The press
The union censors
Paul Johnson
WIile Mrs Thatcher was piling up her new majority, Fleet Street was sink- ing deeper into the grip of monopoly trade unionism. The Observer was deprived of 200,000 copies of its 5 June edition simply for carrying a paid Conservative Party advertisement. An attempt was made by the same union, the NGA, to censor a Daily Express leading article on the Jobless March, and at the Daily Mail a tiny group of NUJ activists tried, unsuccessfully, to use union power to influence editorial policy. The most serious case, however, was the strike of NGA machine-minders at the Financial Times, eventually turned by the union into an official strike, which knocked the paper completely out of the election.
The FT strike is serious for a number of reasons. First, it illustrates the ease with which a small group (18 in this case), occu- pying a monopoly position, can halt and risk destroying a major Fleet Street business. Secondly, since this is essentially an inter-union dispute, exacerbated by sheer greed, it underlines the impotence the irrelevance, almost — of management. The problem is by no means confined to the FT since the struggle of the machine- minders to maintain their class-conscious financial differential over the Sogat 82 workers in the machine room is common to most of Fleet Street. What is peculiar to the FT, however, is that it is the only national paper whose survival is threatened by foreign competition. In January this year, the Wall Street Journal, one of the most powerful and successful publishing businesses on earth, completed its world- wide ring of editions by establishing a Euro- pean venture, produced in Belgium and the Netherlands and very widely distributed in
Britain and the rest of Europe (as well as the Middle East). It is in direct competition with the FT both for sales (which have risen from 7,500 to 17,500 this year) and, still more, for advertisements. Yet, unlike the FT, it is able to use all the advantages of new electronic technology and is virtually free of union luddism and vandalism. It must have benefited enormously from the disappearance of the London FT during the height of an election campaign of peculiar interest to investors and business people.
It is also worth pointing out that the eclipse of the FT during the runaway elec- toral success of a government supposedly devoted to union reform and eliminating the 'English disease', will have been noted by foreigners inclined to invest here. Who can blame them for asking: what, after all, has changed in Britain? The question is valid, certainly so far as Fleet Street is con- cerned. There, nothing has changed in the union field since 1979, except for the worse. The 1980 Jim Prior union reform Act was tested by Fleet Street over the Sean Geraghty case, and proved useless. The 1982 Tebbit Act does not seem to have made any difference either, at least in the national newspaper industry. Both these Acts are designed to strengthen the hand of management in the case of workers break- ing contracts, and the 1982 Act allows it to sue the union itself for damages. The trou- ble is that the new legislation deals only with torts or civil damages and places the onus of legal action on the firm. The state stands aside, merely providing the citizen with legal redress. But if it is too dangerous and expensive for him to resort to it, the remedy is illusory. Fleet Street is so vulnerable, and its products so volatile, that
managements dare not in practice take unions to court.
Yet newspapers provide a public service
of great importance. Interference with it ought to be a matter for the state. The case for state intervention is strengthened when this interference — and/or censorship — springs directly from the existence of monopolypower in its most brutal form. After all, if the Government intervenes to prevent the spread of monopoly ownership, what is the logical objection to intervention to prevent monopoly censorship or suppres- sion?
The truth of the matter is that the labour
problems of Fleet Street are too peculiar and intractable to be dealt with in the fram- work of general trade union reform. What we need is a special Act of Parliament deal- ing specifically with national newspapers. It might even be called a Freedom of the Press Bill. In a public service, especially one pro- viding information, where the wells of truth must be kept clear of poison, there is no place for such monopoly practices as the closed shop. Yet there is evidence that the NUJclosed shop, for instance, Is spreading: even on newspapers which do not have a formal closed shop, or even a post-entry shop, many journalists are now in effect forced to join the NUJ. There may be grounds for arguing that to make the closed shop illegal throughout British In- dustry would be imprudent and un- workable. But certainly in Fleet Street there is an overwhelming case for banning the closed shop, and not merely among jour- nalists. There is also a case, in my view, for making certain malicious or unlawful stop- pages of newspapers — that is, strikes call- ed in breach of contract, which deprive the public is
u laicoo criminal. news — not only tortious but
The new Parliament, as the Government has already warned, will have to face the general problem of strikes in essential public services and the extent to which the unreasonable withdrawal of labour can re- main legal. Fleet Street's woes are part of this problem. A useful purpose would be served if Fleet Street managements and their lawyers were to get together and.devise a model Bill which, while dealing with the special problems of the newspaper industy; pmuibghlict saelrsvoicepsr.ovide guidelines for other might there's the rub — when will But Street managements get together? Among _ the many astonishing characteristics of our national newspapers, the lack of unitY, in
deed the mutual dislike
and bloodymindedness among their owners, .1s. perhaps the most exasperating. Their ohne vious need to get together is quite lost inorie s smoke of circulation battles and mem of ancient feuds. What is most in short sup- ply in today's Fleet Street is statesmanshiP and statesmen at the top. Therein lies Tee tragedy. For until the publishersagthe together and produce a plan for reform. act, Government cannot be expected to a. Meanwhile the power of the union censors and destroyers will steadily increase.
Previous page
