By 1964 the British economy was clearly feeling the effects of competition from reviving capitalist rivals. It began to feel this at the end of a boom which had transformed working class activity, decisively reviving the trade unions. Any incoming government intent on the salvation of British Capitalism had to formulate a policy to deal with the situation in the interests of profits and investments.
The Labour Government of "64-70 consistently attempted to reduce the effectiveness of the economic organizations of the working class. This end was not pursued in the manner of the present Heath government, which has a policy of direct attacks on the whole union structure. Instead the Labour government attempted to integrate the trade unions into the state. The main feature of this policy, which had been tentatively tried by the previous administration, involved the creation of a whole range of ancillary organs of the state. In these the TUC leaders were encouraged to participate. The middle 60'% saw a whole range of these organizations. The National Economic Development Council, the Prices and Incomes Board, and regional planning boards all had their tame trades unionists.
On its own this policy was inadequate for Labour's purpose. The first world war had seen the formation of a layer of lay officials relatively unresponsive to the trade union leaderships. The economic conditions of the 20 years before Labour was elected had seen this layer strengthened. Consequently even with the TUC's uncle toms in his pocket Wilson still faced the problem of unofficial strikes and wage inflation. At first, the limitation of rank-and-file activity was left to the more adept managements to accomplish through the government-encouraged productivity deals. Only later as the Labour government desperately adapted to a worsening economic situation and the concomitant demand of th employers for a firmer stand against the unions did Wilson and Co. begin to countenance legislation to restrict the rank and file.
DONT DON T SACRIFICES STAND In Place of Strife marks the acceptance of the need for legislation. The diagnosis is quite clear-unofficial activity or "chaotic and infla tionary shop floor pressure" is the main enemy (paras, 15 and 24). This was to be fought in a whole number of ways. Firstly, general measures such as compulsory cooling off periods or straight legal sanctions against organizations and individuals were designed to make all strikes less successful. These would operate unevenly and be more detrimental to the unofficial striker. More significantly the document suggested measures to make the official structures more inclusive or more rigid. Two examples specifically chosen to echo the thinking of the Devlin report will serve to illustrate this. The first is the proposal to give grants to finance the training and payment of officials in cases where this is recommended by the proposed Industrial Relations Commission. The theory behind this is quite clear. Any extension of the paid, and hence easily disciplined, fulltimers will reduce the importance of the lay officials against whom disciplinary measures are more difficult. Another ling techniques if the wages bill stays proproposal was the restructuring of the procedures (in line with the Commission's recommendations /instructions). The purpose of this was to make lay officials subject to regulation. This is clearly spelt out (in para 16) where the document criticizes the continuing failure to reform the York agreements (engineering industry procedure). National engineering negotiations are so rigid and divorced from the shop floor that they have retained little importance for the average engineer. The great bulk of increases have been gained through negotiations conducted at plant level. A lay leadership with prestige, skill and much too much freedom had grown to fill the vacuum conducting the local negotiations. THE DOCKS If in 1968 key sectors of British industry could be described as chaotic the Docks of three years before must have appeared as out and out anarchy. The Royal group had for instance just operated an overtime ban for twelve months and encouraged the other major docks to join in. The general trends in British industrial relations had been magnified by inter-union hostility, competition, and the solidarity which flowed from the insecurity of casual labour, Here then we might expect to see Wilson presage later policy. The restructuring of relationships between employer-employee and union bureaucracy-member at the instigation of an organ of the state (the Devlin enquiry into the ports) is a salient point on the path towards In Place of Strife to which the Report bears many similarities. Unofficial activity and the strength of rank and file leadership is seen as the central problem (Devlin para 10). To allow modernization the militancy (always euphemistically called "dissension"") had to be destroyed. In addition to the statement of the problem, there was a real similarity in solution. This can be seen if we consider the following more or less explicit proposais made in the report. 1. Proposals Regarding the Structure of the Trade Unions. The report suggested that an official shop stewards system should be established in place of the pre-existing unsanctioned leadership (the Docks Liaison Committee). Another suggestion was for a greater number of full-time officials of "ambition and talent" (presumably of the type suggested by in Place of Strife). Again this was to increase discipline. Proposals were also made for the modification of the constitution of the NASD (blue union). It was so democratic members could actually demand to know how negotiations were pro-
----- pull-quotes -----
? WHO MATES YOUR 5
FE FOR THE D SOF