Putting the screws: Tebbit and the bosses' offensive

Scan page 8

LOT OVER THERE STILL LOOK A BIT STUBBORN!

Tebbit pud ne bosses offensive Bill Peters looks at the combination of government measures and management attacks confronting the working class.

DURING HER election campaign in April 1979, Margaret Thatcher ranted on about her determination to put an end to "wreckers who go on strike, indulge in secondary picketing, have demarcation disputes". • Lord Denning backed her up with statements about trade unions being 'the greatest threat to the rule of law"

A Parliamentary majority of 43 seats gave Thatcher the ability to establish the most, single-minded and determined anti working class government this century. She was soon identifying "wage levels, manning levels, and nonviable factories" as the most important problem to be tackled.

In contrast, Callaghan's strategy for capitalism's survival had been largely based on class collaboration.

He sought to attack the working class through first drawing the bureaucrats into 'participation' and the Social Contract.

Thatcherism short-circuited such niceties. Under her the Tory government set course for confrontation with the unions, seeing the use of mass unemployment as key to breaking the resistance of the working class and fundamentally changing their working conditions.

Branded

Thatcher's actions over her first two years are branded into the consciousness of the working class.

Within weeks of the election, she began to make even the actions of her Tory predecessor, Edward Heath (architect of the Industrial Relations Act and the jailer of the Pentonville Five and the Shrewsbury six) look moderate.

• Among her first actions was to raise the pay of the police and the army.

11: Thatcher was strategicprepared. Her annmarh to the 1979-80 UT pay round was to offer 5 per cent to BL workers and 2 per cent to steel.

It was a deliberate attempt to provoke a confrontation, and resulted in the 13 week steel strike, which was in effect a direct clash between the Tory government and its economic policy and the working class.

The strike was sold out by Bill Sirs and the leadership of the ISTC, who fought to contine the strike to the issue of wages. They were aided by the trade union leaders and the TUC who fought to ensure its isolation and to prevent a generalised political confrontation with the Tories.

By May 1980 the first year of monetarism had produced not only rising unemployment, factory closures, and 20 per cent inflation, but, on top of this. harsh budget by Geoffrey Howe designed to directly hit working class families.

In November 1980 Thatcher imposed a six per cent limit on wage increases. This move was met by total paralysis at the TUC and among the main trade union leaders.

When BL workers opposed the six per cent and voted for an all-out strike, they were quickly urged to 'think again'. A econd vote was then take n the same offer, with recommendation to accept.

The TUC entered into talks with the Tories, claiming that the trade union movement "had to live with the government"

1981 saw 'official' unemployment figures (i.e. heavto dinosed fee mine ıv doctoreo It saw further massive cuts in the public services, and riots in the inner cities.

The major Left-dominated Labour councils capitulated in front of Heseltine, and the trade union leaders actually increased their letermination to avoid an confrontation which could bring down the government. November in blatant sell-out •of the powerful BL strike became a watershed in the life of the Tory government, and significantly shifted the political situation against the working "class and to the advantage of Thatcher.

In fact, throughout 1981 the Tories had stepped up their attack on the working class. But the routing of the 'wets' in the autumn reshuffle marked a new stage. It created a cabinet completely controlled by hard-line monetarists.

Tebbit

Most importantly, Norman Tebbit was installed as Employment Secretary and a four per cent wage norm was announced.

The significance of this turn was not just at government level. It represented a hard-line turn by the ruling class as a whole, with the strong support of the big employers.

The turn was made in spite of splits and divisions in the Tory party and panic among those sections of the employers likely to go under to monetarism.

Yet regardless of these divisions, added to by by-election defeats, Thatcher set her face firmly towards the clear class objectives which had characterised her administration from its inception - to substantially increase the rate of profit extracted from the working class in Britain.

That is what made the BL strike so central. In defeating BL workers through the treachery of their leaders, Thatcher sought not only to impose her four per cent policy on the working class, but to gain the authority to press home her attack on all fronts with a new urgency.

After the BL sell-out there was a collapse among the trade union leaders on the pay round. NUPE and the G&M claimed 7 per cent as a 'victory' for local authority manual workers.

By the end of the year, it was clear that Thatcher FORD Mone was very close to holding wages to her original target - probably a bit above four per cent.

From the point of view of the ruling class, her tactics have been good. Instead of fixing a legal limit which would have obliged the government to hold the line in every sector, she chose to set a 'norm'. • This gave her the flexibility to duck confrontations which the Tories want to avoid, while picking particular battles which they then must win.

It is certainly true that the wage round is not yet over. Pressure has built up since the December mini budget which took £5 out of the pockets of the average working class family.

Nor is the willingness of the working class to fight in question, given leadership. That is demonstrated by the Ford vote, the Scargill victory in the NUM, and the likely vote for strike action by the miners in the absence of an improved offer from the NCB.

