VIEWS OF THE WEEK

INDUSTRY

Strikes and the Law

MAURICE GENII wales:

The Confederation of British Industry issued this week a frightening document. Since it comes from such a powerful body it is also dangerous. The CBI in their evidence to the Royal Commission on unions and employers' associations show that along with a lot of other people they think you can improve the climate of industrial relations in this country by passing a batch of draconian laws, which are bound to en- gender bitterness.

The proposal is to make sympathetic strikes, inter-union strikes, and strikes which occur in breach of procedure, actionable if damage is suffered. Moreover, the law should extend its tentacles, we are told, in .the `national interest.' This comes in the opening sentence in the sec- tion on employers' organisations, which is tell- ing us what the CBI is about. 'One of the results of the creation of the CBI will be to help to secure that at the centre employers continue to look at problems from the standpoint of the national interest (which is their own long-term interest).'

Somebody once said, 'When they start justi- fying it in the public interest I reach for my gun.' Although I would not go. so far as to dis- charge physical grapeshot in the direction of the gentlemen of the CBI, I would like to ask them why they should be the best arbiters of the national interest. They may remember that a Plan, which also had the adjective `national' appended to it, was published recently. This, it was claimed, was arrived at by a 'consensus of many interests,' including employers, unions and government, yet there were a large number of people, whose opinions cannot be dismissed as unimportant, who disagreed with many of its

conclusions. • Now a national plan, if it is flexible and of the forecasting' rather than the mandatory type, can possibly rub along when there is a substan- tial body of responsible opinion against it. But you cannot, you just cannot, if you want to increase both harmony and efficiency in a society, pass laws which are opposed by a large body of responsible opiniOn. This is surely the classic way to bring the law into contempt.

The CBI talks of 'the .present public feeling against many union actions' and presumably thinks that many of the 8,000,000 rank-and- file trade unionists would back their proposed laws along with the more sensible CBI sug- gestion that there might be a case for a registrar, who could investigate alleged grievances of members against their union and thus avoid an ETU-type situation continuing for many years. But even if trade unionists were willing to countenance new laws, which would make a dramatic step towards a much more authoritarian state, and even if those whose voices were

raised in the name of civil liberty were stifled, what about the other 16,0001000 workers in this country who do not belong to a trade union?

The CBI wants to penalise unions, including unions of employers, which in their opinion act contrary to the'oational interest. What would happen in sympathetic strikes or demarcation disputes where some of the men were in a Union upd others were not? Presumably only the trade unionists would be penalised by action being taken against their union? There is often also an argument about precisely who caused a strike.

If any government did implement their ideas, CBI members would still have to take part in negotations. These would surely take place in an atmosphere hedged around with suspicion and distrust. For the CBI can hardly pretend to think that the great bulk of our present trade union leaders will accept such measures meekly and the sum of antagonism between unions and employers' associations would be greatly in- creased by their proposals.

The Confederation itself admits in its evidence that the days lost by unofficial strikes are fewer per thousand of the population than in the United States, Italy or Japan. Would this not suggest' that the Government, employers' asso- ciations and trade unions—and the press for that matter—would all spend their time much more profitably if they directed more attention to pro- ductivity instead of thinking up new laws to bolster weak management? On productivity agreements the CBI is rather snooty, emphasising their inflationary tendencies, although admitting they may have a small part to play as part of a national agreement.

This is not a plea to leave the situation alone. The recent appointment of a trouble-shooter for the car industry is the sort of move to curb unofficial strikes that one should encourage, but the CBI does not like this idea either, although it has been agreed by both car employers, and unions. Nor is it a `hands off the unions' call. The independent trouble-shooter means that the union's role is lessened when things go wrong, since somebody other than a union official does the investigating.

There is also a case for limiting the trade unions' immunity in tort, since at present you or your relatives cannot sue a union if you are run down by a union car or defamed in a union publication. But please, CBI, think again before pressing proposals which are bound to divide rather than unite that national interest, which you think so important.

A good manager should be able to manage without calling in the paraphernalia of the law. Ford Motor moved from a period of serious industrial unrest to a situation today where un-

official action is very limited. They did this be- cause they. themselves• took firm action against troublesome elements. They recognised that the root cause of many unofficial strikes is.the know- ledge that the management in the past had given way.

We will have come to a sorry pass indeed if we are going to provide the lawyers with a feast and introduce the law and the police into a new era of state activity just because managers in a very few British indutries don't know how to manage. At one stage in this article I almost confused the initials CBI with UDI.