The defeat of Bob Wright, the Broad Left candidate for the AUEW presidency, by Terry Duffy, marks a major setback for the left. The shift to the right in the second largest union in the country brings with it the very real possibility of a consolidation of the right’s position in the Trade Unions as a whole through the merger of the Engineers with the EEPTU.
The decline in strength of the left is symptomatic of the general downturn in militancy throughout the working class since the imposition of the Social Contract. The constant refusal by the trade union leaders to fight for their members’ interests, to the extent of organised sabotage, sell-outs and victimisation, has taken its toll — the recently published strike figures are the lowest for years. In general the strength of the Social Contract has been the enforcement of its terms by the trade union leaders but, more particularly, it was the role of the ‘lefts’, Scanlon and Jones, which ensured its continuing success. The need for a militant rank and file movement in the trade unions which can fight independently of, and when necessary against, such misleaders, only becomes more glaring as time goes on. However, if such a movement is to avoid breeding its own generation of fake ‘lefts’ it must be grounded in a Marxist understanding of the nature and role of the Trade Union bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy exists, essentially, as a negotiating team between the rank and file of the unions and the bosses and their state. As such it has a distinct interest in dampening down the class struggle or, as the bureaucrats themselves might put it, in ensuring ‘the right kind of atmosphere for negotiations to take place’. Clearly, in a situation of direct conflict, the bureaucracy has a vested interest in gaining the bourgeois status quo, which means sabotaging the struggle of the working class.
Nonetheless, the bureaucracy is not simply the agent of the bourgeoisie, as for example the police are. On the contrary, because its origins are within the working class movement, the bureaucracy is an agent which is both of, and against, the labour movement. As a result, and because they can only maintain their position as long as large sections of the rank and file accept their leadership, the union leaders can often put themselves at the head of rank and file militancy. In this way they can both buttress their position as leaders with whom the bourgeoisie must negotiate, and ensure that the movement stays within the norms of capitalist society.
It is also the dual nature of the trade union bureaucracy — the fact that it is under pressure from both the rank and file and from the bosses — that is at the root of the formation of its ‘left’ and ‘right’ wings. Those leaders who gain the leadership of militant unions, quite apart from their own politics, are under pressure from the membership constantly, and, consequently, more often have to oppose sections of the bourgeoisie or their state. By the same token leaders of unions which, because of their size or the nature of the industry in which the majority of the membership is concentrated, are more often susceptible to pressure from the bourgeoisie and, therefore, tend to form the ‘right’ wing of the labour movement.
From such an analysis it is immediately clear that it is the ‘lefts’ who are in the best position to head off the most militant sections of the class. The credibility of individual ‘left’ leaders, often gained from a genuinely militant background, has been enough, on countless occasions, to divert and suffocate militant movements at the crucial point. Thus, one of the major tasks of revolutionaries in the unions, whilst supporting every positive position adopted by the ‘lefts’ against the right wing, is to expose every retreat from confrontation and every diversion from the needs of the class by such ‘lefts’.
Because of their rejection of revolutionary politics, the Stalinists of the Communist Party and their allies who form the Broad Left did not adopt this position with regard to Hugh Scanlon after they had campaigned successfully for his election in 1967. Instead of using that campaign to launch a movement committed to winning the demands that Scanlon had called for, the Broad Left meekly accepted a three year wage deal which outlawed local bargaining (the backbone of the engineering shop stewards and, therefore, of the Broad Left itself) except for productivity deals.
The next set of national negotiations took place in 1971, under a Tory government. The Engineering Employers’ Federation, playing its part in the general capitalist offensive of the period, broke off negotiations. The executive of the AUEW, rather than responding on a national scale, ruled that each factory should tackle its own management on the demands of the national claim. In this way they were supported by the Broad Left.
In spite of the executive’s position, militants in Manchester and Sheffield managed to hold their areas together and took on the employers on a district basis. In Manchester they banned piece-work and replied to lock-outs by occupying thirty plants. In the midst of this magnificent display of rank and file strength and determination, Scanlon descended on his old lair and announced that the executive had withdrawn the 35-hour week claim upon which the employers had refused to negotiate. Again the Broad Left chose not to criticise, let alone fight, the sell-out by the ‘left’ leadership.
