than the 30 no strike deals signed by the EETPU — the deals for a year was completely wrong. The CPSA thur Scargill to speak against it.
No strike deals started to be signed by the EETPU carly WIA!
Japanese employers Hitachi, Toshiba, Sanvo and the electrical firm Inmos. Since then they have begun to spread rapidly.
The EËTPU has taken the initiative to spread them into traditional industries as pairt or lus arive to orcak lnto them at the expense of e uH rorenoc in January this year it signed a no strike deal with the Western Mail and South Wales Echo as part of its drive to break into the printing industry which was started in the deals with Eddie Shah's Today and at Rupert Murdoch's Wapping plant. No strike deals are a dagger aimed at the heart of the trade union movement. They are about far more even unionism from entire sections of the workforce. That is why Monday's TUC decision to put off considering and TASS were dead right to vote against it — and ArOther unions, notably the AEU, have also begun to use inem.' In Januar 1986, for example, the AEU signed a no SLEIKE urtict yes deal cle components vehicle COnDOLCIL manu facturer. This specified that: There will be no stoppage of work of either a partial or general character SUCROS ASOKe lOCKOL ce slow, work to rule, restriction of of LUvelCl material and its working, an overtime ban, or restriction of any kind by either paity.' Stopping short of a formal no strike deal, but coming extremely close to it, was the deal signed by the AEU with Nissan at its new Phis nathe North Bast.
catastrophic situation for trade unionism in the factory described recently by GMB Jonn Derry ol lac secretary of South Shields Trades Council 'There is an atmosphere in there that is not correct.
Amalgamated Engineering Union has sole recognition agreement with the company, but claims ony Del UCHIL membership among the 550 DU ULLE workforce. Many other people say it is closer to 15 *Mr Joe Cellini, the AEU divisional organiser, nas lo go in ana our or une factory because there are no COlIS od Ical unol structure there. People are frightened to take on the shop steward's role because of the implications. wim leucubecel plete fiasco.' Employers are also learning to follow up defeats imposed on workers by introducing Do strike deak campi Silentnight, which dismisseos Woo e oued long bitter strike, imposed a two year no strike deal on the scabs it recruited But the government has also taken the first step to extending these into wider sectors. Thatcher an nounced in July that she would be bringing forward recommendations for a no strike deal tor teachers. Shi annonced that Kenneth Baker's, the education secretary's green paper will include the possibility of a strike agreement believe thệ majority of ennes cle weerc c strike agreement! This was rejected the filiated National Union of Teachers Association Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. was welcomed by the scab 'Pro Tesoro ASSOCRUON of Teachers':
This is part of a long term policy adopted by the government laid out clearly in a 1984 report by the Conservative Party think rank sados ed, according to the Financial Times that. 'the present steady pace of industrial relations reform should continue while the relatively uLULs Icall powerless to oppose it — on the grounds that an upturn in employment „ w see a reassertion of some former union strength 'Sir Leonard Neal, the industrial relations expert and former Board member of British Rail and Pilkington, and charman of the Heath government's Commission on industrial Rela tions, has recommended to Mrs Thatcher the two major proposals form the next pieces of industrial relations legislation..
1 he main proposal 101 a strike ban, takes head on the difficulties of defining which services are essential. Sir Leonard believes it will be commonly accepted that the "energy services (gas and electricity), water and sewerage health services would operate such a bar ant tu ara y IE EDiTE" IE damage them would also be covered by the ban.
'He recommends that the union be held liable for all strikes in essential services, even if they are unofshow unambiguously that it Ilau made everv ettort to end the disruption. (Financial Times February 1984)
This is why it was the sheerest hvpocrisv tor Bil Jordan, president of the AEU, to "have claimed in Monday's TUC debate that the reason he was in favour OE NO deals was because the real threat facing the trade union movewas non-unionism UCHI The deal signed by the AEL at Nissan, with less than a quarter of the workforce ir the union, shows the real consectenci agreements. The spreading of no strike agreements into the public sector, which is the government's aim, woud ed to biteralt hun dreds of thousands of ariste demirs TREE MZ IL IEDE • ir Ie attitude to these deals. They sell out the fundamentals of unionism All the ver's delay will do is allow Hammond t prepare bet ter the EETPÜ's threat to leave the TUC.
On this there should be no equivocation. .Only fool WaColk the splitting of the TUC. But no strike deals go to the heart of trade unionism and of the elementary right of every person to withdrav their labour. If Hammonc threatens to leave the TUC over a ban on no strike deals anen uis beeno lake ar risk than for the TUC back down Of course finally even a no strike deal will not stop workers defending their rights. Hitachi in Soutt Wales, where the EETPI signed one of the first no strike deals, suffered a brief factory sit in July over a WaLC :claim. But with deals selline elementar! tate principies = are ÑecTe TAmSEO T=
Socialist Action 11 Sept 1987
----- pull-quotes -----
threatening as these are themselves. They are about government plans to remove the right to effective trade