[YOUTHIOND TUC must put its paper policy into…]

Scan page 9

YOUTHIOND TUC must put its paper policy into practice: Youth CND lobby of TUC, TUC, Thursday, control a strike". ¡ortance of the Labour Party i and trade unions' political vity at every level of the ns. We have to get in there ¡argue and argue and argue i the members. ut such an educational camin which could be best sued in the context of fight• to establish workplace pur Party branches, will be uccessful unless it is inteled in a change of course by ¡ unions and Labour Party lers. he lesson of the TUC's cational campaign on Tory i up to now is that its impact mited when the members see the fine words on the ers, in the pamphlets and in classroom mean nothing n it comes to ASLEF or • Geraghty or the NGA.

Political levy the new law replace coning out by contracting in? ›. Tebbit has decided not nmediately implement this osal contained in the Green ir. This follows his strategy essful up to now of testing he resistance or lack of it of rUC. ma you, it the ballot works, ns won't be able to have a ical fund anyway, so the ition of contracting in or out t even arise!

It the contracting in psal has not been laid to Tebbit comments that • the consultations on the • Paper have confirmed there is a widespread dis¡about the way in which the : of individual members not y the political levy operates actice through the system of acting out. 'he Secretary of State for loyment is therefore ing the TUC to discuss the • the trade unions themis can take to ensure that ¡ members are freely and tively able to decide for iselves whether or not they he political levy. is proposal may not be ed if the ballot does its work : is a usetul sprat to catch a erel. It has already reded in its purpose as the | decision of the General cil to accept Tebbit's ition illustrates. Note the ; wording of the invitation. unions are being asked to about how they can help i who don't want to pay the Ical levy. And after all the and fury of the last four i of rhetoric against Tory , they are willing to do so. by should Tebbit go to the le of passing a law if the ral Council are willing to act as bag-men?

The whole bent of Thatcher's policy has been to re-establish a new relationship with the TUC, not to leave them permanently out in the cold. Now, after June 9, the possibility of a new understanding is there.

What do the new proposals say about elections within the They stick closely to those contained in the Green Paper with one important change. The legislation will require elections to the executives of all unions and elections for the post of General Secretary and President where these officials have a vote or a casting vote on the executive to follow certain laid down criteria.

But these criteria will only apply where these officials are already elected.

The Tory desire for greater union democracy stop well short of a desire to interfere with the position of appointed general secretaries.

The criteria which must be followed cover a number of basic principles.

*Voting must be secret.

*Voting must be by the marking of a ballot paper. . *Every trade union member must have an equal and unrestricted opportunity to vote.

*Every trade union member must be able to vote directly for members of the executive and for the top jobs.

Voting for the positions covered must take place according to these criteria every five years.

So you can see that while voting by a show of hands is absolutely out there is no specific requirement for postal ballots.

So what would these proposals mean if they become law?

The key point is that they would give the courts control over the conduct of union elections. • These requirements will again take effect twelve months after the legislation receives the Royal Assent. If, then, any union member objects to a union election on the grounds that it has not been conducted according to these basic principles (perhaps fleshed out as is the fashion, by a more detailed and restrictive Code of Practice), he or she will be empowered to apply to the High Court for a declaration that the union has failed to carry out its statutory duty.

If the democratically elected High Court judge grants such a declaration, then the union will For..

be given six months in which to declare the election invalid and organise a re-run. If at the end of that period it has not done this the members who have received the declaration could seek enforcement of the order.

Continued defiance would mean that the union was in contempt of court and the judge could impose any penalty he thought fit.

The proposals do not rule out the imposition of postal balloting by the judge, a more subtle means for its extension than direct government fiat.

Take an example: workers in a large workplace vote for their Executive members at a branch meeting in the evening. Some have to travel five miles, others ten, some 15. Some have domestic commitments, others don't.

The judge finds that they don't all have "an equal and unrestricted opportunity vote"

What about a meeting in working hours? The 1980 Employment Act places an obligation on employers comply so far as is practicable with a request to allow his premises to be used for a ballot. It says nothing about a meeting or time off for a meeting. The judge outlaws voting at the branch after discussion and says it must take place at work without it.

