28.11.1996

New, improved Scargillism

The terms of the Tories’ latest proposals to continue the onslaught on trade union rights were finally published last week. As expected, if the measures became law, they would make any strikes not pronounced illegal so risky as to make effective industrial action impossible.

The first hurdle unions would have to overcome would be the winning of an absolute majority of all members entitled to vote in a strike ballot - not just a simple majority of those voting. For example, 78% of the Communication Workers Union membership took part in the recent strike ballot which produced a clear 61% majority in favour of action. But if the non-voters are included in the figures, then the 64,919 workers who voted ‘yes’ are just outnumbered. In other words members who do not vote for whatever reason are deemed to be against industrial action.

The Tories are trying to resurrect the old myth of large numbers of unwilling workers being forced (or somehow ‘intimidated’) by a militant minority to defend their interests. In fact the size of the majority is often irrelevant to the militancy and degree of support for an action once it actually begins. Workers end up voting with their feet.

The second hurdle is the need for unions to give l4 days’ notice of industrial action, increased from seven - an extra week for the bosses to prepare counter-measures. The green paper also provides for frequent reballoting if a dispute is not settled quickly.

However, the most far-reaching proposals are those designed to give companies or individuals the right to seek injunctions to prevent strikes or sue unions for unlimited compensation if they can prove damage caused by ‘unlawful’ action. What constitutes unlawful action is so sweeping that it is difficult to think of any strike that could not conceivably fall into that category.

First of all any action which threatened life, health, safety or ‘national security’ would be outlawed. That seems to rule out strikes altogether in certain industries. But action which damaged ‘property’ or ‘the economy’ would also be unlawful. Just in case some disputes do not fall within those clauses, the Tory lawyers have dreamed up a definition to put these outside the law as well. Also illegal would be industrial action which caused “significant disruption of everyday life or activities in the whole or part of the country”.

Ian Lang, the president of the board of trade, told the press that it would be up to the judges, not him, to speculate whether any particular action might be illegal: “The courts will soon decide where the boundaries lie.” This phrasing is clearly designed to leave the borders so ill-defined that unions will not dare to take action and risk losing all their assets.

However, it is unlikely that the present proposals will ever see the light of day, as the government is allowing a three-month ‘consultation’ period before attempting legislation - a timetable that would take us very near the general election. So what is interesting about this latest round of union-bashing is the reaction of major employers and sections of the ruling class. Both the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Directors thought that existing laws already struck the right balance, while the Confederation of British Industry doubted whether the plans were “workable”.

Not to be put off, Lang said that companies had often expressed doubts about previous anti-union laws, but had subsequently embraced them. That may be so, but what the Tories are missing is developed capitalism’s need to retain at least a degree of consent from those it exploits. For that purpose it is important to allow the occasional safety valve, and trade unions generally provide the best means of ensuring it.

The Independent expressed this admirably in an editorial entitled ‘Toothless unions don’t need muzzling’ on November 20:

“The best performing organisation commands not just the assent, but also the enthusiasm of its staff. Trade unions, at best, can increase the difference between the cost of employment and organisational output. As collective bargainers, they can enhance the dignity and rights of individual employees.”

However, showing that perhaps it does not quite have its finger on the pulse of the working class after all, The Independent then adds: “Scargillism ... is stone cold dead.” Strikes may well be at an all-time low, but to dismiss the possibility of a wave of mass workers’ action is extremely shortsighted, to say the least. Scargillism in its original personification is alive and well in the SLP, an organisation which has the potential to become truly mass.

Does that mean that the Conservative Party is rather more far-sighted? Foreseeing the possibility of mass discontent erupting, are the Tories putting in place measures to forestall it? That seems an extremely remote possibility. If such discontent did take the form of action across the unions, such laws would not stop workers. Even some of the employers’ organisations have warned of ‘wildcat’ strikes if all legal redress is barred.

Desperate to cling onto power, yet bereft of any constructive ideas, all the Tories can muster up is more of the same.

A new, improved ‘Scargillism’, based on Party, can really shake both wings of the bourgeoisie.

Alan Fox