What is at stake in the printworkers' strike?
THE STRIKE by the National Graphical Association and SOGAT
'82 against Rupert Murdoch's News International Group of newspapers is one which has the gravest implications for the trade-union movement in Britain. The sacking of 5,500 printers and their replacement by members of the EETPU is the most important union- busting operation since the 1920s. It is a further significant step in the process which began with the split in the National Union of
Mineworkers (NUM) and the emergence of the Union of Democratic
Mineworkers (UDM) as an openly scab trade union. (1)
PAT HICKEY
Around this development a coalition of forces has emerged which includes the most class-conscious warriors of the bourgeoisie and the most reactionary and collaborationist wing of the trade-union bureaucracy. The mass sackings and the barbed wire should not delude anyone into thinking that Wapping is an aberration in the normal course of industrial relations in Britain — a case of a maverick and particularly ruthless employer confronting a particularly archaic and bloody-minded group of trade unionists.
Events at Wapping underline the problems now hitting the trade-union movement as a result of mass unemployment, industrial decline and anti-union legislation. It is a process which did not begin and will not end with this dispute. But the print industry is a clear example of the way in which a combination of technical, political and legal changes have undermined the traditional basis of the unions - and of the failure of the trade-union leadership to develop an adequate strategy to deal with the
1. On October 19, 1985, eight months after the end of the miners' strike, scab miners in Nottinghamshire and South Derbyshire voted to set up a breakaway union, the UDM. For an analysis of what lay behind this, see International Viewpoint' No. 86, November 11, 1985. International Viewpoint 21 April 1986
problems.
News International is not alone amongst Fleet Street employers in seeking to break the power of the unions in the industry. The Mirror Group has secured agreement for 2,100 redundancies. The Express group is seeking 2,800 redundancies - about 35 per cent. Associated Newspapers has similar plans, as have the Guardian and The Telegraph. Even these cuts are only an interim stage. All of the major employers have plans for introducing the kind of new technology used by News International.
In this context, an attempt has already been made to take on the print unions in 1983 see International Viewpoint No. 47, February 27, 1984). Eddie Shah, owner of the Warrington, Lancashire-based news: paper, the Stockport Messenger, sacked six of his employees belonging to the NGA and employed scab labour to replace them. Up to 4,000 militants picketed the plant regularly, drawing support from all over the country. The picketing and the solidarity action were outside the terms set by the 1980 and 1982 employment acts.
The NGA appealed to the TUC [Trades Union Congress - the main trade union federation] to honour its decisions to oppose the anti-union laws, taken at a 1982 special conference in Wembley, London. The TUC refused. The NGA national leadership's own policy of refusing to call a national stoppage contributed to this defeat as did the failure of the print unions to present a united response.
The bourgeoisie drew two lessons from this strike. The most important was that the TUC had faced the first big test of the Wembley conference and had not fought. This was a major factor in the subsequent decision that the time was right to take on the miners.
In the print industry also the employers decided to launch a major assault following the Warrington victory. Shah himself announced plans for a new national daily newspaper and did a deal with the EETPU, ignoring the other print unions. The new newspaper, Today, was launched during the current dispute. The provincial newspaper groups also moved in, with several introducing new technology. The unions in the industry showed little unity in the face of this attack. SOGAT '82 and the NUJ both came into conflict with the NGA, which was the main loser from the new technology. It had pursued a "follow the job" strategy, which meant NGA members moving into departments traditionally dominated by the other two unions. The result
International Viewpoint 21 April 1986 was SOGAT and NUJ members crossing NGA picket lines at the Kent Messenger, and NGA members crossing NUJ picket lines at the Portsmouth News.
The failure of the print unions to develop a united fight in the industry inevitably opened the door to the employers - and to the EETPU. The print unions face an industry-wide attack, demanding an industry-wide response. That will mean a major confrontation with the anti-union laws, which in turn means calling on the TUC for support. The Warrington dispute and the miners' strike are not encouraging experiences in this regard. But not to take this course means defeat at the hands of the employers and the law and also opens the door to those unions which see opportunities for themselves through collaboration with employers and the law. Soft on Murdoch
The leaderships of the print unions have not adopted this course. On the contrary, their strategy has been to limit the dispute to News International and to have the least possible conflict with the law. Picketing has been kept to a minimum though this has not stopped the High Court sequestering the union's assets. The aim appears to be to win public sympathy and to pressure Murdoch into being more reasonable.
This approach has the complete agreement of the TUC which was also involved in an offer to Murdoch which gave him all of his demands except a legally binding no-strike deal. The offer was rejected because 30,000 miners' wives rally on August 11 (DR)
DANCI
Murdoch does not believe in the ability of the Fleet Street unions to discipline their members in the way that the EETPU can. In any case, why stop half way when complete victory is within one's grasp?
If this is true for Murdoch, it is also true for the right wing in the TUC. Using the threat of the creation of a rival right-wing federation, which would include at least the EETPU, the AUEW, the UDM and the PTA (Professional Teachers Association) - they are effectively determining TUC policy.
Despite the decision at the 1982 special conference to defy the anti-union laws, the TUC has backed away from every challenge to the law and the courts.
At Wapping it has done so again. The EETPU is clearly guilty of openly collaborating with an employer in a far-reaching attack on other unions. The TUC has found the union guilty of "acting [in a way] detrimental to the interests of the trade-union movement". But its only action was to direct the EETPU to "Inform EETPU members at Wapping and Glasgow that they are engaged upon work that is normally done by members of other print-trade unions" - a fact which can hardly have escaped their attention. A motion to direct the EETPU to instruct its members not to do this work was defeated, because it would have brought the TUC into conflict with the law and because the union declared its readiness to face expulsion from the TUC rather than do so.
