Download this pamphlet in PDF Format
A New Beginning
In our pamphlet A Socialist Programme for the AEEU published in June
1998, we attempted to describe the process through which right wing
bureaucracies had been defeated in the trade union movement in the past, and
concluded:
"No matter how invincible the current leadership of the AEEU appear the
same fate awaits them. But this is neither automatic or inevitable. It has to be
organised and worked for. The task for left wing activists is to organise to
transform the union. To do this we have to learn from past failures and to place
our faith in the membership by campaigning for their support for genuine
socialist policies and a militant industrial strategy."
The election of Derek Simpson as General Secretary, and the defeat of Sir Ken
Jackson, marks a decisive turning point in the history of our union. In fact, it
represents an earthquake in the labour movement as a whole. Thanks to the
efforts of many committed activists during that election campaign – and for
years before in the workplaces, the branches, and the union’s conferences – the
membership now has the opportunity to reclaim the union.
At the same time the merger with the MSF to form AMICUS will create an
immensely powerful industrial trade union. In the hands of its members, breaking
the deceit of ‘social partnership’ (ie class collaboration with the bosses),
returning to the great militant traditions of all the unions concerned, our new
union can play a vital role in defending members jobs, terms and conditions.
More than that, it can play a central part in the struggle of the whole working
class against the incessant attacks of management; and in the struggle to
reclaim the Labour Party, the fight for socialist policies throughout the
movement.
However, it would be a terrible mistake to believe that the election of Derek
Simpson is the end of the story. The defeat of Jackson was an outstanding
achievement but it is only the first page of a new chapter.
Now control of the union must be returned to the membership. AMICUS must
become renowned throughout the movement for defending and improving the position
of its members. It must become a name which strikes fear into boardrooms and
cabinet offices wherever bosses or governments seek to attack workers. In that
struggle a clear industrial and political programme is essential. Through the
pages of this pamphlet Socialist Appeal supporters will seek to make a
contribution to the working out of that programme.
Introduction
2002- An Earthquake in the British Labour Movement
To the expert analysts and commentators in the media the election of Derek
Simpson to the post of General Secretary of the AEEU was inexplicable. Before
the recount of the ballot, many of them had confidently reported the victory of
Sir Ken Jackson. That was the result they were expecting. Essentially for two
decades they had become used to the domination of the leadership of the unions
– with one or two exceptions – by the right wing.
In fact there was a lot going on at the time that they could not understand.
The one million strong national strike by members of UNISON, the T&G, and
GMB on July 17, 2002 was, they claimed, a bolt from a clear blue sky. The
magnificent firefighters’ strike for a 40% pay rise which began a few months
later in November was also beyond their comprehension. With a handful of
honourable exceptions like the heroic stand of the Cooks workers (and such
struggles rarely featured in the pages of the daily papers) industrial action
had apparently become a rarity. Certainly national strikes were few and far
between. Statistics were regularly reeled off to demonstrate just how few
strikes were taking place. Indeed the myth began to settle, at least amongst
these ‘experts’, that the class struggle was over, the unions were finished
as militant workers’ organisations and so on. In 2002 all that began to
change.
Page after page of newsprint, and broadcast after broadcast on the TV, has
been devoted to convincing us that each new example of militant action is an
aberration, a one-off. By definition a ‘one-off’ can only occur once. There
have been too many of these so-called ‘one-offs’ to continue to believe they
are accidents. The fact that London Underground was also brought to a standstill
by a strike in July 2002 was unconnected, the media assured everyone, and caused
by the hothead, leftwing leadership of the RMT. There is no connection either,
they try to tell us, with the shift to the left in a whole series of unions
which coincided with these events. None of these developments, we are asked to
believe, have any connection with the firefighters’ strike – their nine to one
vote should be ignored, they were led out by another hothead, Andy Gilchrist,
the General Secretary of the FBU.
There will be no return to the ‘bad old days’ of the 1970s we have been
repeatedly told, after all the trade unions are now social partners not militant
workers organisations, aren’t they? Simon Jenkins in the London Evening
Standard (18/7/02) for example, "I doubt if London is in for a run of
industrial disputes. Too much has changed. The public sector is not the monopoly
it was. Union leaders may be more left wing but few other than Mr Crow, wield
much power and he is only an occasional pain in the neck." Or even the
editorial of The Guardian (19/07/02), "It is a bit premature, to say
the least, to extract a lasting trend from events as disparate as a strike over
safety at London Transport, a dispute over a trade union leader trying to hang
on to his job too long and a strike by low paid council workers."
If this were the case in just one union, or just one strike, then it could be
an accident, an isolated development, a question of personalities or special
circumstances. However, the election victories of the left are not confined to
one union but spread across every single union to hold such a ballot. The claim
that an increase in industrial action has been caused by left wing leaders fails
to explain how the members of these unions came to elect left leaders, not once
but time and time again.
A couple of years ago a secret committee was allegedly established at TUC
headquarters to organise the election campaigns of right wing candidates in
various unions. This must be the most unsuccessful campaign team of all time.
The right wing has not won an election since! Instead whenever an election has
been held in order to secure the votes of the members, candidates have had to
put forward increasingly militant and left wing policies.
No-one admits to being right wing any more
Not so long ago, some on the left in the trade union movement spent hours
discussing which out of two right wing candidates was the “lesser of two evils”,
which was the least right wing, in order to decide who to endorse, one or the
other. How times have changed. Nowadays it is difficult to find a bona fide
right wing candidate – at least one that will admit to it. Certainly few will
admit to supporting Blair. In the recent T&G General Secretary election even
(blatantly obvious) right winger Jack Dromey claimed to be in opposition to the
Blairites.
In the election for a new General Secretary of the 700,000 strong GMB the
press tried to take solace in the claim that the victor Kevin Curran is ‘slightly
less left wing’ than his opponent Paul Kenny. In reality there was no obvious
right wing candidate, with both candidates attacking the Blair leadership of the
Labour Party. Curran specifically made a point of calling for the repeal of all
anti-trade union legislation in his election campaign. Former regional secretary
for the north-east, Curran won around 67% of the vote in a low turnout.
