Tory Hands Off Our

Scan page 8

AS NORMAN TEBBIT sharpens his knife in preparation to take yet another prime chunk of trade union rights, JOHN MCILROY answers the obvious questions about the implications of the latest Tory NO JOBS AND JUSTE TL proposals, and explains how the phony 'democracy' proclaimed by Tebbit must be exposed.

That doesn't augur very well for which to conduct the first ballot the decision at the coming of all members including those Congress on whether or not to who already contract out of TROOPS OUT NOW!

Join the Labour Committee on Ireland.

BM Box 5355, London WCIN 3XX What is the present position on Tebbit's most recent proposals for anti-union legislation?

On July 12 Tebbit published a paper outlining proposals which will be laid before Parliament as • Bill in the autumn. These proposals, covering trade union elections, strikes and union political activities, are the product of the Tories' consider„tion of comments on the priginal Green Paper, 'Demo¿racy in Trade Unions' (published earlier this year) sent in by employers, employers' organisations and trade unions.

Trade unions . ..? I thought the TUC had taken a collective lecision to boycott all talks with rebbit about that Green Paper.

Three TUC-affiliated unions, the British Airline Pilots Associution (Tebbit's old outfit), the Engineers and . Managers Association and the British Association of Colliery Management all sent the Department of Employment their comments lespite the TUC decision. These mions stated that they thought he TUC was wrong not to liscuss the Green Paper with rebbit and claimed that whilst hey did not speak for the reneral Council, they 'think hat many unions in the TUC will re in broad agreement with the riews we express."

Postal ballots

: Amongst those views was an icceptance of secret postal allots imposed by the state refore strikes and the comment jovernment seeking to change he arrangement for financing political parties." talk to Tebbit.

No. Certain unions have already taken the decision to go to Downing Street whatever happens at Blackpool. Indeed informal contacts have already been •established between Murray and Tebbit.

Cosmetic

Tebbit's new paper expressly calls for further consultation on its proposals. The cosmetic nature of that consultation can be seen by Tebbit's simultaneous statement that legislation will be introduced in October.

Despite this clear commitment, Len Murray wants to extend the talks to cover such matters as the Youth Training Scheme and the political levy.

What do the latest proposals say about the political levy?

At the moment unions have to establish a political tund. if thay hold a ballot before Coll get a majority they are all clear. The new Bill will require the continued operation of a political fund to be submitted to a ballet every ten years. Unions would be given 12 months grace in

IA

paying the political levy.

But isn't that fair? Shouldn't the membership have a right to vote periodically on this kind of issue?

There are several points. First of all this issue, like all the others which Tebbit wishes to legislate on should be determined by union members themselves through their collective organisations, not by the state which is hostile to any real trade unionism.

The Tories are not interested in giving democratic rights to trade unionists. They are interested in bankrupting the Labour Party and in pressing further the depoliticisation of • trade unionists.

There are, for example, no proposals here to give shareholders rights in deciding whether or not they wish their companies to finance the Tory Party or the Alliance or nothing. There are certainly no proposals here to give employees a right to decide whether or not their employers should use the fruits of their labours in massive donations to a Party pledged to reducing their living standards, turning them out of a job and undermining their protective organisations any more than you will find here any proposals to democratise the judiciary or the civil service.

Employees or shareholders have no right whatsoever to be consulted still less to be exempted because the proposal is not to weaken the rights of capital but to weaken the rights of labour.

There are no barriers in law to companies doing exactly what they like in the field of politics and in 1979-80 around 80% of Conservative Party central income came from that source.

The only - very minor restraint that does exist, section 19 of the Companies Act 1967, requires companies to simply disclose in the annual report donations of more than £200. This was strenuously opposed by Tory MPs at the time.

Conservative support was notably lacking for an unsuccessful Bill introduced in 1978 by Labour MPs with very limited objectives.

These provided that companies should not be permitted to finance political parties unless they had received an affirmative vote in a ballot of shareholders.

The employer would then have to establish a special political fund, financed only by dividends payable to shareholders who had voted for its establishment.

