22.08.1996

New attack on union rights

London Underground drivers are divided again with the Aslef union accepting management’s latest deal and RMT rejecting by a 3:1 majority. As the Tories threaten to clamp down even harder on trade union rights RMT drivers are now left to go it alone

Trade secretary Ian Lang is threatening the most draconian attack on the unions for decades. Expressing outrage at the refusal of post office and London Underground workers to meekly submit to their employers’ attacks, Lang said: “I think there is really no need at this stage of the 20th century for the nation to be brought to a halt by one narrow self-serving interest in a monopoly public service.”

He did not make clear what the particular features of “this stage of the 20th century” are that distinguishes it from other periods. The bosses have always tried to screw down and the workers have always resisted the “self-serving interest” of the capitalist class.

In that sense the present struggles are a continuation of that theme. As The Times stated in its editorial of August 7, the underground dispute “is about the right of management to manage and the refusal of the unions to see their powers eroded ... That is why today’s strikers must not prevail.”

The establishment view is that the capitalist class has a god-given right to rule, to organise society in a way which best serves the generation of its profits. Workers must be forced to work in conformity with that purpose, their own needs being totally irrelevant. Those who think they ought to have some say in how they spend a good part of their lives - in the workplace - must be stamped down.

That is why the Tories are planning to remove the immunity from litigation for damages against striking public sector unions, even when the action is official. As all effective strikes must by definition damage somebody’s interests, such a move would in effect ban them altogether. Lang is proposing to force public sector unions to compulsory arbitration, where establishment figures would impose the requirements of bourgeois society - in a totally fair and impartial way of course.

The Labour Party has played a despicable role in all this. It was education spokesperson David Blunkett who recently proposed compulsory arbitration and, although Tony Blair has seemed to rule it out after union protests, the idea has now been placed firmly on the agenda. It will no doubt resurface during the next Labour government.

But what of the Socialist Labour Party? Six of the 13 members of the RMT union general grades executive belong to the SLP, so it is in a position to influence not only the outcome of the underground dispute, but also its political coloration.

The RMT leadership has stood firm against any trade-off over their claim for a 35-hour week by 1998 in exchange for management proposals to cut pay in real terms for three consecutive years. The general secretary of the other union involved, Aslef’s Lew Adams, claimed the deal was “a victory”, as “the dispute wasn’t over money; it was about easing the burden on the members we represent”.

Aslef members have been led down the road to a compromise which almost makes the current 37 hour week victory meaning less. Squeezing workers through attacks on conditions and pay is hardly irrelevant.

After all, London Underground chairman Peter Ford has just received a nice little annual bonus of £31,544, while managing director Dennis Tunnicliffe has picked up £24,079 (over 20% of their ‘basic’) for “improved productivity”. As The Times editorial commented, “Revenue was up and unit costs were down”.

In other words managers have succeeded in increasing the rate of exploitation of its workforce in order to line their own pockets. Yet even the RMT leaders, whose union is now left to fight alone, were remarkably mild in their criticisms of the proposed deal.

Assistant general secretary Bob Crow said his union could not recommend the settlement: “There are some positive features, but the price of achieving the 35-hour week is high.”

However, far from launching a vigorous campaign against the proposals, the RMT agreed merely to abide by the decision of its members. As an SLP member, comrade Crow might have considered ways in which the members could be inspired to raise their sights higher, particularly in view of the way the Tories have sought to politicise the current disputes.

SLP general secretary Pat Sikorski, himself an RMT executive member, declined to give the Weekly Worker his views on the role of the Socialist Labour Party in this situation.

Alan Fox