Fudging the Issues
JOHN COLE writes:
The vote in the debate on wages and planning at the Trades Union Congress this week has blurred the clean, precise image of a twentieth- century trade union movement, which Mr. George Woodcock's special report established only a fortnight ago.
Perhaps in a democratic institution such fudg- ing of issues is inevitable, but the ludicrous comings and goings at the General Council meet- ings this week did not enhance the TUC's reputa- tion for good sense. Indeed Paragraph 40 must now be nearly as stale a joke with the public as Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution became a few years ago. The paragraph has now been amplified, qualified, and largely explained away so that each of the one thousand delegates can take it to mean exactly what he wants it to.
But irritation at the semantic juggling and dis- appointment at the compromises which Mr. Woodcock found it necessary to make ought not to blind one to the significance of one part of the speech which the TUC General Secretary made to the Congress on Wednesday. 'I suspect the issue here is the role of the TUC,' Mr. Wood- cock said; and of course he is right. Individual unions have always been intensely suspicious of central power. Three times Mr. Woodcock challenged delegates to tell him if they wanted the TUC to stop meddling with wages. 'If that's what you want,' he said, 'then for God's sake say so today.'
This cry from the heart is a reflection of Mr. Woodcock's deeply-held belief that the trade union machine as it exists at present is a weak, instrument for planning. His great theory of planning is commitment—commitment by the government and by the interest groups in the community (particularly the two sides of industry) after a tough process of bargaining.
But, if individual unions refuse to surrender any of their power to Congress House, Mr. Woodcock and his five colleagues on the National Economic Development Council can never commit the TUC to anything. Their bargaining power, will be reduced as a result.
Mr. Woodcock made it clear that his principal interest was. in the impression he got from the speeches, rather than the votes. The impression left by Mr. Frank Cousins, leader of the largest union in Britain, cannot have been encouraging. Mr. Cousins shouted at least four times that he would not stand for wage restraint. It is true that he also declared that under a Labour government, if' he had to ask his members to exercise restraint, he would do so. But the long-standing impression that Mr. Cousins will be the awkward squad of British trade unionism under any General Secre- tary of the TUC and any government was con- firmed.
There were speeches from a group of _younger leaders of big unions, however,- which prob- ably meant more to Mr. Woodcock than the confused voting figures. These men showed that there are people in the unions who are ready for the crusading leadership that Mr. Woodcock offers. Perhaps, ultimately, that is more import- ant than the fact the Congress voted in favour of planning and against wage restraint on the same afternoon.
Previous page