It is essential that proposals by the enemies of trade unionism should be resisted. If pressures for such regular ballots arise within the unions then we should oppose them because they are antagonistic to the basic principles of trade unionism.

We are not in favour of regular ballots on whether trade unions should continue in exist-. ence, on whether particular groups of workers should remain in membership, on whether the union should continue to be recognised by the employer or whether we should or should not have shop stewards.

We are no more in favour of regular ballots on these matters than capitalists are in favour of regular ballots on whether they should remain in ownership and control of their illgotten assets or the Tories are in favour of a referendum every ten years on the continued existence of the monarchy or the House of Lords.

Just as the capitalists regard their continued domination as something non-negotiable through ballots so we regard all these matters as an intrinsic part of trade unionism. Something without which it could not flourish, an indivisible part of the very purposes of collective organisation.

Ballots on such matters -particularly secret postal ballots - simply provide the enemies of those purposes, those who are threatened by collective organisation, with a golden opportunity to undermine it.

And this is the point: trade unionism is as essentially and inevitably about politics as it is about negotiating with the employers as it is about organising industrial action. We need MPs just as much as we need shop stewards.

If we are to achieve our aims we need our industrial methods. We also require absolutely a political section. Those who seek to argue that unions should be "non-political" may as well argue that they shouldn't exist or should exist as gelded cyphers. They fail to understand what trade unionism is TRADES UNION CONGRESS BRIGHTON 1982 Fine words on the posters.... and lend themselves to the undermining of its purposes. Those who refuse to pay the political levy and argue for ballots on its continued existence are just as much our enemies as those who refuse to join the union whilst receiving its fruits. Those who refuse to pay for political activities are just as much deserters as those who refuse to pay union contributions for industrial purposes.

There is a more specific argument put by those who contide Gotta involvement by the unions but criticise the Labour Party link. In certain specitic circumstances there may be room for argument as to which party trade unions should support. In the specific circumstances of Britain today there can be no such argument: the policies to weaken trade unions of the Tories and the Alliance, combine with the control the unions possess over the Labour Party to ensure that. But isn't it true that thousands of trade unionists do oppose the Labour Party link ... didn't a majority of trade unionists vote in June for other Parties ... won't these ballots lead to unions breaking away from Yes, it would be ridiculous to ignore the demoralisation and political crisis at all levels of the unions or to ignore its manifestation on June 9. : One small aspect of this has been the way trade union leaders have relied on some of the institutions of trade unionism, the closed shop, the checkoff, full-time stewards and the political levy arrangements as a substitute for, rather than as a way to make more effective a crusading approach involving the members. As well as the limitations of formal democracy in many unions this structure has, in tandem with the policies of our leaders, acted to disinvolve the members and present an image of an institutionalised compulsory trade unionism as a recruiting sergeant for the apathy which can all too easily breed reaction.

At the moment some of our most powerful unions industrially such as the NGA and SOGAT have a majority of their members contracting out of the political levy. So does ASTMS. Others such as TASS and UCATT have a high proportion opting out. All these and many other unions would therefore be likely to lose a ballot such as Tebbit will introduce if it was held today. The publicity and the media advice surrounding the introduction of a new law could lead to a mass exodus from Labour Party affiliation and indeed any political expenditure by the unions. And the unions provide over 80% of the party's income.

This is Mrs Thatcher's heart's desire. As she told the Observer:

•What would please me immensely would be if the TUC was not and the trade unions were not a part of the Labour Party or the Labour Party a part of the trade union movement. That connection I must say I think it's wrong."

It is no good burying our heads in the sand. It could happen. What we need now is a crusade to bring 'home the pal pu ing Lal un gri the lea edı lav car po: the wh Ser Wi tra to pro Pal SUC out the un wOl pro res Gre tha qui rig! to i in I con Em inv ste sel the effe the nee but mai suc 14Coi invi exa The talk tho poli frot yea troi Ger

Scan page 9

*8x- #88 rAn

----- pull-quotes -----

we wish it to be clearly under- food that we do not object to a

pol que