Will the TUC break with Hammond?
Socialist Outlook1980sTranscribed by hand from the printed page.
The TUC could be on the eve of a historic split. Barring a last-minute and desperate attempt at a fudge, there is now a real possibility that Eric Hammond's EETPU could be suspended, or even eventually expelled, from the ranks of the TUC. ALAN THORNETT writes.
AT THE CENTRE of the latest crisis is a key point of principle: the question of single-union deals with employers and their implications for the working class. However, the problem is that while the Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU) position is in open violation of trade union principles, the TUC majority is far from upholding a principled stand.
A TUC special review body is currently discussing a proposed code of conduct through which the TUC could control — rather than prevent — the introduction of single union deals. No agreed text has yet been produced, since TUC officials are keen to reach accomodation with the leaders of the Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU) who have already said they will not accept anything which restricts their right to enter into such agreements. Much of the discussion is whether such a code should be compulsory or advisory.
The TUC has developed a dual position over single union no-strike deals. They are declared not acceptable (or more precisely in some cases they are not acceptable) in existing work places where other unions are already organised, but they are deemed acceptable on new or 'greenfield' sites.
This ignores the reality of single union deals, on greenfield sites or otherwise. The problem with them is what they represent as a method of organisation. With this type of deal, union officials approach the employer with a proposition for a single union arrangement, rather than the 'old fashioned' traditional approach of recruiting workers to union membership, and then demanding recognition.
This type of arrangement of course prevents from the very outset any strong shop stewards' organisation; the union structures created are bureaucratised and under the thumb of full-time officials from the beginning, with union membership seen as a means of delivering subscriptions to the head office rather than a way of improving workers' pay or conditions.
This is the method that most of the general unions now see as an easy way to boost their flagging membership figures. General secretary John Edmonds at the General, Municipal and Boilermakers (GMB) conference recently said that single union deals 'are the way of the future' for the trade union movement. But he said 'We have got to make sure they are respectable and that they are signed by unions who will represent members properly'.
It is very difficult to have good agreements under such conditions, however. This is because in order to convince employers that it is in their interest to sign an agreement with a particular union, the union has to offer something the employers want — and it is easy to see what that is.
Single union deals are essentially a collapse into class collaboration. However, while they show the union leaders desperately seeking collaboration from the employer, they offer no guarantee that the employer will offer any real cooperation in return. The deals do not even necessarily result in the workforce joining the chosen union. In Nissan in the north east the AEU has a single union agreement covering the plant, but only a minority of the workforce has ever joined the union — and thanks to the deal, the rest remain unorganised.
On Tuesday 10 May the EETPU refused to accept a TUC directive requiring them to withdraw from two single union no-strike deals — one signed with the Japanese electronics firm Orion near Port Talbot, and the other with the haulage firm Christian Salvesen, based in Warrington. They also decided to ballot their 330,000 members, calling on them to endorse this decision.
At the same meeting the EETPU decided to refuse to appear in front of the TUC general council to receive a formal censure for breaching a previous TUC directive which instructed them not to organise or recruit membership at Rupert Murdoch's News International plant at Wapping.
It is of course a scandal that the EETPU was not expelled for its scab-herding role in the Wapping dispute, but TUC general secretary Norman Willis has fought long and hard to avoid any disciplinary action against them. In the end, he only decided to support a 'strong censure' of the union to head off calls from the print unions for its expulsion.
Willis had the same attitude over the single union deal signed by the AEU in respect of the proposed Ford plant in Dundee. Willis defended Bill Jordan and the AEU, accepted the principle of the agreement (which involved jeopardising every existing union agreement with Ford in Britain), and even flew to Detroit to try to get Ford management to accept it.
The Orion and Salveson deals, however, are a bit more difficult for Willis to ignore. Like Wapping, they involved the introduction of new deals into existing workplaces where other trade unions already exist. In each case these deals were signed over the heads of other trade unions already organising in the workplaces, who were overridden by the new agreements. Those unions have naturally protested strongly to the TUC, and it is this pressure which Willis has been forced to take into account.
Suspension or even expulsion of unions from the TUC is not a new thing in Britain. Many unions were suspended in the early 1970s, for example, for registering under the Heath government's industrial relations act. But if the EETPU are expelled it would represent a more decisive break than in the past.
This is because the EETPU — along with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) and to a lesser extent the AEU — represents a development in Britain of US-style 'business unionism', which is to the right even of the 'new realism'. The hall-mark of business-unionism is not just rightwing, collaborationist policies, but a qualitatively different relationship to the employers, which shows itself most clearly in being willing to join openly and directly with employers to destroy other trade unions.
A split in the TUC is now a very real possibility, and it is a necessary development if the trade union movement is to be defended. It is true that a split would be the end of a unitary trade union federation in Britain, and as such will bring new problems. But there are higher issues at stake. Unity is important, but not at any price — and the cost of unity with the Hammond leadership would be that the TUC remain hamstrung, drifting rightwards towards the policies of the EETPU, while Hammond plots with ever-more employers to destroy genuine trade unionism. This is what 'compromise' on this issue really means.
This is shown clearly by Hammond's actions even while these things have been under discussion at the TUC. The EETPU has concluded an agreement to work alongside a consortium of construction companies to train workers for the London docklands development project. The possibility, therefore, looms that the EETPU will be moving beyond plumbing into other building trades such as bricklaying and plastering!
Even Union of Communication Workers (UCW) leader and hard-line right winger Alan Tuffin, speaking at their conference in June, has added his voice to the calls for the EETPU to be expelled from the TUC.
Hammond knows that leaving the TUC is a very difficult option. Once outside the TUC he will lose the protection of the Bridlington agreement (which outlaws the poaching of members between affiliated unions) and the EETPU would be immediately vulnerable to recruiting campaigns by other unions.
Even now, left wingers inside the EETPU are beginning to mobilise, in the first instance to deal a blow against Hammond by building the biggest possible vote against any move to leave the TUC. If (as seems certain) this fails to halt the split, the fight will be on to prepare the best conditions to break off whole sections of the union to join appropriate TUC-affiliated unions.
The EETPU would also be seriously isolated once outside the TUC. If, as seems likely, the AEU stays in the TUC — since the AEU membership is too vulnerable to poaching from unions like the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU) for Jordan and Laird to risk leaving — Hammond could be left to seek a new alliance with a ragbag of ill-assorted scab organisations like the UDM and even the 'professional' strikebreakers of the Royal College of Nursing.
However Hammond may try to put on a brave face to dress up such an arrangement, he knows that this type of coalition is scarcely likely to attract substantial support or enthusiasm from even right wing unions.
This isolation should be compounded by the disaffiliation of the union from the Labour Party as well. It is an outrage that Michael Meacher has declared himself opposed to kicking out the EETPU. This is something which needs to be fought out at this year's Labour Party conference.
Only by taking the hardest line against the EETPU can the worst effects of a split in the TUC be combatted. Those who look for compromise with business unionism must be rigorously opposed.