Fighting Tebbit: Bitter Lesson of Taff Vale

Scan page 11

THE centrepiece of Norman Tebbit's legal attack on irade unions is the proposal to make union funds liable when officials or members are involved in blacking or defending 100% trade unionism. Multiple actions could mean unions being liable for millions of pounds.

Tebbit would in fact restore the law to that laid down by -the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case 80 years ago. What happened at 'Paff Vale and what can it teach us for today's struggles!

The successful dock strike of 1889 had been seen as a clear danger signal by the class that nad ruled the world for most of the nineteenth century. There was a clear dynamic towards what they had always feared - the militant organisation of the majority of the working class - the unskilled.

Engels, who had often despaired of the old collaborationist craft unions, wrote of ". ... this gigantic strike of the lowest of the oulcasts - the dock labourers. If this stratun can be organised it is a fact of the grealest importance.

If the industrialisadion of Germany and the USA threatened British capital from without, the possibility of mass trade unionism was a powerful challenge from within. It was not only the organisation of 'the children of the abyss' which terrified capital but their increasing susceptibility to socialist ideas.

The Socialist Democratic Federation grew in the 90s. In 1893 the ILP was formed. Demands for a united independent working class presence in Parliament. intensified. The Cloth cap began to replace the top hat at the TUC.

Capital

Resulutions claiming that •Trade Unionists are beginning to realise that so long as the capital and machinery are in the hands of a small class no real progress can be made towards bringing about. our social emancipation" (Iron Founders to 1893 TUC) were increasingly accepted by union bodies.

Then, as now, opinions on how to stop the rot differed. Whilst some sections of the employers and the state were prepared to accept oning and shortsighted support for the rights of property" and were ready for concessions, others were not. Employers Federations developed apace. The Times and the Economist preached stridently against the New Unionism and the tyrannies of collective organisation.

The repressive stance of the more confrontationist sections of capital climaxed in the 1987 engineering lockout.

William Collison, who believed in "the right of every man (sic) to pursue his trade or employment without dictation, molestation Or obstruction" established the National Free Labour Association Ine looy aock sirike: part oj nE a 100n Aral to supply employers with blacklegs. Free Labour Exchanges and District Offices were established throughout the country and were particularly energetic in supporting the Railway and Shipping Employers.

From the early nineties there was an increasing tendency by both Liberals and Tories to use police and troops in strikes at Featherstone, Mold and Belfast. Most important of all was the role of the judiciary.

The 1871 Trade Union Act and the 1895 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act had constituted a limited armistice but through the 90s these bewigged vultures began to persistently peck away at this compromise. In series of cases such as Temperton v. Russell and Lyons v. Wilkins their flexibility fine-tuned the law to weaken industrial action.

The employers' offensive and the weakening of the initial impetus of the new unionism together with the sectarian impotence of the SDF produced a turn towards parlamentar oolitics. At the 1899 TUC à motion calling for the establishment of a Special Conference representing unions, co-ops and socialist organisations was carried, and in February 1900 this conference agreed to establish a Labour Representation Committee.

However, for 12 months this kernel of the future Labour Party marked time: It attracted few substatial affiliations and at the 1900 General Election elected only two MPs. This ine menacing movement of ine was to change dramatically after the Taff Vale affair.

James Holmes, the West of England Urganiser of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, was a militant Socialist. The nised by the tall Vale calway and was still smarting „ar sha «ne ofill omortina from the victimisation of a signalman, Ewington, by Beasley the General Manager.

While the Boer War coal prices were high, demand was increasing while reservists were being called up, Holmes saw his opportunity. He organised a strike for recognition and increased wages.

Pickets were sent to the docks and the mines. There were 24 hour rotas. Blacking led to 100,000 pitmen being laid off.

When Collison's Free Labour Association ferried in blacklegs they were met at the station, arrested by the pickets and triumphantly paraded through the streets of Cardiff.

The employers hit back. Beasley had 400 summonses issued against those who had struck without notice. Aware of the limitations of the law of picketing since Lyons v. Wilkin, he applied for an injunction.

Richard Bell, the General Secretary, was a moderate who had earlier attempted to discipline Holmes. He now tried to stop the strike being made official. Overruled by his Executive, he hurried to South Wales to take the reins out of irresponsible hands, and in short order snatched defeat int annsacead unrors which n ise uppresscu murnors misters t from the jaws of victory.

He negotiated a return to work on the terms existing before the strike. Not, however, berore an myuncaon was granted to the employers by the High Court not, as was normal against the officials, but against the union itself as an organisaton. .. 19- -In other words, the union funds were up for grabs.

