completely. They actually managed to debate what should be done (or not done) in the event of a union falling victim to the laws and at the same time to say nothing about what they were going to do about the NUM which has already had the whole of the funds of one of its areas sequestrated under the laws. At the end of it the right-wing got what they wanted, with the conference restating the principle that support for a union which fell victim to the law would not be automatic. In other words it would be subject to the same 'discretion' that Len Murray and the General Council used to sell out the NGA last December. It was effectively a vindication of the role of the General Council in the NGA dispute, since it created the conditions for them to do it again.
After that it was very much business as usual at the TUC conference. They had no problem in reestablishing links with the Tories - through the NEDC -at the precise time when the Tories were strengthening their resolve to impose a major and definitive defeat on the miners. At the same time Neil Kinnock backed up the Murray line with a speech which opposed the removal of
governments by strike action, and contained a swinging attack on NUM pickets.
What was required at the TUC conference was not 'unity'. We have had far too much unity at the level of the TUC for the last six years. It has been unity on the terms of the right wing, and it has destroyed virtually every industrial challenge to the Tories since they came to power over five years ago. It has been a major factor in weakening the trade union movement at shop floor level, which now makes an adequate response to the present situation more
What was needed was a sharp clash over the principled issue of support for the miners. The NUM should have demanded of the TUC what was required in order to ensure a victory in the strike; and what was required was a general strike in support of the miners and against the use of the anti-union laws. If the NUM had been prepared to ask for that instead of limiting their demands to what they felt they could get it would have split the conference
It would have resulted in either a left majority for a militant resolution, or established a minority who were prepared to support the miners, and the real position would have been made very clear to the miners themselves. It is that kind of situation which is necessary if there is to be any serious challenge to the right-wing and real support for the miners established. It can't be done by fudging the issue or by looking for a false unity.
So how will all this affect the future course of the strike?
The situation facing the miners is going to improve with the end of the summer period and the onset of cold weather. The strike will begin to have more effect and new pressure will be
Commonwealth. But increased pressure will come on the miners as well. As the emphasis turns to the power stations and the requirement to move coal from the pitheads, the police and the state will be even more determined to get the scab coal through.
Under these conditions there is no doubt the success of the High Court in South Wales will lead to some injunctions, both against the NUM and the TGWU. If this is the case demands must again be put on the TUC to take action. They have, after all, endorsed the NUM case; and if the NUM comes into conflict with the law whilst pursuing that, the case for TUC support would be very strong indeed.
Monday September 17th, 1984
Miners' wives hold Midlands conference
By Julie Redman AT KERESLEY, a pit village near Coventry, miners' wives have been organised since the beginning of the strike. They run 3 kitchens, make up food parcels, go picketting, fund-raising, and speak at meetings.
Liz Sugrave for example most often chairs the Coventry Miners' Support Group; Mrs Hood makes sandwiches for the pickets as well as collecting food for food parcels. Both are regularly to be found on picket lines, as are many other women.
The women hold their own meetings each week as well as sending delegates to the men's strike commit-
On September 1 a coach-load of women and children from Keresley and women delegates from the Miners Support Group attended a conference in Wolverhampton convened by "Midland Women Against Pit Closures". Delegations came from all over the Midlands — both miners' wives and women from support groups.
The day's discussion was divided into group and plenary sessions and was stimulating and useful.
In my group the wives were asked if the strike had changed their lives at all. One delegate from Staffordshire said that she had been against the strike for the first month, and had argued all the time with her husband. She had thought that if Thatcher Socialist Viewpoint, No. 1, Autumn 1984. Page 4
The national demonstration of miners' wives. wanted to close pits then she would close them anyway. But after a month she decided to go and find out about the strike for herself, and that had changed everything.
Another wife said "Do you know, we haven't had a good row since the strike started, and I love a good row."
Two wives from another pit in Staffordshire were working. They said that their husbands had much more respect for them now. They thought maybe it helped that they were the breadwin-
In the final plenary, the miners' wives came forward with a list of demands they wanted conference to carry out. A Midlands Women's Coordinating Committee was elected, with a majority of miners' wives.
This will prepare fact sheets - for example Rights on Arrest; Finance (How to freeze a mortgage, etc) — circulate ideas for fundraising, encourage the involvement of more miners' wives and organise a mass picket of women.
Conference also requested a page in The Miner, and called for a national conference of miners' wives groups with representatives from every pit.
It was also decided to maintain the organisation after the strike ends, in order to support other workers in struggle.
I feel sure the other 70 or so women who attended the conference came away, as I did, feeling stronger than before and with the satisfaction of a day well spent.