Faced with statutory pay laws covering the wage struggle for the next three years, with an • option of a further two, the TUC General Council was forced at least to call a special Congress. What was the purpose of this meeting? It was called to rubber stamp a document, Economic Policy and Collective Bargaining in 1973, which tries to present an alternative set of policy options for the Government, "any Government", in the present economic circumstances. It was not called to thrash out a plan of industrial action to get rid of the Pay Laws. It was not called to decide what practical steps should be taken to aid groups such as hospital workers and gasmen who have been fighting the freeze on their own for three months or more, and against whom the press and the Government are having a field day. It was not called to formulate any plan of action that workers could take to exercise control over prices, fight for higher pensions, and all the other matters over which the General Council says it is so concerned. Indeed, the General Purposes Committee even went so far as to recommend at the beginning of the Congress that no recommendations, resolutions, motions or amendments be put from the floor. A simple yes or no was all that the General Council was asking for its document, a document which contains no proposals whatsoever for action.
CONFUSION When Gormley and Jones moved reference back of this procedure, the General Council was thrown into confusion. It adjourned for an hour: to discuss whether or not to continue with the Congress at all, a move only narrowly defeated by 18 votes to 16!
The resolution from the floor which was eventually passed in the afternoon session called upon the General Council to organise and lead co-ordinated action in support of affiliated unions in dispute and who require such support". However, a second resolution which proposed a co-ordinating committee "to prepare immediately specific proposals to assist affiliated unions in attempts to improve wages and conditions despite the Government's counterinflation laws", and to work out "a strategy for action in support of those unions which come into conflict with Government policy", was defeated. Although this last resolution did not specify the type of "action" needed, it was the nearest the Congress got to hearing of anything concrete to aid the unions already struggling. Feather spoke against this on the grounds that it would alter the "structure" of the TUC. In other words it would open the way to a change in the role of the TUC. The role of the TUC, according to Feather, is not to interfere with the affairs of individual unions, and certainly not to violate their constitutional integrity. In other words, sectionalism and federalism were to be retained at all costs.
This demonstrated very clearly that the General Council's remarks about the "help" it would give to individual unions simply reaffirmed the existing state of affairs: ie. a delegation to Downing Street to plead a union's "special case" in the hope of doing a deal in the "national interest", and perhaps also a small financial loan. Possibly even a "special levy" could be made to give more money to individual unions in the present emergency, suggested Feather. But the role of the TUC is not to lead the industrial struggle of the working class, or to work out a common strategy for industrial struggle. The role of the TUC is simply to present the opinions of the movement" to the Government of the day. Within this framework the TUC "invites" unions to engage in the one-day protest action proposed in the first resolution, even though such a policy failed to stop the Industrial Relations Bill becoming law, and even though it contradicted the TUC's own analysis that the Government was inflexible and takes no notice of TUC "advice" or protest. FIASCO How can we explain this fiasco? Although its details were never debated at the Congress, the General Council's main aim was to get its document passed.
The present tactic of the TUC is to put forward policies for the economy which it hopes the Tories might accept, but if not, policies which could be acceptable to a future Labour Government. Its analysis of food prices is that they can be controlled with the reversal of the Common Agricultural Policy and Government subsidies. Pensions and family allowances should be raised, the Housing Finance Act repealed since it is a "disincentive to local authority building", and more Government money should be earmarked for construction, as well as Regional Employment Premiums. The cost of this is carefully calculated, and the TUC suggests detailed taxation policies which could be used to finance it. All this is set within the framework of a growth rate which the TUC calculates the British economy could achieve. To round it off, various measures, including import quotas, are proposed to deal with looming balance of payment problems and import-flooding in particular industries.
FALSE ASSUMPTION Now there is nothing wrong with the TUC producing a plan of measures to deal with all the key economic problems facing the working class and its allies. But it starts off with the completely false assumption that the needs of the working class can be accommodated within the capitalist economy, an economy which only thrives on the exploitation of the working class. It has produced a plan which it hopes will be acceptable to both sides. If only the capitalists would consent to the TUC's measures, the latter would in return be prepared to concede a "voluntary incomes policy. The Tories are "mistaken". Wages are not the prime cause of inflation. It is wrong to put the blame all on one side. We must all make sacrifices for the sake of the country, but the bargain must be 'fair' to both sides.
The TUC therefore draws absolutely wrong conclusions from this approach. Firstly, because it thinks a solution to the cconomic crisis whích is acceptable to both sides is actually possible, it proposes to use the existing state apparatus -that is the capitalist state - to carry through its plans, But a plan for controlling prices for example would have to organise millions of workers to deal by direct means with capitalists putting up prices. It could not be organised through the bureaucratic capitalist state, which defends those very same capitalists. Yet the TUC argues that a government sympathetic to fair play - a Labour government - is necessary to wield this very same apparatus against the capitalists. Therefore to organise industrial action to get rid of the pay laws would prejudice the chances of Labour in the next election, especially if that election flowed directly from a general strike. Therefore, the only method for smashing the freeze must be sacrificed in order to save the Labour Party from defeat in some future election. Secondly, a general strike to get rid of the pay laws would undoubtedly upset the capitalists upon whose activity the growth rate of the economy depends. It would drive off investors and interrupt production, thereby upsetting the basis of the TUC's economic calculations, and making it less likely that the plan could be put into effect in future. So the interests of the workers are to be sacrificed to keep the capitalists in a good mood.
BEST COMPROMISE These arguments were advanced openly by the right wing in order to argue against any action at all. But the left wing of the TUC knew that those impatient workers could not be fobbed off with no action, therefore some action had to be taken. The best compromise was a one-day protest action. Even Feather finally saw the sense of this and endorsed the call. This could do no harm, and after all everybody, without exception, voted in favour of the document at the end of the day. That's the important thing, isn't it?
The job of militants is now to utilise the one-day action, to extend it into a general strike. But this can only be done if millions of workers are organised beforehand in committees of action which can take the movement beyond the strict limits laid down by the TUC. The first task for these organisations is to set in motion a plan for strengthening the existing strikes, which involves organising workers, housewives, unemployed, tenants, etc. in the localities on a practical basis.
JOHN MACLEAN MEMORIAL YEAR Dear Comrade Editor, I recently had a letter published in many of the left papers appealing for support from all those who are interested in activity to mark the 50th Anniversary of the death of John Maclean, the courageous and beloved revolutionary, who was at the centre of the struggles on Red Clydeside, during and after the First World War. The response to this letter was very good, and a meeting has now been arranged to discuss and set in motion the activities that are decided upon. It is hoped that organisations will send representatives, but I would appeal for anyone interested to make a special effort to attend.
The meeting will take place at "The General Picton', Caledonian Road, King's Cross at 7.30 p.m. on Monday 19th March.
Yours fraternally. Bob Purdie NUS PRESIDENTIAL HUSTINGS For the first time ever, open hustings for the NUS Presidential candidates are to take place this year before the NUS Conference. The initiative has come from Southampton University Students' Union, where the hustings will take place next Tuesday. 20 March, at 1 p.m. Five out of the six candidates, including MG member Piers Corbyn, will be taking part.
----- pull-quotes -----
byPaul Smith