Evidently spurred on by this further step to the left at the top of Britain’s
major unions, a blast from the past, right wing, dinosaur days came in the form
of comments from government minister Alan Johnson. In a carefully-timed attack
in the Financial Times, Johnson said some leaders were indulging in the
kind of militancy which has largely disappeared from British labour relations
over the last two decades. In other words precisely the kind of militancy which
led him to scurry from his own leading position in the CWU to the more
comfortable post of a government ministry.
Mr Johnson said: "The TUC left planet Zog 20-odd years ago … but a few
union leaders go back for the occasional day trip."
One point made by Johnson was telling, however, when he pointed to what he
saw as an "endemic problem in this country where the candidates for high
office in trade unions think that they constantly have to outdo each other for
rhetoric". In other words they have to move to the left if they want the
support of the rank and file who have finished with right wing aliens like
Johnson, Jackson and Reamsbottom. Why is this?
New Mood of Militancy
The local government strike in July 2002 may seem like an odd place to begin
a pamphlet concerned with the future of Amicus. Yet that strike marked an
important turning point in the labour movement in Britain, no less than the
election of Derek Simpson did, in fact both events were part of the same
process.
This was not just a strike for a certain percentage pay rise – though every
penny gained is worth fighting for. The concessions that were wrung out of the
government – the £5 an hour minimum rate for example – were won by militant
action. The union leaders claimed that this was achieved by their negotiating
skill. Before the strike took place the employers announced that there was no
more money, no matter what. Brian Baldwin, chairman of the employers negotiating
team announced the day before the strike, "There is no good reason for the
employers to improve their reasonable offer." The action of a million
workers gave them the necessary "good reason" that they were looking
for.
Militancy achieved more in 24 hours than five years of consultations between
union leaders and the fat cats who sit on the Low Pay Commission had done. In
reality, five pounds an hour is still poverty pay, and incidentally is it not a
scandal that after five years of Labour government there were still workers in
local government earning less than a fiver an hour?
After years of apparent industrial peace here was a major national strike, a
million workers from three unions announcing that they had had enough. It was
the first national strike of its kind in twenty years, the biggest strike by
women workers in British history, and, according to the London Evening
Standard, the biggest industrial action ‘since the 1926 General Strike.’
Of course, in the first place this strike was caused by the scandalous level
of wages in local government. The Labour Research Department has produced
figures showing that local government workers earn less as a percentage of the
average wage than they did in 1979. If you are struggling by on this money of
course, you hardly need statistics to tell you how badly off you are.
The real question is why did the strike take place when it did? Local
government workers pay was bad last year and for years before that. Finally
their patience had worn thin. In the second term of a Labour government nothing
was getting better. Another insulting pay offer represented a line in the sand,
and a million workers said ‘this far and no further’. Their action brought
immediate results. That lesson will not be lost on the strikers themselves nor
on other sections of workers. The union leaders settled for too little too
early, and the mood of the rank and file in these unions, as Socialist Appeal
predicted at the time, has been reflected in their internal elections. Recently
both the GMB and the T&G held elections for new General Secretaries and the
inevitable result, the consequence both of the experience of the local
government strike, and of a changing mood in society, was a continuation of the
shift to the left.
In the election to replace retiring John Edmonds as General Secretary of the
GMB, London Regional Secretary Paul Kenny will have been seen by many as the
left candidate. Yet if one reads the campaign material of his opponent, and the
eventual victor, Kevin Curran, one could only conclude that in fact the election
was a run off between two left candidates.
In the T&G the election of Tony Woodley to the post of Assistant General
Secretary was already a part of this process. It was therefore quite easy to
predict that when it came time to elect a new General Secretary Woodley would
win. The attempt by right wing candidate Jack Dromey to pose as an opponent of
Blair and somehow ‘on the left’, tells us a great deal about the current
mood in the union. Needless to say Dromey’s act fooled no-one. A central plank
of Woodley’s manifesto was the pledge to call a summit of union leaders to
organise reclaiming the Labour Party. In addition to a pledge to fight to save
jobs, this struck a chord with the membership
The ongoing process of left wing leaders being elected, seen alongside an
increase in grievances, of disputes and of industrial action, is clearly not an
accident nor the result of left wing agitators but a profound expression of a
change in outlook of the working class, of union activists, and in society in
general.
Profound Changes Taking Place
It is not an accident that the election of Derek Simpson coincided with a
local government strike and a shift to the left in other unions, or with other
workers taking action, especially the firefighters. These developments are all
part of the same process. Seen alongside these other events, and not separate
from them, the local government strike was an indication of the profound change
taking place in society. The firefighters’ strike made that abundantly clear to
all except those who refuse to see.
Our friends at The Guardian are entirely wrong to claim that there is
no trend to be seen here. It is vitally important for trade unionists to be able
to see this trend, to see events not in isolation from one another, unconnected,
but to see the process linking them all together. This is the task of Marxism. Socialist
Appeal has attempted to chart, describe and explain this process in advance
over a number of years. Here we see the vital importance of theory for trade
union activists, the advantage which Marxism has over all other trends in the
labour movement, as Leon Trotsky once explained, is the benefit of foresight
over astonishment. This is not meant to suggest that Marxists are in possession
of a crystal ball with which to predict the future. Theory allows us to avoid
being seduced by the surface calm of society, to see beneath that thin veneer to
the real process unfolding underneath. It allows activists to see the process of
change like the one that developed over several years in the AEEU, and not be
conned into thinking that Jackson and co were cast in stone, immovable and
impossible to defeat.
The trend which we have charted for some time, although invisible to our
friends in the media, in reality, extends back years.