The objective of the postal ballot - atomisation, lack of educational debate - are achieved.

Or suppose a workforce operates in scattered small units. The judge says that as there is not equal and unrestricted access to a central ballot box a postal ballot should be used.

We are not in reality talking about members in one workplace or branch. We are talking about the case of most unions of hundreds of thousands of members in very different workplace situations, all having "an equal and unrestricted opportunity?

If some have better opportunities to vote than others the whole ballot can be declared invalid. the This prides den house foe Freedom Association style fishers in troubled waters.

Judges would be behaving quite reasonably in saying the great equaliser is the postal ballot.

How would a law along these lines affect different unions?

Obviously in different ways according to their existing constitutions. Arthur Scargill has a casting vote on the NUM Executive. So if he were taken to court by the right wing, he would have to stand for election again this decade instead of"

staying until 2003, unless the rules are changed to eliminate his casting vote. Moss Evans, who has no such vote, will not be affected.

The new law will, however, affect the IGWU because it "will not permit the election of governing bodies by the membership of any intermediate body, e.g. delegates to national conference or member of, for instance, a regional committee."

The representatives of the national trade group committees who now sit on the TGWU GEC would presumably in future have to be elected directly by trade group members' individual votes.

The GMWU too would have to restructure itself. At the moment its executive council consists automatically of ten regional secretaries and two regional council members elected by the regional council, not the regional membership. The latter is also the procedure in COHSE.

Elections for the executive and leading officials could no longer take place on the basis of branch block votes. Each individual vote would have to be counted. So unions such as USDAW and NUPE would have to have a rethink here as would the UCW which elects its executive via branch block votes at conference.

So in all sorts of ways the pending legislation would represent a shake-up in the existing structure of trade unionism... and again it only represents the beginning. And then there are requirements for ballots before strikes.

That's right. As you know in 99 cases out of a hundred, where trade unions initiate strike action they are open to legal action únder the common law -the law developed directly by the judges.

They could be sued for inducing members to break their contracts, intimidation, conspiracy and numerous other civil wrongs and torts.

Over the years, Parliament has intervened to allow unions certain immunities without which they would not be able to operate at all. These immunities have been severely cut back via the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts.

What Tebbit is now saying is that where a strike is "authorised or endorsed" by a union, then the union must hold a secret ballot before the action begins.

Ari their remaining immunities and be open to actions for injunetions -and damages by the employers i.e. all strikes without ballots will be outlawed if the union supports them.

Three points: all industrial action work-to-rule, overtime ban, etc) is covered. But action the union is not "authorising or endorsing" isn't. And a ballot will only ensure immunity if all those who are being asked to take industrial action have had an 'equal and unrestricted right to vote in a secret ballot' The proposals say nothing about voting on employers' offers. They say nothing about ballots before ending a strike. You probably remember Tebbit making a song and dance about whether the GMWU had met rulebook requirements before calling its members in the water industry out and the surprising silence from both him and David Basnett when the water workers were told to return without being given any chance to vote.

These proposals would again lead to a tremendous shakeup in what unions do now. They would completely outlaw the show of hands at a mass meeting. A majority of Britain's unions leave responsibility for calling strikes to the executive with a variety of discretionary means of ascertaining opinions.

As we have said about the formula for ballots in elections, the push is towards the postal ballot.

So how are likely to strike ballots work?

Their purpose is clear. a strike is by definition a collective action. Its lifeblood is solidarity - the sinking of the individual's special situation, concerns and fears in those of the group.

September 8.

For details, 703 9011.

WIARD (REPORT)

The workplace mass meeting focuses the minds of all participants on those collective concerns, on the nature of their existence at work, on the need to act together. It provides a forum in which difficulties, worries, disagreements, can be brought out, developed, discussed. All the arguments are placed in contention and ‚struggle for supremacy.

In contrast, the individual secret ballot, particularly the postal ballot, brings before the member a faded phantom of the collectivity.

Its object is not the group but the isolated individual, the social manifestation in which workers are at their weakest, easy prey for the employers and their media whose whole purpose is to encourage this identity.

