THE UNIONS' OPPORTUNITY T HREE separate levels of trade union thought
and action are at this moment clearly distinguishable. The President of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Arthur Deakin, has said that wage claims should be made with reason- ableness and good sense. That statement, which is as near to the advocacy of a policy of wage restraint as the General Council of the T.U.C. can be expected to go, was accompanied by a few formal strictures on the Conservative Government and a few resounding assertions about the special rights of trade unions, without which a presidential address would hardly have seemed complete. It is permissible to hope that, although the General Council seems to be in two minds at the moment, its belief in the need for moderation comes uppermost and its concessions to the wild men will be kept in a strictly subsidiary position. But below the high level of Transport House comes the middle level of the mass of the delegates at Margate. These heard Mr. Deakin in silence when he said the right things and cheered him when he said the wrong things. Yet although it would be rash to judge the trade union movement by the demonstrations which its chosen representatives make in public, it may still be said that the movement as a whole, while not lik- ing wage restraint, might in the course of time come to accept it in some qualified form. It so happened that such a judgement is supported by one or two other signs, coming from various sec- tors of industry, including even engineering, of a wish to avoid extremes. In fact it is not impossible that the movement as a whole may progress in the direction of moderate views of the General Council, as expressed by Mr. Deakin.
But there remains a third level of trade union activity, and it is the one that counts most of all in the next few weeks. It is the level of day-to-day wage negotiation by the unions them- selves. And here the outstanding central fact is the decision of the executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to recommend a ban on overtime work as a means of bringing pressure on the employers to grant a wage increase of £2 a week. This particular wage claim is so spec- tacular, and the number of other and smaller claims impending in other industries is so great, that it really counts for more than all the general arguments about wage policy in general, at Transport House and at Margate. If the engineers get their way—or rather if the extremist minority within the Amalga- mated Engineering Union, who forced their colleagues into their present position, get their way—then all talk of wage restraint elsewhere- will become rather pointless.
Yet it still remains hard to believe that the engineers as a body will be such fools—or, for that matter, such traitors to the true interests of the country and themselves—as to be led into extreme measures for the sake of a wage claim which is fantastic on the face of it. If they are, then it will be the biggest Communist triumph in this country since the war. Yet it is still difficult to believe that the unions which are only just beginning to wake up from a beautiful dream of wage increases going on for ever will allow themselves to be plunged straight into a nightmare of industrial chaos, bankruptcy and unemploy- ment. And it is difficult to believe that the engineering unions and employers can get through their present bout of bargain- ing without a salutary realisation of the healthy effects on both sides of real argument and a genuine attempt to square their conflicting interests with each other. Collective bargaining, within the law, is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. It is a pity we have not had more of it in the past seven years, and less of the facile assumption that wages and prices can both go up continuously, with the consumer footing the bill all the time. The engineers can still show the way to a more sensible world, in which they have no need to strike Communistic attitudes and in which, nevertheless, they need sacrifice none of the fun- damental rights of trade unions. The proposal of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and the Transport and General Workers' Union, who between them cover most of the unskilled engineeringworkers, that the dispute should be referred to arbitration is compatible with both good sense and the integrity of the unions. It is very much to be hoped that it will eventually secure the support of the other members of the Confederation, even though at the moment that hope may appear forlorn.
A reasonable settlement of the engineers' dispute might indeed mark a turn for the better in British economic affairs. There is already reason to believe that the tide is turning in the right direction. The trade union movement is steadily ridding itself of the menace of Communist influence. The resounding confirmation at Margate of the General Council's decision to have no more truck with the London Trades Coun- cil, that notorious centre of Communist mischief-making, was a triumph for the policy which Mr. Deakin and other union leaders have been steadily pursuing for some years. The A.E.U. now becomes increasingly conspicuous as a main centre of Communist infection, to be cleaned up as soon as possible. The more general menace of industrial action as a means of political pressure against a Conservative Government has also been resisted with determination by the T.U.C. There is a healthy belief running through Mr. Deakin's presidential address that the unions will be much happier, and much more useful to the community as a whole, if they stick to their proper business of looking after their members directly, rather than get too deeply involved in purely political manoeuvres. The decision of the Congress to force the General Council to produce a scheme for the extension of nationalisation showed that there are still many trade unionists who still want to play at politics, but at least that decision did not immediately affect the wage question.
But there are still a lot more barriers to be overcome before we reach a new and more sensible industrial world. Curiously —though characteristically—Mr. Deakin managed on Monday to include in his speech, along with so much good sense, a con- siderable amount of bombastic and contradictory nonsense which, considered even as a concession to the groundlings, looks excessive and consequently somewhat dulls the hope of better things. What good did he think he could do by defend- ing the establishment of very large unions and referring to small ones in abusive terms, when nobody knows what is the opti- mum size for a trade union and everybody knows that levia- thans like his own T.G.W.U. have presented themselves with an insoluble problem of central control ? And how does he reconcile his statement that employers have no right to exclude trade union members from their works with his repudiation of the suggestion that workers should be free to join a union or stay outside ? The only possible consistent principle in such cases is that of freedom. Workers should not be arbitra- rily penalised by employers simply because they choose to belong to a union. But neither should workers be arbitrarily penalised by unions simply because they do not choose to acquire a union card. Individuals must be free to choose. That is the principle for which the Tolpuddle martyrs fought and suffered and for which the Durham teachers have recently been fighting again. And Mr. Deakin would be more worthily employed in defending it than in challenging it.
No liberal-minded citizen can feel very happy when bodies as powerful as those gathered at Margate cheer such challenges. If trade unionists cannot educate themselves out of anti- democratic fallacies then nobody else will do it for them. Evi- dently many union leaders do not realise the virtue of con- sistency. But if they did realise it most of our economic troubles would be over. It would then be possible to cease repeating the platitude that the right way to get more money, and more real income, is to work harder. The absurdity of the attitude of the engineers, who first claim more money for the same work and then threaten to work less if they do not get their way, would then be even more plain than it is already. Yet it must be admitted that pure consistency of thought, and the restraint it implies on the part of the unions, would be a lot to expect. It would be something quite new in the world of industrial relations, and it would be unrealistic to expect it to make its appearance overnight. But a long step towards it could be taken if the rest of the trade union movement would dissociate itself from the latest wage claim of the engineers, for the con- tradiction between that claim and the best interest of trade unionists as a body—their interest in national prosperity—is plain.
Previous page
