remembered tne of ASLEF, the health workers and the NGA; and the trade union leader who craved co-operation with government even when it was kicking the unions in the teeth.
Murray, it is said, is not in the best of health. In his own statements he exnained that he wanted to go out on top, and contemplate the meaning of life. But no one is convinced by this story. In reality, Murray's decision to next September, three ycals early, renects Lilt crisis in which the TUC inTinas Itsell, creasing fight inside, the unions about what its role should be.
For Murray's instinct, that cravenly cooperating with government no matter how reachas less and less Lollaly. possibility of implementation at a lme when the Tories just 001 I Wall co-operate with the unions.
Three recent demonstrate able Murray's position had become. First, the uproar even in the TUC general over his refusal to back the NGA'S illegal' picketing at WarrSecond, Murray's defeat in the general counparticipation NEDC other government consultation bodies — a dispute in which even man who supported the disastrous 'social contract' in the 1970s, the betrayer right wingers like Basnett turned against him. lastly his handling of the GCHQ dispute, when Murrav was apparently ge nuinely shocked by the refusal of the government to seriously discuss a comFor someone who genuinely geneve that can be sorted out be negotiation manouevre, rather than struggle, this was a rude awakening indeed.
The background to the crisis of the unions is the policy OVCI whole ten years of Murray's During the 1974-79 government Murray placed his faith in co-operating with government through the social contract. In wage restraint, so the theory went, the would receive benefits, especially low-paid members, througn the social wage welfare benefits and the K The social contract's them Hugh Scanlon, Jack Jones and Murray himsell even Murray: position untenable denied that wage restraint of the social contract at all! In pracuce l turned out very differently. hed cal" nings slumped, unemploythe IM intervention in IMF intervention 1976 social spending cuts started in earnest. The latter were presided over by the first monetarist Chancellor Denis Healey. Thatcher government put the trade union movement to a new test by combining mass through deliberately crashing the with anti-trade laws. Thatcher understood that Heath had failed because he tried to introduce anti-union laws at a time when unemployment an one million organisational strength of the working Cass severely weakened. Failed failed the test. As the Tebbit laws WCIC introduced, social spending slashed rocketed, Wei yachl they failed to prepare for inevitable controntation instead pressed for discussions with the government - the new realism'. Derisory protest actions and publicity campaigns, like the 1980 'day ONCON ed the trade union rank and file.
The strategy of lobbying government with minimial protest actons necessarily led the betrayal of ASLEF drivers, the health workers and the NGA. But it has also inevitably led to the growth of a 'hard right, 'new realist' current inside the unions leaderships with Chappel's this means simply business unionism, offering employers 'no strike' contracts on the American But with wide coalition of union leaders Alastair Graham of the CPSA Duffy AUEW Murray himself it has led to the de mand for 'non-political' unionism weakening the links between the TUC and the Labour Party, and trying to establish HOK. with other parties, particularly the SDP Politically the realists on the TUC general council are coalitionists preparing, pressure the Labour Party into coalition Will the Alliance, and an electoral 'arrangement' at the next general election.
the absence oi a leadership actually prepared to fight the Tories, to break the Tebbit laws and take effective action to defend the Labour Pargrowth right wing business unionism is one inevitable product. A secof the right wing bureaucracy evitably seeks a new way of finding a way of living with reactionary government simply capitulating Another section of the union leader Shit leadership most obviously the , want real fight. The room of the and manoeuverers gets squeezed.
The GCHQ affair. was the final humiliation of Murray. He went to Thatcher, cap in hand, as the betrayer of the NGA having done huge ser All he the ruling wanted was a little cones.
sion — • be doc to kocu in rebers for no GCHQ in strikes and no effective unionism there at all. Mur ray came out his meeting with her white and shaken 'she just kept saying "I've made up my mind 'said Murray.
Defeats Murray knew full well inal nis leadersmp lacca c big left wing challenge at the coming TUC ference. His policy of ask5184 Would you believe it! Here we have an event so mind-numbingly uninspiring and trivial that even a comicstrip on the subject tries to give up in the third panel!! government ruins Under his leadership TUC membership has fallen from 12 million half million, hundreds of thousands of unionists have suffered bitter deteats.
The TUC has been powerless fighting unemployment. Unlike the German unions, no [19n1 for a shorter working week has been made TUC's capitulations over the NGA have strengthened laws If a real fight back is going to be made againsi the Tories, then a very dit ferent kind of leadership is needed. Len Murray cathe the •TUC bureauc racy. He never led a union branch or strike, let alone unfortuntely most of the naulona candidates to replace nin come the sallic
----- pull-quotes -----
THE ANNOUNCEMENT of Len Murray's early retirement will hardly provoke great sadness in the rank and file of the labour movement. He will be