That is why we support the free, open vote after discussion at a meeting.

The miners are quoted as an exception, but most groups of workers lack the traditions of collective solidarity that still influence NUM members.

In this context there are many possible dangers in these proposals.

As Len Murray commented, •Tebbit must know that any union tries everything within its power to control a strike."

That is often why a union makes a strixe official. In future, laced with the problems of forcing a secret ballot on the membership or putting its fund at risk by supporting a strike without one, the union leaders may simply opt for inaction.

It is vital to ensure that uncertainty does not breed dithering and inaction. We have to fight for industrial action free of all state restraints and for all-out union support for strikers with no strings. phone Southwark YCND, c/o

Scan page 10

Socialist Organiser no. 144 September 1 1983 Page 10 Socialist Organiser no.144 September Page 10 IT would be counterproductive to deny thạt the Tory offen- leaders in the Labour Party. We should fight to ensure that postal ballot limits the participation of the membership sive has reaped great successes, that we are in a period of every union branch sends delegates to GMCs and that there are the leaves the rank and file divided and weakened. retreat, and that many militants are demoralised and others *No collaboration with state imposed strike ballots. The basic unit of union decison making should be open The June Election and the inability of militants to resist the Unions should automatically make all industrial action workplace meetings with open discussion guaranteeing the misleadership from the top shows the degree to which the official and should continue to maintain and extend the rights of all electoral candidates to circulate material and economic situation, the legal restraints and the Tories' argu- methods of ascertaining opinion which the members themBring in the black workers! Bring in the women workers!

Open our organisations to the unemployed!

The whole structure of union arrangements militates against these groups. Not only are they the most oppressed, but We have to use the discussion over Tebbit's latest proposals *For a Basic Extension of Union Democracy. precisely because of that they can bring new blood, vitality in the light of this understanding to argue for our own ideas Tebbit is right on one thing: unions are not democratic about union democracy, strikes and the relationship of unions enough. Shop stewards in every union should produce plans We must campaign against proscriptions on recruiting joband proposals for union democracy related to the specific less workers and for special arrangements in each organisaThese proposals will produce a shake-up within situation, traditions and balance of forces in their unions, or- tion to bring these groups into the mainstream. ganisations, a shake-up which is needed although not ganically developing from the present positions. But we believe that the Organising Committee of the Broad Lefts and All these basic points have to be argued for in terms of:

Seizing the opportunity and all the time attempting to the Campaign Group of MPs should jointly campaign for a *Breaking off talks with Tebbit and disengaging from tripardeepen opposition against the earlier legislation and preparing basic code of union democracy. Central principles would be: tite bodies such as the MSC and the NEDC where trade unionfor its use against trade unionists we should argue for: -Election - for short terms of office - and right of recall over ists achieve nothing but legitimise Thatcher's purposes. Turn *Total opposition to all ballots on political expenditure or all full-time officials. What's good enough for shop stew- away from the Tories. Turn to the members.

Cards is good enough for full-time officials. *Rebuilding workplace organisation in the offices, factories Strengthen the links between unions and the Labour Party If MPs like Terry Fields and Dave Nellist are by a serious extension of workplace branches. This will help take wörkers' wages, so should union officials. to increase the individual membership of the Party to avoid correct criticism of a passive membership used by union Left wing candidates can still win even using isolated.

ments have struck home.

If we are to organise the sections we have to be aware of the political but within the ranks.

to the Labour Party.

purposes Tebbit pursues.

Labour Party links. that are prepared to fight crisis not only at the top our orfor the regular report backs.

selves have decided upon. *Hands off union elections!

The union members, not method used. -Opposition to the postal ballot. Tebbit, decide prepared to it; but the Move the branch to the workplace.

address such meetings.

and militancy to the unions. and hospitals.

Without strength at the base we are strength at the base means rebuilding on tive. going nowhere. But a class-wide perspec-

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

WURKERS STRIKE TUM FAIR PAY

SO ers NECOTLATIO NEG

JUSTICE FOR WATER

WATER WORKERS STRIKE FOR WORKER: FAIR If they don't, they will lose all

icies lo ur policies for democra