08.08.2007
What's a worker's wage?
Section 3.5 of the CPGB's Draft programme, 'Trade unions', was the latest to be discussed at the London Communist Forum held on July 29. London comrades are continuing their study of 'Immediate demands' as part of the process of redrafting. Peter Manson reports
Section 3.5 of the CPGB's Draft programme, 'Trade unions', was the latest to be discussed at the London Communist Forum held on July 29. London comrades are continuing their study of 'Immediate demands' as part of the process of redrafting.
A major omission was noted in the current draft - there is no mention of the international aspect of trade unionism. The working class response to capital's global assault must necessarily be international - on the trade union as well as political level. In fact tentative steps towards trade unions that operate across borders (rather than the longstanding union 'internationals') are already being taken. Communists should take the lead in pushing for genuine international trade unions and this should be reflected both in the body of the text and in the bullet points at the end.
The most controversial point in our discussions was over the bullet point which reads: "No trade union official to be paid above the average wage of a worker in that particular union." While everyone agreed with the general principle - based on the need for union representatives not to view their position as a career option - it was pointed out that, when it come to political representatives, the demand is that: "The pay of full-time elected delegates will be no greater than the average skilled worker" (my emphasis). This last sentence, by the way, is taken from section 4.2, 'The socialist constitution'. There is nothing about the accountability of political representatives in the here and now. This should clearly be part of a new section on 'Democracy' under 'Immediate demands'.
The difference over the current phrasing concerned whether or not union officials' pay should also relate to that of skilled workers. It was argued by Peter Manson that, since the same need to guard against careerism applies also to political representatives, the same definition of a worker's wage should also apply. Comrade Manson said that being a representative in either field was skilled work and we do not want to actually disadvantage them. In response comrade John Bridge said that sectionalism divides the union movement, not least between skilled and unskilled workers, and it was therefore essential that full-time union officials should be materially tied in terms of their pay to the majority of workers whom they represent.
Other, more minor, points were also noted.
At present the first paragraph of the sub-section reads: "Trade unions ... represent a tremendous gain for the working class, drawing millions of backward workers into collective activity against employers." It was suggested that the word "backward" should be omitted. While the reason for its insertion was to counter the economistic view that trade unionism is an advanced form of working class struggle, it was felt that the use of the word in this general statement distorted the meaning - both advanced and backward workers take part in trade union collective action.
There was also criticism of the second paragraph, which describes trade union consciousness as "the hopeless attempt to constantly improve the lot of workers within capitalism". It was pointed out that for long periods of the 20th century the attempt to do so in advanced capitalist countries did not appear "hopeless" at all. It was felt that this wording is confused - the intention should be to reflect both the never-ending nature of the struggle to "improve the lot of workers under capitalism" and the temporary nature of all gains.
Paragraph 3 states that union functionaries "consolidated themselves into a conservative caste". This should be rephrased along the lines of "tend to consolidate themselves ...", reflecting the fact that this is a process that is constantly replicated.
In the final bullet point, which demands "all-embracing workplace committees", it was questioned whether it was necessary to state that these should organise all workers "whether or not they are in trade unions". This might give the impression that communists stand for rank-and-filism in opposition to trade unionism. While it is correct to attempt to organise non-unionised workers in rank and file bodies, we also need them to join those unions and fight within them.
Finally it was suggested by comrade Phil Kent that our opposition to separate unions based on political affiliation should be explicit, but it was felt that the slogan, "One industry, one union", covered that.
The current version of the CPGB's Draft programme can be viewed at www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/draftprog/html.