At the time of the 2001 general election we were told that the low turnouts
were caused by ‘voter satisfaction’. In reality, this too was an early
expression of the level of anger and discontent being built up beneath the
surface of society. Many workers voted Labour to give them another chance, to
give them more time. Many voted Labour simply because there was no alternative,
though they had already become disillusioned. Many others simply stayed at home
unable to bring themselves to vote for Blair and co.
Blocked from solving their problems on the political front, through the
election, workers turned once again to the industrial field of action. The
number of strike ballots steadily grew. Often strikes were averted only by the
role of the union leaders themselves. This began to provoke changes inside the
unions, with the election of new more militant leaderships. Beginning with those
unions that had been involved in action, the postal workers and railworkers in
particular, the old leaders began to be swept aside. The profound discontent and
anger that was mounting beneath the apparently calm surface of society sought
ways to express itself. On July 17 it burst through dramatically, in the local
government workers strike. This was the prologue. The curtain rose on the
firefighters’ strike just four months later. In the midst of this unfolding
drama, one of the main villains of the piece, Sir Ken Jackson, was roundly
defeated.
All Change at the Tops of the Unions
The changes inside the unions which had begun in smaller unions like ASLEF
and the RMT rapidly spread to the larger unions with the victory of Mark
Serwotka in the PCS, the election of Tony Woodley as Deputy General Secretary of
the T&G, and the earthquake, the final proof for those who still refused to
see the process unfolding before us, the election of Derek Simpson in the AEEU
and the defeat of Blair’s closest ally in the unions, Sir Ken Jackson. If any
one single event demonstrates the profound nature of the changes beginning to
take place in the unions it is surely the victory of the left in what was seen
as the bulwark of the right wing in the movement for decades, the AEEU.
In the context of all these events it now becomes clear that the strike by
UNISON, GMB and T&G members represented an early expression of the same
profound change taking place in society. That was clearly illustrated by the Guardian/ICM
opinion poll which found 59% of people in favour not only of this strike but of
other future strikes being planned. This figure is one more expression of the
mood of anger which has built up within society over years. It was a precursor
of more industrial action to come. The enormous level of support for the
struggle of the firefighters indicates a change in mood that is widespread
across every part of society. This was not merely an expression of the respect
in which these workers who risk their lives to save others are held, more than
that their fight resonated with the mood of millions of workers. At last after
twenty years someone was standing up for themselves. We all feel the same way
too! We have all had enough! This change in mood is a condition which can
prepare the way for a general strike in the future as we have explained before –
usually to the derision of those cynics who argued that the working class was
finished. The same cynics who claimed that there could never be a national
public sector strike, and that there could never be any change in the AEEU. They
are the same cynics who will tell you that Tony Blair has the Labour Party
firmly under control and that there will never be any change there either. They
received their answer on July 17, they were answered by the FBU strike and by
the election of Derek Simpson.
“We Are All Working Class Now”
Opinion polls in themselves prove nothing, of course. In fact, depending on
what question you ask, they can probably prove everything. Seen alongside all
the other developments however they are an important element in the equation.
MORI regularly conducts an opinion poll on people’s attitudes to class. In 1994,
51 percent of those interviewed considered themselves working class. In 1997 the
figure rose to 58 percent. In 2002, 68 percent declared themselves "working
class and proud of it". The Guardian, who published this poll, then
devoted a large article by Roy Greenslade to excusing this inexplicable
declaration.
Greenslade’s argument went as follows. Whilst we are all really much better
off, and should really call ourselves middle class, we can’t bring ourselves to
do so because of the connotations of snobbery. Whether such a feeble argument
convinces anyone or not, it does not explain why the number of people describing
themselves as working class has grown so consistently over the last ten years to
the record figure recorded in 2002.
There is a much simpler and more convincing argument which does explain this
growth, however. There are no cosy jobs anymore, no jobs for life, no-one feels
safe. Those who in the past might have thought of themselves as middle class,
bankworkers, social workers, civil servants and teachers, for example, face
intense pressure, falling wages, and job insecurity. It is this profound level
of insecurity and the unprecedented levels of indebtedness amongst ordinary
workers, which explains this poll which should take its place as another symptom
of the profound change taking place in society.
These changing conditions more accurately explain the rise in militancy, the
shift to the left in the unions, and the growth in union membership in the
recent period. While the changes in union recognition rules have had some
effect, the GMB recruited 44,000 new members on the basis of their campaign to
keep the private sector out of public services alone. A more campaigning stance,
a serious attention to recruitment on the part of the unions, could see
membership grow still more rapidly. In predominantly industrial unions like
Amicus membership has inevitably fallen as a consequence of the wholesale
destruction of British manufacturing industry. Nevertheless the union’s
membership can be rebuilt if a serious approach is taken to recruiting new
members and in new workplaces. The other prerequisite for building the union is
that it is seen to stand up for its members. Workers do not generally join a
union for cheaper car insurance but they will join if they see an organisation
which will represent them and fight for them in the workplace.
The developments within the unions described here represent the beginning of
the catching up of consciousness with reality. Things are not going to get
better on their own. Blair and co. are not going to solve anything either. This
represents a fundamental change taking place, a change which has already begun
to find an expression inside the trade unions, even at the ‘highest’ levels.
The Left and the General Council of the TUC
Even at the somewhat removed level of the TUC there has already been a
profound change. Billy Hayes of the CWU and Derek Simpson of the AEEU are now on
the General Council, along with Jeremy Dear the General Secretary of the NUJ,
Andy Gilchrist of the FBU, Mick Rix of ASLEF and other socialists and lefts.
This already represents the biggest swing to the left in the TUC for twenty
years. They constitute a formidable bloc. The election of Woodley to the General
Secretary position in the T&G strengthens that bloc still further. This bloc
must not be confined to the tops of the movement, however, but used to rally and
organise activists across the trade unions. The left must be built in each
union, gaining majorities on National Executives so that left General
Secretaries are not isolated. This is not an end in itself, of course, but part
of the struggle to change the policies of the unions, to return to their
militant, fighting traditions in the interests of their members, and put an end
to the period of social partnership – in reality class collaboration – once and
for all.