In 1972, the year of the miners’ strike which ended when engineers in the West Midlands struck in sympathy, the AUEW executive delayed the pay claim so that it would not coincide with that of the miners. More accurately, so that united and concerted action by both engineers and miners, which would almost certainly have drawn in other sections as well, would not confront and destroy the Tory government. After all the loyalty of the bureaucracy is not to any particular party but to the stability of capitalism generally.
In November of 1973, the continuing militancy of the rank and file in the AUEW brought the union into conflict with the National Industrial Relations Court, set up under the Tories’ Industrial Relations Act. On November 5th, 350,000 engineers struck against the imposition of a £75,000 fine, despite the executive’s refusal to call an all out strike. When the court imposed a further fine of £47,000 the following April, the ensuing strike wave was only halted when an anonymous figure paid the fine for the union — thus letting both the Tory government and the union leaders off the hook.
Under the Tories the leaders were forced, by a combination of rank and file pressure and the very real threat to the funds and organisations of the union itself, to adopt a relatively aggressive attitude. Under the Labour Government the position was greatly changed. The Broad Left’s opposition to the Social Contract kept within the limits of protest and eventually Scanlon could throw the AUEW’s vote behind the Government. In 1975 the true impact of the years of Broad Left control was seen when their candidates for the National Committee, Bob Wright and Jimmy Reid, were defeated and the right wing made a comeback to the leadership. As a result Scanlon was able to say that ‘it reflected the mood of the membership’ and that ‘it must be good news for the government and the TUC’.
This demoralising effect of the policies of the Broad Left deepened as they sabotaged struggles that threatened the Labour government’s attempts to make the working class pay the cost of developing capitalist instability. At the ‘Leyland TUC’ in April 1977, for example, they refused to support the toolmakers’ strike and instead argued that they did not want to jeopardise the Labour government, only to convince it to carry out the policies it had been elected on. In this way they reinforced the idea that the Labour Party was the only alternative to the Tories and, therefore, had to be supported through thick and thin.
Ten years after the Broad Left got Scanlon elected by a concerted campaign of factory gate meetings and the organisation around its own newspaper, Engineering Voice, the fruits of their policy of not building a rank and file movement that could fight independently were revealed. At the 1977 TUC, Scanlon cast the 1¼ million votes of the engineers in favour of the 10% guideline — in total opposition to the policy of the union — and got away with it. As a result the whole working class has had to suffer another year of wage cuts and cuts in living standards.
The policy of the Broad Left in the AUEW, personified by Scanlon but practised at all levels of the union by the Communist Party and its supporters, has been disastrous. Although elected almost entirely on their promise of a meaningful national wages policy, they have never fought for one. Indeed, since 1972 the national pay claim has been largely irrelevant to the stronger sections of the union. Throughout their period of power they have been characterised by conciliation, shilly-shallying and the most thinly disguised sell-outs. The defeats and disappointments of the engineers are the logical result of the strategy of dependence on the ‘left’ bureaucrats.
The need for a fighting programme
A rank and file movement that can turn back the tide of right wing advance in the AUEW can only be built on the basis of a coherent strategy or programme. Central to such a programme must be the recognition that today’s stakes are far higher than those of the sixties. To fight for higher wages today genuinely means challenging bourgeois rights of control over industry. It means taking on the government, no matter whether it is Labour or Tory. In such a situation a movement that tries to limit the struggle of the rank and file to defensive actions within the limits of government policy or merely to persuading union leaders to ask for more, will not only fail but also allow further advances by the right. Revolutionary communists, therefore, have to fight for a programme that challenges the fundamental rights of the bosses and their state and, at the same time, can repair the damage done to the rank and file organisations at shop floor level by the failure of the Broad Left’s policies.
