The press
Closed shop humbug
Paul Johnson
British newspapers, it seems to me, have been surprisingly mealy-mouthed in greeting the verdict of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights on the closed Shop. If there is one thing we ought to be able to count on Fleet Street to support, it is the stand of the little man oppressed by giant organisations, whether unions or business corporations (in this case both). But most papers did not see it that way. Even the Daily Telegraph, which usually oPposes the closed shop and indeed saluted the ruling, was in a Little England mood: 'It does not automatically follow that the British government accepts every intervention by a foreign tribunal in our domestic affairs'. It added: 'Certain peculiarities in our institutions are not always heoretically justifiable but are ones Which we cherish', and it concluded 'we reserve our commitment to the primacy Of the common law of this land'.
That is all very well but the common Jaw is useless to protect individuals victi ised by unions enjoying specific statutory immunities. It is true that the three tritish Rail employees could not now ave been sacked without compensation, for Jim Prior's 1980 Act gives certain Ights to workers engaged before a closed Shop agreement is negotiated. But the 1980 Act does nothing for workers who refuse to accept union membership as a ondition of employment. Nor does the P)mmon law. As the closed shop is spreading fast, these are the cases that atter.
. Moreover, is it seriously contended that the closed shop is 'cherished' by nyone who does not have a brutal vested interest in its operation? True, fence on both sides of the industrial tence may find it convenient. 'Many emIoyers', wrote the Observer smugly, have actually taken the initiative during the past ten years to sign closed shop agreements with unions to bring order and discipline to their workplace, and they would have much to lose if these were made unlawful'. Exactly the same sentiment was expressed by the Sunday Times: 'Employers approve of it almost as much as do the unions, because it simplifies the channels of communications with their employees.' Oh, it does, does it? Both the Observer and the Sunday Times have come close to destruction in recent years at the hands of the Fleet Street mechanical unions — and neither paper is by any means out of the wood yet — all of which have operated closed shops of the most hermetically sealed variety for many years. The closed shop has certainly not brought 'order and discipline' to Fleet Street, nor has it 'simplified the channels of communication' between workers and management, which remain infinitely complex, inefficient and hate-clogged. If Fleet Street managers approve of the closed shop 'almost as much as do the unions', which I very much doubt, it must be because they have been so shell-shocked, brainwashed and demoralised by the gruesome atmosphere in which they work as to have lost all sense of professional self-respect. I suspect that goes for most other British managers who are said to support the system. In any case, if it is such a good idea, and leads to such splendid industrial relations — as, for instance in British Rail itself, the locus classicus of the closed shop — why are not foreigners scrambling to imitate it? As the Guardian pointed out: 'Most industrial democracies have powerful unions, a standard of living which is the envy of the British worker and yet outlaw the closed shop. The closed shop is merely an accident of British industry and one which is welcomed by many managers as well as union leaders because it makes for a quiet life'. Exactly: acceptance of the closed shop points to the real weakness of British management — an unwillingness to assert leadership of any kind, in short to manage.
To do them justice, most newspapers insisted that, while it might be dangerous to seek to outlaw the close shop outright, the Government should introduce further legislation to curb its effects. In a wellargued leader, The Times suggested a number of specific changes. First, a dismissed employee should be awarded much heavier damages than are likely under present arrangements: Tull weight should be given to the devastating effect of loss of employment, especially where union restrictions may make it impossible to find work where the same skills are useful;' and 'a punitive element in compensation is appropriate to stiffen an employer's resistance to the union'. Second, reinstatement should be available in law 'where an applicant is ready to accept it'. Third, workers should have the right to ballot to overthrow existing closed shops, 'wherever a substantial minority have lost confidence in the conduct of the union'. Fourthly, pre-entry closed shops should be banned.
Short of getting a formal 'right to work' law, of the kind which has been passed in a number of states in the US (and which, be it noted, has significantly increased their share of new investment), I would settle for changes along these lines. But it may be that the Strasbourg verdict will have more impact on Tory MPs than on Fleet Street. According to the Sunday Mirror, 'the climate has been dramatically changed by last week's European Court verdict . . . The wild men of the Right are on the rampage, and Mr Prior is in danger of being swept away in the mad rush.' It argued that his position would be further undermined if a rail strike goes ahead on 31 August; Tar from being scared of a confrontation with the railmen, the Tory toughs actually think it will help them in their fight against the unions'. As the Sunday Telegraph observed, the court decision and the threatened rail-strike are not unconnected: 'One major achievement of this government, for which the majority of the electorate is still deeply grateful, has been to lift the shadow of trade union bullying, and any attempt by the unions to return to the bad old days would offer Mrs Thatcher a chance to demonstrate afresh exactly the kind of strength for which she is righly admired'. It concluded: 'Far from damaging the government, a rail strike might be the one thing that could put it firmly back on the tracks'. In that case, one suspects, Mr Prior might end up a wayside casualty, rather like his unfortunate predecessor Mr Huskisson.
Previous page