In their own unions and collectively across the labour movement these new
leaders hold a great authority, an authority which must be used in the interests
of their members and of the working class as a whole. United behind a common
programme of struggle, against privatisation, for public ownership, against
closures and redundancies, for a shorter working week, for the repeal of all the
anti-union laws, such an opposition would form an immense pole of attraction.
In the next period a struggle will unfold across the public and private
sectors to defend jobs, to defend terms and conditions, pensions etc. A vital
element in those battles will be the fight to reclaim the unions for their
members. Equally the trade unions can play a decisive part in reclaiming the
Labour Party for the working class.
Reclaim the Labour Party – Fight for Socialist Policies
Struggle on the industrial front in defence of jobs, wages and conditions is
vital, but is also only a part of the task in front of us. The struggle needs to
be taken onto the political field too. The fight must be taken into the Labour
Party. Through their attacks on the firefighters the Labour leaders have made it
quite clear that they want a fight with the unions. The unions should give them
a fight, inside the Labour Party. The new left leaders, and trade union
activists across the movement must launch a serious struggle to reclaim the
party, formed by the unions to represent working class people, from the
careerists who have hijacked it.
The Blairites are once again raising the idea of state funding of political
parties. They are desperate to sever the link between the party and the unions
before the disease of militancy can spread. The initial support amongst some
activists for breaking the link is turning into a realisation that the link must
not be broken but used to reclaim the Labour Party.
In yet another poll, a big majority of Labour voters expressed their
opposition to breaking these historic ties. 64 percent of Labour voters are
opposed to breaking the link. 53 percent of Tory voters are in favour. So while
the Tories and the Blairites agree, the big majority of workers want to defend
the link and that will be expressed in the political fund ballots which begin
again in 2003. Understandably given the commitment of Blair and co to Tory
policies like privatisation, some union activists will still want to break the
link. It could not even be ruled out that one or two small unions might vote to
disaffiliate from the party. Even if this does happen it will be a temporary
phenomenon. It will not last, and the big majority of unions will retain the
link with the Labour Party. The task is not just to keep the link, but to use it
to transform the Labour Party into an organisation that fights for and
represents working class interests.
The trade unions are the key to reclaiming the Labour Party from the Blairite
hijackers. Many new union leaders have called on their members to join the
Labour Party and reclaim it. The leaders of the CWU, RMT, ASLEF, have stated
that the place to take Blair on is inside the Labour Party. Derek Simpson has
made the same point. We support their call one hundred percent. A campaign must
be organised by these union leaders to turn the unions into the party and
reclaim it from the dead hands of the carpetbagger Blairites. In his election
campaign in the T&G Woodley pledged to call a summit of union leaders to
organise taking the party over. We must ensure that Amicus plays a full part in
that campaign.
The struggle to reclaim the unions and the Labour Party form an integral part
of the struggle to change society. Ultimately only breaking with capitalism and
carrying out a socialist transformation of society can permanently address the
problems facing all working people. In order to change society we need to take
our tools, our organisations back from the careerists and bureaucrats.
None of this will happen overnight. But many believed even the first
transformations which we have already seen could never happen. The trade unions
look very different today to what they did five or ten years ago. They will look
very different again in the next ten. They will go through a process of
transformations and changes. As, at a certain stage, will the Labour Party. The
new period we have entered will see explosive developments. The Firefighters
represent the front rank of millions of workers who have had enough. Now a queue
is forming of workers preparing to take action. The floodgates may not yet be
open but the dam has been breached. A wall of pressure is mounting behind and
will burst through again and again. The process will not proceed in a straight
line. There will be ebbs and flows, quiet periods and periods of rapid change.
It will take some time, but the important thing now is to recognise that this
process has begun.
Pendulum begins to swing left
If one sees the changes in the labour movement over the last twenty years as
the motion of a pendulum, then that pendulum has swung a long, long way to the
right. If we remember our school physics lessons however, every action has an
equal and opposite reaction. The pendulum has now begun its journey in the
opposite direction. The movement of the working class looks a lot different now
to what it has looked like, at least on the surface, for years. In reality the
trade union movement has been transformed. It will be transformed again and
again in coming years. Just look at the leaderships of the unions say ten or
even five years ago. The civil servants union has been led by the hard right for
years. No matter how hard Barry Reamsbottom, the outgoing General Secretary,
tried to cling on to his post (much like Sir Ken Jackson) through legal action,
the mood of the union was clearly reflected in the election of left candidate
Mark Serwotka. The postal workers were led by Alan Johnson who jumped ship to
became a Labour MP at the 1997 general election and support the Blairites
backdoor privatisation of the post office. Left candidate Billy Hayes has won
the General Secretary election in that union. ASLEF was led by Lew Adams, now by
left winger Mick Rix. The RMT was led by Jimmy Knapp, now by leftwinger Bob
Crow. It is no accident either that these were precisely the unions which have
been involved in struggles over jobs, pay and conditions in recent years.
Then there is the final nail in the coffin of the argument that these events
are all unconnected and somehow inexplicable – the defeat of the right wing on
what was perceived to be its home ground, the AEEU. The union’s name had
become a by-word over decades for so-called social partnership, in reality class
collaboration. The right wing leadership of Gavin Laird and Bill Jordan was
succeeded by Sir Ken Jackson. Jackson was Blair’s biggest supporter in the trade
union movement, and in turn Blair heaped praise upon the former AEEU General
Secretary. Despite all the organisational and financial resources at his
disposal he could not hold back the tide which swept left candidate Derek
Simpson to victory.
So the trade unions look a lot different to what they did just a couple of
years ago. However this is just the beginning. They will look different again in
the next ten years. All of this will be reflected inside the Labour Party too.
This has been the case throughout the history of the British labour movement.
