JOHN ROSS looks at how the Tories have based their trade union laws on the expectation that the TUC would put up no resistance to a policy of slowly tightening the noose around the labour movement. And how the chosen the terrain of the miners' strike as the decisive one to force through their plans to change the entire legal framework of trade unionism.
Ever since they were elected in 1979 the Tories ir an had de lion late that for their anti-trade union laws. goal is an American model of trade unionism trade unions which are 'non-political', which base themselves on legally binding contracts with the employers, and unions which take coresponsibility with the employers for policing these contracts. In other words to create an entire union movement on the model of the EETPU or Alistair Graham's role in the CPSA.
The result would naturally be exactly the same as in the United States. catastrophic fall in union membership as trade union members found they belonged to organisations which offered them no protection.
Worse still trade unions on this model would be confined just to those sections of the workforce with the most employment, with qualifications etc. Strikes would, in addition, be banned in 'essential services' such as health, local government, the water, electricity, and gas industries.
The aim would be a trade union movement enormously reduced in size from its present level - with perhaps six million members in trade union atflated to the TUC compared to ten million at the present. This membership furthermore would be far more concentrated than at present in skilled right sing unions such as the EETPU, the stilled sections of the AUEW etc. The aim would be to destroy public sector unions such as NUPE as an effective force by the combination of anti-union Las and privatisation.
Precisely because breaking the power of the unions, and their Halulc. sweeping the Tories never calculated they would be able to get their laws through, and enforced, all in one move. Instead their aim was to tighten the noose slowly - - to bring forward a successive series of Acts, and legal decithat would in a step fashion accomplish their ral controntation to achieve the new framework of law, evitably come, would then be at a time, and on a terrain, of the government's own choosing. Therefore:
Tories have Royal penguins on parade tion, limited picketing, skilled unions municy fines to compliance with the law.
ballots before strikes, the political funds.
anti-union Acts.
In addition to the their plans for miners, have been:
al C over picketing.
by step goals. The funds.
which would in- took out an injunction the union. • The 1980 Act outlawed solidarity acand offered for ballots. • The 1982 Act imposed ballots for ible. closed shops and made unions liable for £250,000 nonThe 1984 Act imposed compulsory and compulsory Illallalilg • A new 'Green Paper' is promised by the government on banning strikes in 'essential services' as the next round of 'words • laws the courts have been steadily piling up a new series of legal decisions which al c in line with the government's aims. The most important of these, aside from the • In May 1981 Chloride Batteries took out an injunction against the TGWU September 1983 Eddie Shah's Stockport Messenger group took out an injunction against the NGA which led to the sequestration of the unions' • In November 1984 Austin Rover against the TGWU for not holding a ballot on a strike which led to a £200,000 fine on The point about all these decisions it that the framework of law erected by the Tories is completely politically flexLegal action can either be initiated, or not initiated, by employers and government simply on the basis of considering the relation of forces. true character of the courts as political instruments is more and more directly revealed.
The calculation of the Tories in all these attacks has been that the TUC would not act in defence of unions threatened by the law. For its part the TUC policy has been purely a case of not action'. Officially policy is based on the Wembley special conference of 1982. This pointed out that the Heath government's 1971 Industrial Relations Act 'was defeated by a united and etfective trade . The fact that trade unions generally adopted an aggressive posture The funeral of Joe Green — the second miner killed in the strike to the Act made the Act unworkable.
The conference adopted a position of total non-compliance with the anti-union laws, including refusal to accept government funds ballots, rejection of ballots on the closed shop, and support for industrial action in under the Acts.
Len Murray, in moving the general council's report to the conference said: 'One thing we one of us what this Coves them; that if they choose to invoke its TUC provisions it would cost them dearly; if they are foolish enough to start legal trouble they will face the risk of ar escalation of action by the trade union movement acting together.' But the general council ever since Wembley has been the exact reverse.
for state imposed defence of unions attacked accept - and that means every ASTMS.
- has got to do is warn AcI means Iol practica course of tne The decisive labour movement. refusal to defend the NGA, and the failure to act against the legal attacks on the NUM, has been followed by a further series of retreats. The EETPU and AUEW led the way by repudiatins the Austin Rover strike. The AUEW executive is appealing to its members to funds for ballots David Basnett of GMBATU is calling for a 'major review' of the TUC polic opposition the law Every single one of these retreats has led to a further tightening of the screw by the government. are now calculating that if the TUC fails to back the miners the major step in forcing through the new framework or anti-trade union aw will have beer taken. This is why the battle over the NUM really is the decisive one for the entire future of the trade union and