Election show
Sir: In his interesting piece 'The General Election Show,' (January 12) there are at least three reasons why Patrick Cosgrave fails to give a gala performance.
1. ". . . the willingness of the Prime Minister in particular to argue the nonsensical proposition that a dispute with the Coal Board is an attack on the constitution." I am not aware that Mr Heath .ever has indulged in such an argument; nor, indeed, do the miners themselves regard their ban on overtime as a typical management-union dispute. On the contrary Mr Gormley has said, on more than one occasion, that his union's case rests upon what he deems to be an unjust incomes policy and that the Coal Board's maximum offer is conditioned above all by the constraints imposed upon it, by Phase Three. In that sense the
miners are in dispute with the Government and not the Coal Board, although Mr Gormley's thesis is not reciprocated by Mr Ezra.
2. "The miners say compulsory in
comes policies are unfair; the Government has said they are unfair; wherein lies the difference?" Is it as straightforward as that? Wouldn't the Government argue justifiably that the unfairness exists in the stronger unions using their immense bargaining power to exact greater wage settlements than the economy can stand in an inflationary situation, rather than in anY inherent unfairness in the policy itself, which is designed to be universal in its application to all wage demands? This apart, the Government believes that in the light of the failure to achieve a negotiated and voluntarY determined incomes policy, in October 1972, a statutory incomes policy lesser evil than an uncomfortable an ,u crippling wage inflation. Despite a°,'" nutted imperfections, price control Is seen for the time being at least, as the best instrument for obviating the restrictions imposed on union•collective bargaining. The miners, on the other, hand, as with any other sector ot labour, object to compulsory incomes Policies essentially because no coin: pulsory prices policy can be enforce.° with the same efficacy. This is inevitably the case in any non-protectionist economy where the vagaries of world utruardionwgnppartitceernisevaerls, in e bouandwatyo affe. ct which we are powerless to control; particularly has this proved the case in the vital area of foodstuffs. 3. "On the larger questions of trade union monopoly power . . • the Government would remain as helplessf as it has been since its abandonment o its own Industrial Relations Act.'' Notwithstanding the unusual intervention of the Official Solicitor in the Midland Cold Storage case, there. Is a plethora of evidence — whether It b.er in relation to unfair dismissals, 1011.31, industrial practices, sole bargainiff agencies, redundancy paymen,"' reference to the Commission on dustrial Relations, or whatever — t"'"„ the Industrial Relations Act is ver-' much alive and kicking. It is of course,: the fervent wish of those who We'f coonrneldn pt lhoece Wofi 1 ssorrrti-fCe stthl ea t sau rsrienin 1(1..1 aerir fate should befall a piece of legisleti°,.e which has been the subject of 111°'n vicious and uninformed criticism tha„ any other enactment in recent times.::1; is surprising however, that Tie Cosgrave should have arrived at t,,,, conclusion, presumably reluctant!Y„ that the Government has served it own obituary notice on the Act. , Prospective ConservativSe. MPaSrlteiaenleAlrineil tary Candidate, Holybridge and HY' 10 St Mary's Terrace, London W2
Previous page