Reforming the union structure
In many areas the branches and district committees of the union are dying through lack of contact with the shop floor. After four years of wage restraint, many shop stewards committees are in tatters. For the union to be given new life there must be a fight to get the branches based on the workplace, with meetings in firm’s time. Shop stewards should form a majority on District Committees. District meetings of all shop stewards should be held at least bi-monthly in order to re-assert the importance of the directly elected shop floor representatives.
In order to counter the constant tendency for union officials to raise themselves above the control of their members, the rank and file should fight for them to be paid at the hourly rate of the union membership. In addition, to ensure they remain under the control of the shop floor, all union officials should be recallable by those who elected them. In any event their term of office should be the same as that of shop stewards — twelve months.
Against government wage controls
Merely bringing union officials under closer control by the membership will not guarantee the right policies or a thoroughgoing fight for them. A national pay claim for a minimum time rate of £100 is essential to restore living standards and rebuild the union nationally. The fight for control in this area must centre on protection against inflation. Shop stewards committees should formulate, on a monthly basis, the increase required to keep pace with the rising cost of living. In doing this they should draw in other bodies, for example tenants associations and women’s organisations, in order to accurately assess the needs of their members and also to build the contacts and organisations that will be necessary to fight for the rises.
One of the key lessons from the last ten years is the effect of productivity dealing on the strength of the rank and file. An immediate end must be put to all such deals; the workers cannot accept any responsibility for the profit or loss of individual capitalists.
The fight against racialism
The cancer of racism is a threat to every worker. The rank and file movement must adopt policies which both draw black and immigrant workers into the organised labour movement and drive out of it the racist and fascist filth. It is impossible to fight for the interests of the working class and at the same time propagate racist ideas; the rank and file movement must fight for active racists and fascists to be thrown out of the labour movement. All candidates for election to positions in the union should be challenged on their position on racism.
The principle slogans in the fight against racism must be opposition to all immigration controls, no free speech for fascists and direct action to deprive them of it, for the right of black and immigrant workers to caucus separately within the union and for union support for black self-defence against racist and police attacks.
For women’s equality
Real equal pay for women, together with genuine equal access to training and promotion, is a long way from being achieved. Within the union women’s involvement must be fought for through campaigns for creche facilities at union meetings, for special training for women shop stewards and for the right of women to caucus separately. On this basis a genuine fight for equal pay and conditions can be launched by the union.
Against unemployment
Unemployment is a key weapon in the bosses’ armoury; the threat of redundancy, short-time working and lay-off has been used time and again to force workers to accept wage cuts and worsening working conditions. We must fight for official opposition to all closures, lay-offs, short-time working and redundancies. We deny the right of the bourgeoisie to alter production levels and the size of the workforce; against them we fight for workers’ control of hiring and firing, for the occupation of all firms declaring redundancies and the nationalisation, without compensation and under workers’ control, of all firms that announce closures.
As the capitalists and their state try to make the workers pay the cost of restructuring British industry, the fight for control will become ever more central. It must not be confused with participation, by which the bosses try to make workers co-responsible for decisions to increase profitability at the expense of the workers’ pay and conditions. The rank and file movement must oppose all such schemes and call instead for the right of the workers to veto any management decision that is not in the workers’ interests. In order to develop and train the working class to seize control of the factories and organise production in its own interests, we must fight now for the right to inspect the books and accounts of the employers, for the right to oversee all decisions and reports that affect the running of the firm. In those companies where participation schemes already operate, as in British Leyland for example, the rank and file movement should campaign for immediate withdrawal.
In the fight against the attacks of the bourgeoisie and their state — no doubt orchestrated by Duffy and co. after he takes his position as president of the union — revolutionary communists must fight for these policies in all possible arenas. To fight effectively is to draw in those who do not yet accept many of our positions. We must fight alongside all such workers in every limited struggle, always seeking to compare the false strategies of the reformist leaders to those of the revolutionaries. In so doing we seek to build a united front to defend the immediate interests of the rank and file of the engineering union within which we will continue to fight for our positions and programme.