The process unfolding before us now will not simply repeat the same course taken
before. What is certain though is that over a period of time the shift to the
left in the unions and mounting mood of militancy will also see a new left
emerge inside the Labour Party. The tide has begun to turn against Blair
already. In the next period there will be tremendous opportunities for us to
reclaim our own organisations, the unions and the Labour Party.
The past is now decisively behind us. The future is there for the taking if
we fight for it. In all the struggles in front of us the ideas of Marxism and Socialist
Appeal can prove to be an invaluable weapon.
AMICUS – The Past and the Future
The history of our union in the last twenty years has been dominated by
‘sweetheart deals’, ‘social partnership’ and a right wing bureaucratic
leadership which has constantly worn away the democratic practices of the union.
It is no accident that these developments have coincided with the wholesale
destruction of manufacturing industry, the loss of countless thousands of jobs,
and the erosion of hard won terms and conditions in the workplace which
represent a full scale counter-revolution in the workplace. It is no accident
either that these developments ran parallel with the shift to the right at the
top of the Labour Party and the triumph of Blairism. All these phenomena are
closely linked together and dependent on one another. Indeed, Jackson and his
predecessors played the leading role in the move to the right at the top of the
entire movement in the recent past. For that reason the defeat of the Jackson
bureaucracy marks a decisive turning point in the trade union movement, and the
opening of a new chapter of struggle inside the Labour Party.
This recent history serves to mask the proud, democratic and militant
traditions of the union. The workers who constitute AMICUS are a key section of
the industrial working class. Engineering, construction, motor vehicle,
shipbuilding, metal and electrical workers have played and continue to play a
central role in the struggles of the working class across the world. Today they
are at the forefront of the struggles of workers from South Korea to Brazil to
defend jobs and improve wages and conditions. Here in Britain too these sections
of workers played a vital role historically particularly in the struggles to
reduce working hours and the building of shop stewards organisations. However,
the militant tradition of these workers is not merely a subject for the history
books. In the new period of struggle to defend jobs and conditions from the
rapacious hands of the bosses and the world market, AMICUS can and must play a
central role.
The History of the Engineers’ Union
It is appropriate that the publication of this pamphlet should coincide with
the merger to form AMICUS. There have been many mergers in the history of the
organisations that constitute our new union.
Five small unions came together in 1851 to form the Amalgamated Society of
Engineers (ASE). This was a national organisation of around 5000 members, all
skilled craftsmen. It was a ‘craft’ union. The reason why throughout most of its
history (with notable exceptions) the leadership of this union – through all its
incarnations, the AEU, AUEW, AEEU etc. – seems to have been in the hands of the
right wing is a matter of some misunderstanding amongst many on the left. The
reason given by some is that this is inevitable, inherent in the nature of the
workers concerned, skilled, well-paid and so on. The conservative leadership
reflects a conservative rank and file. In reality the reason why some of these
workers have been amongst the better paid sections of workers, and have
sometimes enjoyed better terms and conditions is precisely because they fought
for them.
The explanation for lengthy periods of right wing domination is not to be
found in a conservative membership.
The real reason is no great mystery. In short, for whole periods after the
workers improved their position through struggle, they fell out of activity, the
union fell into the hands of right wing bureaucracies under whose direction the
improvements gained were whittled away by the employers until the workers moved
once again to take the union out of the bureaucrats hands and use it to defend
and improve their position. Such is the nature of what is happening today.
Workers cannot be on strike and involved in struggle every week. They go to work
to earn money to put a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on
their back not in order to go on strike, despite the fantasies of some so-called
socialist groups. This does not make them conservative, just realistic. They
enter the road of struggle and strikes only when they are left with no
alternative, and along the way they transform their own organisations to better
suit their needs.
It is inevitable too that despite important victories, the workers movement
suffers many defeats. If every strike ended in victory there would have been no
need to create the Labour Party, no need for workers to organise politically,
and through a series of successful strikes we would have achieved the creation
of a socialist society decades ago. The creation of the Labour Party by the
unions was a recognition that industrial struggle alone was not enough. Whatever
reforms were wrung out of the bosses left hand through struggle they would
attempt to claw back with the right at the earliest possible opportunity.
Therefore workers needed to organise politically, in order to bring about
fundamental change, not just gain this or that reform, but transform the whole
of society. This was the reason for the creation of the Labour Party.
For long periods following struggles, workers fall into inactivity, they have
to get on with earning a living. During these periods the right wing gains
control. In truth the right wing rest on inactivity and a lack of involvement of
the members. When conditions reach the point where something has to be done, the
right wing are booted out and replaced by new leaders. A new period of struggle
begins.
This process can be seen many times during the history of the union. As far
back as the 1890s, during that explosion of militancy known as "new
unionism" – the struggles of the Bryant and May matchworkers, the London
Dockers and the gas workers, in one year alone membership of the trade unions
doubled – a new left developed in the ASE around Tom Mann and John Burns,
veterans of the previous London Dockers strike in 1889. Under their influence a
campaign was waged against the intolerable working hours of engineering workers.
They struggled for a 48 hour week! The bosses of the Engineering Employers’
Federation locked them out for 30 weeks. That struggle ended in defeat. Over
many years the engineers have fought time and again to reduce their intolerable
working hours. Some they won and some they lost. As far back as 1871 the
engineers in the north-east of England inspired by the revolutionary movement of
the working class of Paris – the Paris Commune – fought for the introduction of
a ten hour day.
It was the engineers who played a key role again in the new struggles during
the first world war, in Sheffield, Belfast and on the Clyde. The old right wing
leaders were replaced by a new generation. Tom Mann was elected General
Secretary and in the 1920s introduced massive democratic reforms to the union,
including the election of district and divisional committees, an elected
National Committee, Rules Revision Committee and Final Appeal Court. This new
rulebook and the tradition of electing officials at every level remained largely
in place until the 1980s. It was the envy of the labour movement. From the very
beginning of the unions history militancy and democracy have gone hand in hand.