This is in line with the EETPU's openly declared policy of rejecting what it calls "old-time class struggle" in favour of co-operation with management. The union was a bitter opponent of the Scargill leadership of the NUM during the miners' strike and has since been a supporter of the break-away Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Along with the AUEW it has established a right-wing caucus of unions called "Mainstream" whose aim is to counter the influence of the left. The UDM is a member of this caucus.
But the issues at stake cannot be solved by the expulsion of the EETPU. First, it is clear that while the EETPU is in the vanguard of the trade-union right wing, the policies which it has been openly pursuing have been followed by most other unions. On the question of secret ballots, which are now required by law, virtually all major unions now hold them before deciding on industrial action. Other unions have concluded single-union deals by which means a union can obtain exclusive negotiating and recruiting rights within a particular workplace in exchange for certain concessions to the employer, such
11
Selling a Union
"Our progressive approach is reflected in agreement with companies like Toshiba, Sanyo, Hitachi, and Optical
Fibres which have attracted widespread expert attention and the approval of objective observers and commentators. They eliminate strikes through binding arbitration and provide a radical transformation of
Lord Marshall, Chairman, Central Electricity Generating Board, "Your Union is a haven of commonsense and rational thought." as a no-strike agreement. All of the main unions were complicit in the defeat of the NGA at Warrington. In the miners' strike, virtually none of the main unions made a serious effort to deliver on promises made.
The TUC has been moving to the right since the Tory victory in June 1983. The process was begun with the September 1983 congress and its policy of "new realism". • This process was interrupted by the Warrington dispute later that year, and even more of course, by the historic struggle of the NUM. Since those defeats, however, the rightward move has resumed. The main beneficiaries of these defeats were the centre/right bureaucracy. The extreme right of the TUC has seized the opportunity to accelerate the process. The danger of a split
In order to do this they have exploited the central contradiction in the TUC's policy. This contradiction is that while the TUC has a policy on paper of opposition to the anti-union laws, in practice all of the unions are taking steps to comply with them. The right has proclaimed publicly what the others are doing privately, albeit more slowly and more reluctantly. The basic fact is that each time the need and opportunity arose to fight, the TUC has backed off.
The possibility of a split emerging within the TUC is a very real one. But the issue of the EETPU is not the same as that of the UDM which has excluded itself from the TUC. The UDM was created out of those who consciously decided to leave the NUM because of their hostility to the 12 traditional workplace job boundaries.'
George Harris, Personnel Manager. Toshiba
Consumer Products,
"Along with the EEPTU we have charted an exciting new approach that cuts out futile strife and offers fair rewards for all those involved." miners' strike and the left leadership of the union. The same cannot be said of all 400,000 members of the EETPU. It would be totally bureaucratic and politically disastrous to expel the whole union from the TUC and not to deal with the real problem. That is the failure of the TUC leadership to provide a lead on the major issues facing trade unionists or even, when the chips are down, to live up to their own promises, policies and declarations.
The EETU, under its present leadership and in alliance with the AUEW and other right-wing-led unions, will exert political pressure on the TUC whether in or out of the TUC. Its main objective, whatever twists and turns may occur en route is to win a solid right-wing majority in the TUC. The threat of an alternative right-wing federation is a powerful weapon in this project. But it does not, at this stage, intend a permanent breach with the TUC. As Hammond, EETPU leader, put it, "why get off the ship when its going in our direction?" It is important to note in this regard that no. major sections of the bourgeoisie are pushing for such a split. They do not wish to see their companies become the arena for open inter-union warfare. They consider that to a large extent the unions have been tamed - figures for 1985, if the miners are excluded, show the lowest number of strikes for 50 years. They have noted the TUC's unwillingness to put militant talk into action. And they consider that the right wing is doing a very good job on their behalf within the TUC. A split which removed the right and consigned a weakened but still powerful TUC into the hands of the left,
The Rt. Hon. Norman Tebbit, MP, (Former
Secretary of State for Industry, present
Chairman of the Conservative Party). "The EEPTU not only accepts technological change, but is tackling the problems that can arise. including technical skills training. / see this as apiece with the Union's progressive approach on the shopfloor and elsewhere." is not in their interests at this stage.
The fundamental question is how to deal with a right wing which is determining the policy of the TUC and, if a split is to come, how it will be carried through. The policy which must be followed in this regard is one of open warfare against the scab leaders. In the case of the EETPU there should be no question of expelling all 400,000 members along with Hammond. He should undoubtedly be expelled - but he should not be allowed to walk away with his union intact. The left does not regard the union as the property of its leaders. The TUC, and certainly the left, should be helping the left in the EETPU to organize against the leadership to remove it, and in any case to remain loyal to the TUC, and their fellow trade unionists.
To give such a strategy teeth the TUC would have to start delivering on its policies. Concretely, now, it means the TUC declaring its intention to give full backing to an all-out strike by the print unions and to confront the law in order to defeat Murdoch. Such a course has real prospects of success. The government is weakened and under considerable pressure. The current retreat by the TUC is occurring when there is real opportunity for advance. A similar process is going on in the Labour Party, where the leadership has adopted a range of right-wing policies.
If these policies become the basis of a future government (and the general election draws ever closer), then the increasingly fragile unity of the TUC will come under even greater strain. In the meantime, every retreat and concession will make the inevitable battle harder to win. D International Viewpoint 21 April 1986
Ex tracts from EETPU brochure, reproduced by International Labour Reports, January-February 1986 (DR)
Ex tracts from EETPU brochure, reproduced by International Labour Reports, January-February 1986 (DR)