12.09.1996

Labour shows unions their place

The one issue dominating this year’s Trade Union Congress has been the attempt by the Labour Party to keep the unions firmly under its thumb.

In tune with the consensus shared by all the mainstream parties, Labour leaders would have us believe that the class war is a thing of the past and that unions which try to fight for a better deal for workers are out of touch with reality. Not only have the Labour leaders let it be known that they have no intention of tying themselves to any minimum wage figure, but that the totally inadequate figure of £4.26 is ‘excessive’. Congress voted overwhelmingly to set this figure, defying general secretary Monks.

Arthur Scargill speaking in favour of the motion was introduced as having left Labour to form the SLP. He received resounding applause saying: “I’m sick and tired of Labour leaders telling the unions not to rock the boat and then consistently meddling in our affairs.”

In a move calculated to put the union bureaucrats in their place - in total subordination to the future Blair capitalist government - David Blunkett, Labour spokesperson on employment and education, hinted at further anti-union legislation on the very eve of the TUC.

Having recently floated the idea of compulsory, binding arbitration for industrial disputes in the public sector, Blunkett comically suggested that workers could enter into such agreements ‘voluntarily’. He was more honest when he said that the old days of when a Labour government used to ‘tolerate’ union militants was “gone forever”. He caused a furore at conference when he said that an “incoming Labour government is not going to tolerate the activities of armchair revolutionaries whose only interest is disruption and who see disputes as an opportunity for mischief-making” (September 10).

While most union leaders continue to assure us that New Labour has workers’ interests at heart and will tilt back the balance towards the unions, the party is proving by its own words that the opposite is the case. Blunkett, in true Labour Party fiasco style, reminiscent of the referendum question in Scotland, jumped through hoops on Tuesday to prove unequivocally that Labour is the big business-friendly party. Confusion reigned as he tried to couch his union-bashing project in pro-union terms for his TUC hosts. A futile flop.

Blunkett stated that any revised ‘offer’ from employers in dispute should automatically trigger a fresh ballot before further strikes are called. Asked whether Labour was not simply vying with the Tories to be the most anti-union, Blunkett confirmed this by the terms of his denial: “It is about taking industrial relations out of the political arena, so that Ian Lang cannot use it in the run-up to the general election.” The government too is considering further legislation, such as ‘cooling-off periods’ between ballots and strike action, or even an outright ban on public sector strikes.

John Monks in his mealy-mouthed speech could nevertheless not avoid condemning the arbitration proposals. In lunchtime interviews Blunkett attempted a hashed rescue job, saying there was no legislation planned, and binding arbitration would not apply to pay disputes.

Labour’s employment team has a crisis meeting in Blackpool and Blair arrives to reverse Blunkett’s statements, saying Labour would not rush into “early legislation”. Later that same evening Blunkett fudges the issue and Blair tells the TUC general council to calm down. Loyal lapdog Monks comments that Labour has some positive proposals on fairness at work.

Union bureaucrats reacted strongly against further clamps on their bargaining power, which would further loosen their control over their members. Lew Adams, general secretary of the Aslef train drivers’ union, said that Blunkett’s proposals were “beyond belief”. Describing them as “a kick in the teeth”, he advised Labour to “go and open schools and hospitals - that’s where the votes are”.

Mirroring Blair’s obsession with ‘new’ Labour, the TUC tops are promoting ‘new unionism’. In his opening address to the conference, Monks called on the unions to be ‘part of the solution’ for companies “coping with change and competitive pressures” and for a British government “committed to dealing with our country’s decline”.

In case you had any doubts about what he means by ‘new unionism’, this clearly spelt-out priority for putting the bosses’ interests first should remove them.

Alan Fox