The problem remains one of leadership. The efforts by union leaders to ensure a sell-out of the Ford workers, which are painfully evident as we go to press, show that the trade union leaders are just as determined to knife that strike as they were at Bu.

Despite the nationalistic arguments the leaders used to back off from a fight against Edwardes, they are no more willing • to tight an American multi-national if it is likely to start a confrontation with the Tories.

A successful Ford sellout would give Thatcher increased authority, not just completing her success on wages but enabling her to press home the next stage of her attack, the anti union laws.

Tebbit's Bill, which is to be presented to the next session of Parliament, has implications which go far beyond its legislative aims.

It is far more dangerous than Barbara Castle's In Place of Strife, Edward Heath's Industrial Relations Act, or Prior's Em- ployment Act.

¡LOSURE . The removal of immunily at law for engaging in strike action which is 'mainly political' would take the trade union movement back to before the infamous Taff Vale judgment in 1901. There the Taff Vale Railway Company was awarded £23,000 damages against the union for losses resulting from the strike.

Under Tebbit, fines are linked to membership figand this allows ures,. penalties of between £¼ million and £12½ million. Sums of this order would quickly render even the biggest unions bankrupt.

By penalising the unions' central funds, it gets over the problem of enforcing the six picket limit, a probl em which has become obvious with militant mass pickets like the BL strike. for the courts to prove' Nor would it be difficult that a 'strike was 'mainly political', particularly if the government was the employer concerned. In a recent TV debate with Tebbit, David Basnett asked him if he would regard the recent threatened strike against the privatisation of gas showrooms as political? Tebbit didn't hesitate. 'Of course it would be" , he said.

Victimised

In addition, immunity is removed if a strike is over a 'personal' matter. Again, it is for the courts to interpret the meaning, and there is little doubt that this would affect strikes in defence of victimised workers and shop stewards.

On top of this is the attack on the closed shop.

This requires ballots to establish or maintain a closed shop, and provides for massive compensation for anyone sacked for refusing to join a union.

The Bill amounts to direct support for the employers in victimising militants and smashing the unions. They cut very deep into the trade union move. ment at shop floor level. ant ot chan floar lovel.

Already managements feel the strength of a hardline government behind them, and are acting accordingly. The logic of monetarism is forcing the weakest of them to the wall, and forcing them to attack the workforce.

At the same time an army of unemployed outside the gates are used directly as the stick to beat those still at work.

On top of this, the employers' offensive has become increasingly organised and directed. Pat Lowry utilises his 12 years as Personnel Director of BL in his new capacity as ACAS chief to tour the country giving tactical advice to the employers.

He recently, for example, told a meeting of engineering employers to use the recession to negotiate the kind of agreements and conditions which will be to their advantage when trade picks up.

In many industries this kind of policies is resulting in the most ferocious attack on shop floor workers. Not just through the creation of mass unemployment, but directly on working conditions, work effort, agreements, and trade union organisation.

Michael Edwardes, the man who apparently pushed Lowry out of BL because he was not tough enough, is undoubtedly the most advanced representative of Thatcherism at management level in British industry.

Initiatives

day (literally every day!)

there are new initiatives from management - every one attacking established working conditions and practices.

Seniority agreements which control mobility and prevent supervisors SPEED UF militante nr thnee the militants or those they don't like are under con stant attack. Ine agree ments are disregarded. 1 there is resistance some times management wil back off, but only to attac! again the next day from i slightly different angle.

Demarcation agreement. which define which job will be carried out by i given grade or category o workers are constantl; attacked in the same wa by a management who in tend to settle for nothin short of full flexibility.

Production workers ar pressed to do their ow sweeping. Rectificatio: workers are pressed to d their own inspection. Ins pectors are pressed to d their own driving. Weld ers are pressed to do thei own gun fitting. The lis is endless.

Undoubtedly the mot relentless drive is on wor effort, or more precisel speed-up. Work assigr ment sheets are constant] tightened ur by industrit engineers (IEs). Th 'Longbridge agreement resulting from the reces sell out of the relaxation al owance strike gives mas agement the right to tim and allocate work at 101! asi rating : (as against tr present 100). This deman more than 60 • minute work in the hour!

On top of this the sel out deal from the Noven ber wage review stri gives management ti right to restudy each pla to get an even high standard, which the determs 'audited statu (which means you wo a lot harder).

This gives manageme the right to bring in ne teams of super IEsto do d job. Already this has begr at Jaguar Browns Lane.

It is now manageme practice to disregard wh they term the 'niceties".

sticking to agreement This is a sharp cham from BL's previous attitul which was to pretend th they respected agre

----- pull-quotes -----

2630XMINERSE WAMPAIGN FOR ECONOMIC 8e SOCIAL ADVANCE: 1 5,08 QL THUMB LON

BL production lines are like battlegrounds. Every-

using the hardest job as a form of discipline against