Shop Stewards Movement
Rather than inherent conservatism, the role played by the engineers in the
creation of the shop stewards movement marked them out as an advanced section of
the working class. The struggles during the first world war have already been
referred to here. Naturally, engineers played a central role in the munitions
industry and the struggles which took place in the industry in Glasgow, Belfast,
Sheffield and the Midlands. However, it would be no more correct to describe
engineering workers as inherently militant than to describe them as somehow
genetically conservative. On the contrary, the outlook of workers is not a
question of mysticism or biology, but is determined by conditions. It is their
position at the heart of the profit making system, organised at the point of
production, which determines the power of these workers in society. It is these
conditions which determine the outlook of the workers. In wartime these factors
are multiplied. The engineers are not simply at the heart of war production,
they are at the heart of the production of war profits. The shop stewards
organisations which existed in these industries came into conflict with the
right wing national leaders of the union. They began to take on flesh. Not
restricting themselves to their own members or even their own workplace, shop
stewards committees spread across industries and across communities. The
leadership of these shop stewards committees included socialists and communists
like Willie Gallagher and JT Murphy. There can be no doubt that these leaders
and the workers involved in struggle were being influenced by the revolution
taking place in Russia. It cannot be an accident that these shop stewards
committees gained recognition from the employers in November 1917.
The shop stewards movement was leading mass strikes that struck fear into the
hearts of the bosses, who themselves had one eye on what was happening in
Russia.
When the bosses of the White and Poppes factory in Coventry refused to
negotiate with the Joint Shop Stewards Committee over a dispute involving one
section of workers, the shop stewards movement which commanded the leadership of
the workers across Coventry called 50,000 workers out on strike. Management was
forced to cave in. This victory led to the recognition of shop stewards
committees all over the country. Against the background of the Russian
Revolution, and mounting industrial militancy at home, the workers had secured
an important victory, and the engineers were at the forefront of that struggle.
The election of Scanlon and the defeat of Sir William Carron
Between the two world wars the shop stewards movement continued to play a
pivotal role in workers struggles and in the labour movement. The boom years
which followed the second world war served to strengthen the position of the
union. The creation of whole new industries, plastics, electronics, aerospace
etc. served to increase the membership of the union and saw the shop stewards
movement spread across these industries, much to the annoyance of management.
The leadership of the shop stewards movement included members of the
Communist Party and left wing members of the Labour Party. In the 1960s they
formed a Broad Left which scored important victories in elections within the
union, culminating in the election of Hugh Scanlon as President of the union in
1968. That election has uncanny parallels with the election of Derek Simpson.
The great American writer Mark Twain once wrote that "history doesn’t
repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes." The Jackson of his day, AUEW
leader Sir William Carron (later Lord Carron) – who was also the standard bearer
of the right wing in the Labour Party – would not accept Scanlon’s election and
reran the ballot three times.
Scanlon’s election was an earthquake in the labour movement at the end of the
1960s in a similar way to the election of Derek Simpson today.
Militancy in the 1970s
The 1970s opened with a new wave of working class militancy. The early 1970s
were dominated by colossal workers’ struggles on the part of the miners, the
dockers and the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, which resulted in the defeat of the
Tory government of Ted Heath
Once again the shop stewards’ movement played a central role in these
struggles, and engineering workers were at the forefront most notably in the
struggle against the closure of the Upper Clyde shipyards.
Carworkers and other engineering workers, in the Midlands especially, joined
miners at the famous Saltley Gate picket which marked a decisive turning point
in the miners’ strike of 1972.
Power stations were closed by flying pickets and workers’ solidarity. This
was no doubt a vital element in the victory of the miners and the eventual
defeat of Heath.
There was also a warning in these struggles. Scanlon, who was a left leader,
began to distance himself from the plant occupations taking place in Manchester
which followed the collapse of talks between the union and the Employers’
Federation over pay and hours. Thousands of workers in Yorkshire were about to
join their brothers and sisters in Manchester when local leaders were called to
London and instructed to back down. The national leaders feared the direction
the movement was taking. Whilst having little in common with previous or later
right wing leaders Scanlon nonetheless lacked a perspective for the movement.
However honest individual leaders may be, they must be under the control of the
members and they must have a perspective, an understanding of what to do next,
how to take the movement forward. Not just a view of one struggle, but a vision
of the way forward for the whole movement. Not just the tactics for winning an
individual dispute – vital though this is – but also a wider view of how to
struggle to change society.
Without such a perspective any leader, no matter how honest, can be blown
from pillar to post in the course of events. All leaders will come under
pressure from governments and bosses, how they stand up to that pressure depends
on a mixture of accountability and theoretical, political understanding of the
situation.
Scanlon went on to call a national strike against the Industrial Relations
Act following the sequestration of the union’s assets. During the Labour
government however Scanlon along with Jack Jones of the T&G, the
"terrible twins" as they were nicknamed used their authority to back
the government’s incomes policy in the infamous "social contract" (the
social con-trick as it was not too affectionately known). Scanlon even went so
far as to break AEU policy by putting the union’s ballot papers in the
"wrong" box at the TUC conference.
Later still he was awarded a peerage. Nonetheless this period of struggle was
an important one in the history of the union which today’s activists should
study carefully. The period which followed was dominated by the leadership of
Duffy, Jordan and Sir Ken Jackson.
The role of the AEU leadership in the ‘Derek Robinson affair’ marked a
truly shameful chapter in the union’s history. It also served as a warning to
other left wing shop stewards that they could expect no protection from these
union leaders. On the contrary the union leaders were involved in the campaign
to get rid of ‘Red Robbo’. The collusion of the union leaders with the state
in the campaign to oust Robinson was detailed in the BBC 2 documentary True
Spies.
Derek Robinson was the union Convenor at the giant British Leyland Longbridge
plant in the Midlands. BL management demanded his dismissal to ‘ensure the
future of the company’. The AEU leadership went along with the mockery of an
investigation which left Robinson ‘hung out to dry’ and led to his eventual
dismissal. This was a warning of what was to come, this was ‘social
partnership’ between right wing union leaders and the bosses.