It had generally been accepted even by right wing opinion that this was not the legal position. Those who had argued that union responsibility would be a useful weapon to break strikes had argued for the law to be changed. Mr Justice Farwell's verdict was, in the words of the Daily News, "contrary to the opinion held by all lawyers who had professionally considered the subject"

Even the Times accepted the Court of Appeal's reversal of the judgement, but the House of Lords reaffirmed that the union was responsible for the action^ : :.: Sficials.

The ASR eventually ended up paying out £42,000, a vast sum in those days.

Surveying the damage, the union leaders faced a similar choice to that facing the General Council today.

Can we already detect some right wing minds thinking what James Sexton, dockers' leader and self-styled 'agitator', was bold enough to openly state at the time of Taff Vale?

•'There are those in the Labour movement sanguine enough to think that the Taff Vale case will be a blessing in disguise, and w li tiu to streng hen JOHN McILROY surveys some pointers from the past for the fight against anti-union laws. ..Uar executive control and minimise if not entirely kill irresponsible action in the localities"

Rinhard • Roll folt the same: 'I have all along Initiall ULIC held views which did not gain much popularity as to the conduct and actions of some of the rank and file and vaunger blows of our au JuS several ve was trade unions. Rules, Executive Committees and responsible officials have been ignored"

The judgement he felt would be "a useful influence in solidifying the forces of trade unionism and in subjecting them to wholesome discipline" His view was shared by Sidney Webb.

While the left urged that the Taff Vale judgement should be overturned lock, stock and barrel, many union leaders wook the line of Chandler, General Secretary of the Carpenters and Joiners who warned his committees and officials " ... to carefully guard against affording any employer or individual the opportunity of taking advantage of the latest move against the "It is impossible to do anything of an active character during a strike without running immense risk of actions for damage. Therefore, the most sensible plan is to avoid strikes as far as possible."

In the immediate aftermath of Taff Vale it was this conservative approach which predominated. The TUC Parliamentary Committee (General Counrules it will be possible to a Tebbit: back to 1905? WEENUIN avert many of the difficulties, especially in protecting the_ funds of the unions." For many leaders the latter wac the firat ennsideration but the rank and file looked at things differently.

Up and down the country there were militant marshas and damanctratinne Many leaders found themselves in the position of Will Thorne who reported to the Gas Workers Conference 'members have threatened to leave the union if the EC did not allow them to come out on strike."

The fact that the period 1902-5 was one of depression militated against an explosion against Taff Vale. In a period when one might expect long defensive struggles the low rate of working days lost argues that the judgement must have had some effect in restraining militancy. • However, as other cases were brought against right wing unions and the total bill moved towards a massive $200,000, the union leaders began to see the nature of the albatross they had been saddled with. They might have welcomed allies in controlling their membership, but the law set the price of failure too high.

Rallying

It proved a rallying point for the members who had trade union idevlogy on their side and its unpredictable use took the timing, tempo and tactics to a large degree out of their hands.

Even so, the focus of change was on Parliament, not direct action. Affiliation to the LRC increased by 100,000 in the year after Taff Vale. In 1902-3 it doubled. Taff Vale provided the impetus and focus for the formation of the Labour Party.

At first the timidity of the Parliamentary Committee led to attempts to get very limited bills through Parliament which would protect unions against some of the problems the judges had created in earlier cases without giving them complete immunity.

Only gradually did the fear of financial loss and the pressure of the rank and file lead to a more ambitious approach.

When Shackleton's Bill was defeated in May 1903 and the Tories' final word was to establish a Royal Commission hostile to the unions, the scene was set for a victory at the September conference for those who advocated a Bill with more far reaching protections as finally introduced by the victorious Liberals in 1906. That election of course saw for the first time a strong independent working class presence in Parliament.

The union rights secured then are once more in danger. Tebbit could be used as some union leaders wished to use Taff Vale to rewrite union rules, undermine democracy and justify a policy of retreat in today's conditions of mass unemployment.

Some union leaders may oscillate between dislike of the law, fear of the membership and fear of illegal action. We must make sure that it is the strength and power of the membership that wins out in this situation.

Taff Vale produced a workers' party to protect our interests within capitalist society. The fight against Tebbit can help to produce a fight to push that party in the direction dismantling capitalist society. GOVERNMENNT Pomphlet 40p plus postage from Socialist Organiser, 28 Middle Lane, London N8

Scan page 12

Socialist Organiser, Thursday 18 March, 1983 Page 12

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

Randolph Churchill's urg- ing not to cling to "unreas-

cil) argued that "with a judicious amendment of the

Labour democracy fight for a WORKERS Orgoniser