PERSONAL COLUMN
In defence of shop stewards
JACK JONES
Vic Feather's Essence of Trade Unionism,* written originally in 1963 is perhaps best - treated as a piece of historical documen- tation. Written by someone at the centre of national trade union affairs, it is certainly more concerned with the formal life of national negotiations, and procedure in the Branch room, than with the real heart of modern trade unionism—the workplace. Yet it is enormously revealing of the attitude commonly accepted back in those days before, not only the present Industrial Rela- tions Bill, but also the Prices and Incomes Act. 'The system of wage-fixing in Britain in general does not involve the government', is the confident assessment of the role of government. 'Ultimatums one way or the other are never mentioned', is how employer/management relations are sum- med up. Perhaps most revealing, 'there are many strong unions in Britain which have not had a strike for forty years or more'.
This is all a very salutary reminder of how lacking in vigour the trade union wage strategy often was in those days—and how little good this restraint did us! For already at that time in the darker regions where Conservative lawyers gather, damaging and draconian proposals were being drawn up which are now embodied in the present Bill. (Much is made of the disruption caused to industry, it is said, by politically motivated left-wing shop stewards; a much more rewarding study would be the extent to which employers have been encouraged by politically motivated groups to 'stand up to the unions', and have thus encouraged _many of the disputes that have unnecessarily taken place in the last ten years!) In this book, however, what is really revealing is what is not there. The duties of branch officers are discussed without reference to the shop steward; the negotia- tions outlined are almost entirely related to a national wage-claim. In fact, this book is 'pre-Donovan'. Four years later, the Royal Commission under Lord Justice Donovan was to reveal the system some of us had known at first hand for twenty years—the great interlocking system of local incentive and efficiency negotiation associated above all with the existence of the shop steward. For it is this system which must be the start- ing point of any understanding of modern in- dustrial relations, and of any reform of this system.
The plain fact is that there are something like a quarter of a million shop stewards in this country. If they were really like they are popularly portrayed then they would have had no difficulty in wrecking the country already. But they are not—they are really just the man (or increasingly the woman) next door. With more drive or social con- science, perhaps—often getting the job
because they happened to be at the meeting. (I once asked a shop steward how, he first got
the job. His answer was rather like Smythe's attitude to climbing Everest, 'Because I was there!') But the average shop steward is very much an average worker. What is above average is the contribution they make to * The Bodley Head, 63p. industry. The average modern-minded manager knows that without such men and women industry would indeed be un- dermined. For (and this is perhaps the major factor affecting industry from the later 'fifties onwards) workers today just won't ac- cept being ordered mindlessly about. They expect to get better living standards out of their job, and they require more and more to be treated as adults when they are at work.
The great contribution of the shop steward is to articulate those feelings—and come to agreements which reflect them. The key is, of course, that they do come to an agreement, in almost every case. Ninety-five per cent of our firms have few or no strikes at all. That doesn't mean to say they don't have prob- lems—they do, but the problems are resolved without hitting the headlines as strikes.
I am constantly astonished that there is so little knowledge and understanding of the great and largely peaceful revolution that is being achieved in British industry. Massive ind Istria! changes in methods, machines and labour practices are being brought about without strikes. Disputes procedures are beirg shortened, thus reducing the main cau .c of strikes (i.e. sheer frustration arising out of the long-drawn-out nature of resolv- ing a dispute). Agreements are being localised, simplified in their wording, and above all being made accountable to the workers themselves. The old situation, whereby a very limited agreement was made in isolation by a few union officials, and then announced to those who would have to operate it, is fortunately growing more and more rare.
We are laying the foundation of an in- dustry where strikes in breach of agreement will be fewer—because the majority of workers will feel that having played a direct part in making the agreement it is theirs to abide by. Such has not been the case up until now—but the truth is that the shop steward today symbolises not unnecessary strife, but necessary agreement. And that means agree- ment on some very complicated and pace- making proposals. This is the story we have to tell of British industry but we have to ex- plain, too, the threats that are building up to this progress.
First: the threat of large-scale unemploy- ment. This is not only a human tragedy, it is an economic and industrial relations disaster. The attitude that the Transport and General Workers' Union, for example, has taken—to welcome efficiency bargaining provided the proceeds are properly shared, adequate pro- tection is given to those displaced, and that the agreement means greater control by the workers over their lives (not less)—is being undermined by the simple fact that the Government is not providing the economic expansion that provides new jobs to replace those lost by new methods.
Secondly : the sheer bureaucracy of the Industrial Relations Bill. The employer who once uses the punitive powers of this Bill forfeits commonsense and open-minded rela- tions with his workers for a generation. But even if the law is never used, the possibility that it might be will cloud union/management relations. How can we extend participation among our members if our agreements have to give higher priority to being understood by lawyers than to being understandable to the members? How can we encourage a good, respected man to be a steward if he rightly fears that by doing what is reasonable in the workshop he might be doing what could be held to be 'unfair' in a courtroom, months later? This is the recipe for a paradise for lawyers—and hell for everybody else in industry. The truth is that like In Place of Strife, the Industrial Rela- tions Bill is largely irrelevant to most of the problems that cause strikes.
The TUC has already ended the vast ma- jority of inter-union strikes (another almost ignored revolution). The great majority of the rest occur in the engineering industry whose procedure is now being reformed (after being delayed by this Bill itself). What is emerging as the main cause of days lost is precisely the type of massive strike so typical of the United States from whence the Government hag imported its recent legisla- tion. What is needed here is not lectures on inflation (which is anyway much more likely to be caused by government action than through the unions) but a change in economic policy, and above all a new ap- proach to 'conciliation'. Rising ex- pectations—the demand for higher living standards—are world-wide phenomena. It has shown on the surface in Britain earlier than in most other countries because of the self-inflicted burdens we have had—in the shape of unnecessary military and financial world postures. These so sabotaged our balance of payments that they prevented the economic growth we had to have to meet the demands for higher living standards.
A reversal of this process, which recognised higher expectations as being an asset, not a crime, would lead the way to much greater industrial peace if we created a better system of conciliation, too. For, in Vic Feather's book, the most valuable section is that which demonstrates the trust there was until the early 'sixties in the role of the government's conciliation services. These respected experts enabled thousands of disputes to be resolved peacefully bY bringing the parties together, keeping them talking, finding out what might be mutual agreement and turning it into a settlement. That system has been so run-down by neglect, and by the insistence of successive governments in imposing their own view of what a settlement should be, that an increase in strikes has been inevitable.
The process must be reversed. We badly need a new, high-level, mutually respected conciliation service—and strikes will get worse until we create the circumstances in which we get one. Together with shortening disputes procedures, and pressing on with es- tending participation and democracy among the workers themselves, this is the reforni most urgently needed. This is the essence of British trade unionism—and it should be I shouted out loud. For remember this—our shop steward system provides a degree of flexibility and participation unmatched anywhere in the world. And as other countries—the us, West Germany, Japan, Sweden (all of whoth have been held up to us as 'models' in olle way or another)—come under the sort of pressure we have had in the last ten or twen- ty years, they will come to recognise the superiority of the system we have built. That is, if by then we have not allowed the government to destroy it.
Previous page