Nevertheless, in the late 1970s and the 1980s there were still important
struggles. Through the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions the
40 hour barrier was broken and in the late 1980s the 37 hour week was won for
thousands of engineering workers. Under the pressure from below, even the right
wing leaders were forced to lead some struggles. As time went on however, these
right wing leaders replaced struggle with social partnership – ie class
collaboration. With the leadership in the hands of these individuals the bosses
felt safe to launch their attacks on workers jobs, wages and conditions.
Teamworking, long hours, speed ups and ‘new management techniques’ followed.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs were destroyed. On the surface a myth settled that
nothing could be done, the union was in the pockets of the bosses. There could
be no fight here, there could be no change. The domination of the bureaucracy
was complete. Yet this was nothing new. It had been seen time and again.
Eventually a line in the sand is crossed, the membership have had enough and
revolt against the leadership. Jackson was defeated and a whole new period opens
up in the history of the union, and of the whole labour movement.
The Electricians
The AEEU was not just the engineers, of course, but a merger between the AEU
and the electricians union, the Electrical, Electronic Telecommunications and
Plumbers Union (EETPU).
The EETPU itself arose out of a merger between the Electricians union the ETU
and the small United Operative Plumbers Association in 1968. The ETU like the
ASE was a craft union. In fact the ETU existed probably in large part because
the ASE was a craft union – electricians were not allowed to join the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers. So, the merger to form the AEEU in the 1990s
healed a century old craft rift. In general Marxists are in favour of mergers
which bring all workers in one industry into the same union. In the same way
that workers have more industrial muscle when they combine to form a trade union
in a workplace, so a merger which brings together all the workers in a single
industry gives the union more power to defend workers’ interests. ‘Unity is
strength’ is a basic principle of trade unionism. However, we were opposed to
the way in which the AEEU merger took place. The replacement of the democratic
elements of the engineers’ rulebook by the bureaucratic rules of the
electricians union meant the merger in reality was a takeover of the AEU by the
bureaucratic leadership of the EETPU. There was a string of such union mergers
taking place at the time. They were driven by the different bureaucracies’
need to maintain their position given declining memberships and resources.
Nevertheless, there was an indisputable industrial logic to the merger which
created the AEEU, bringing together electrical and engineering workers in
shopfloor and branch organisation. We explained at the time, while the
bureaucratic rulebook would prove a hindrance to the membership taking charge of
their union, and an obstacle to workers fighting to defend their jobs and
conditions, this would have only a temporary effect.
The rulebook of the union is a very important question. No matter how tight
the stranglehold of the bureaucratic leadership over the union however, the
rulebook could not permanently protect the leadership from the membership. With
an organised opposition, even the most bureaucratic leadership can be removed.
That has now been clearly proven.
History of the ETU
The early years of the ETU were dominated by scandals involving the leaders
getting their hands caught in the till containing the members’ money. The same
process of radicalisation and working class militancy that had dramatic effects
in the ASE a century ago led to the ETU moving to the left. The rising tide of
militancy at that time was not confined to engineers, but represented, just like
today, a profound change taking place in society.
As the union moved left throughout the 1930s and 1940s the ETU leadership
became dominated by members of the Communist Party. The 1950s and 1960s
witnessed a colossal battle between these lefts and the right wing organised and
supported at the highest levels of society. The leading right wing figures in
this battle were Les Cannon and Frank Chapple, so-called ‘moderates’ on the
right wing of the Labour Party. They were not fighting on their own, however.
The role played by the state in organising the fight against CP influence in the
ETU has been documented elsewhere. The left leaders of the ETU had powerful
enemies. Nonetheless they made many errors. Had they relied on the rank and file
and a socialist policy, they could have defeated the right wing. Instead
allegations of ballot rigging led to a high court battle which found five out of
fourteen defendants guilty of rigging the ballot for General Secretary. The
union was now in the hands of the right wing. This was not any old right wing
leadership, however. They attempted to transform the union into a ‘business
union’. Their names, and through them the name of the union, became synonymous
with the extreme right wing of the movement.
The new rules introduced by the right wing began by banning members of the CP
from holding office in the union. They continued by cementing power in the hands
of the bureaucracy, taking the control of the union away from the membership.
They abolished rank and file area committees; they abolished the right of
branches to appeal against Executive Council decisions; they gave the executive
the right to close down or amalgamate branches; and they introduced a full time
executive to be elected every five years. Whereas the old, democratic rulebook
of the AEU was the envy of many activists in the labour movement, the ETU rules
were the envy of right wing bureaucrats everywhere. In its essentials this is
the rulebook that was foisted onto the membership in 1995 as a result of the
merger that formed the AEEU.
In the end even these rules could not prevent Jackson from being defeated –
even ballot rigging could not save him. Our response of course is not to propose
banning members of right wing factions from holding office, or trying to
consolidate power in the hands of a few leaders, but the opposite. New rules are
needed to return control of the union to the membership. We shall return to this
point later.
Following the introduction of these new rules in 1965 and the election of
Frank Chapple as General Secretary in 1966, the union was firmly in the grip of
the right wing. For decades these leaders, first Chapple, then Hammond,
Gallagher and finally Jackson were the advanced guard of the right wing in the
labour movement. In both the TUC and the Labour Party they posed as the scourge
of the left. Industrially and politically they followed a line of class
collaboration. The name of this policy changed over the years from ‘new
realism’ to ‘social partnership’ but the content remained the same. They
represented a trend of company or business unionism in the labour movement.
Collusion with the Bosses
In the 1960s and 1970s the electricians’ union’s leaders collaborated with
management in industry to weed out ‘troublemakers’ (ie stewards and
activists) from the industries where the EETPU organised. Meanwhile in the
Labour Party they became fervent opponents of socialist policies, leading the
campaign against nuclear disarmament, and put themselves at the forefront of the
attempts to expel the Marxists organised around the Militant newspaper.
During the 1980s the EETPU leadership pursued sweetheart deals and no-strike
agreements with employers. Along with the AEU’s Terry Duffy, Eric Hammond
connived with Thatcher to introduce anti-union legislation, particularly making
balloting compulsory for internal elections and votes for industrial action.
Hammond’s willingness to take government money to conduct these ballots led to
a serious division within the TUC. Marxists take the question of democracy in
the movement very seriously. In the first place the government and the state
should keep their noses out of trade union affairs. It is a basic principle of
trade unionism that the union belongs to its members and that they, and they
alone, should determine its rules.
The apparent ‘democracy’ of secret postal balloting simply meant that
members would vote with one side, and one case rammed down their throats through
the pages of the newspapers and the TV screens. In an election the membership
should attend a branch meeting and listen to the arguments of the candidates ask
them questions and then come to a decision on who to support. The decision to
take industrial action should be taken democratically by the membership after
mass meetings to discuss the alternatives.
Wapping
During the year long miners’ strike of 1984-5 Hammond and co lined up with
almost anyone opposed to the NUM. At the TUC he denounced Scargill as a donkey.
In a backhanded insult to Scargill, but a full frontal attack on Hammond, Ron
Todd of the T&G commented, “I’d rather be led by a donkey than by a
jackal.” These people were too right wing even for the most moderate of TUC
leaders. Hammond was even willing to link up with the government sponsored
breakaway from the NUM the so-called UDM. They were becoming pariahs. Hammond
even talked openly about splitting the TUC, which looked possible before the
electricians’ expulsion following the disgrace of Wapping. The rank and file
of the AEU, no matter what the leaders wanted, would never have allowed the
union to leave the TUC, therefore, for a whole period – until their readmittance
on the coat-tails of the merger to form the AEEU – the leadership of the EETPU
was isolated.
Their expulsion from the TUC was entirely justified. Following their
sweetheart deals and their conflicts with other unions and with the TUC, in the
aftermath of the miners’ strike, came Wapping. This reads as one of the
darkest chapters in British trade union history. Hammond and co. took their
creed of company unionism to its logical conclusion and colluded with Rupert
Murdoch to smash the print unions at Wapping.
They were expelled from the TUC. At the time Marxists argued that activists
should remain in the EETPU and fight to change it from within. There was a
sizeable left organised in the Flashlight group. Unfortunately they made a
mistake and broke away to form the small EPIU group. As much as one can
sympathise with their sentiments, the road to a very warm place is paved with
good intentions. To break away only left the union, and therefore the members,
even more firmly in the grip of this rabid right wing clique.
Had the left remained in the EETPU, holding their noses if you like, they
would have been in a much stronger position at the time of the merger to form
the AEEU.
Once the prospect of splitting the TUC and forming some kind of new right
wing federation had receded into the distance, a merger between the EETPU and
the AEU became almost inevitable. This would be the EETPU’s route back into
the TUC. Both the tops of the unions and the Labour Party were moving further to
the right during this period following the defeat of the miners. In reality the
triumph of ‘new realism’ in the movement – the shift to the right – was
predicated on the miners’ defeat. Activists everywhere were shattered. “If
the miners can’t win then no-one can” was the despairing note sounded across
the union movement. The left, lacking any perspective or programme to take the
struggle forward, largely disintegrated. The right wing’s ascendancy in the
movement for a period of years was not based on them being proven correct, or
defeating the left, but on the defeat of a major section of the working class.
AEEU since the merger
The right wing leaders of the new union from the engineers’ side – Bill
Jordan and Gavin Laird – resigned, presumably to spend more time with their
wallets and their company directorships. In a shock to the right wing, left
candidate Davey Hall won the election for President of the union. This was an
early sign of changes to come. However, and this remains a warning to all left
union leaders today, Hall was isolated at the top of a union whose leadership
was otherwise firmly in the grip of the right wing bureaucracy. In the 1970s the
left had mistakenly concentrated all their efforts on winning positions without
building a movement based around a socialist programme. As a result the
successes they scored only resulted in their triumphant candidates becoming
"prisoners of Peckham Road" (the union’s headquarters). Hall no doubt
came under immense pressure. Lacking a firm political and theoretical anchor,
and lacking the perspective of building the left and defeating the old right
wing leaders, he eventually agreed to the abolition of the post of President.
The left, organised around The Gazette, did nothing. For too long they had been
concerned simply with winning election to this or that post, with little idea of
what to do next. In other words they lacked a perspective for the union, a way
forward to defeat the right and an alternative programme, a policy to fight job
losses and attacks on pay and conditions. In the period since there have been
important changes in The Gazette, no longer as secretive as it was in the past,
concerned with union policy not just electoral slates. The left organised around
the Gazette played a key role in defeating Jackson. Now they must build their
organisation into a thriving left wing voice inside the union, linking up with
the left in MSF, to fight for democracy in the union, an end to social
partnership, action to defend jobs, wages and conditions, and conduct a struggle
to reclaim the Labour Party a political struggle for socialist policies.
In the absence of a layer of old leaders, now retired or resigned, the
General Secretary’s position fell to the little known machine man, Ken
Jackson. Electricians’ leader Paul Gallagher retired through ill-health, so
Jackson took over as acting General Secretary of the EETPU. When he stood for
election to this post he managed to win with a majority of just a few thousand
votes. Then under the rules of the merger he became General Secretary of the
700,000 strong AEEU without standing for election. These are the same people,
remember, who colluded with Thatcher to introduce secret postal ballots and
other anti-trade union laws. It seems their view of ‘democracy’ is not about
principle, but what best serves to maintain their positions. Until his defeat by
Derek Simpson, Jackson had not stood for election to the position he held, and
tried for dear life to hold onto.
There are many stories from all parts of the country about how Jackson and
his official machine closed down branches and bureaucratically manoeuvred and
twisted to try to silence opposition within the union.
When eventually forced to hold an election, after his bid to stay on past
retirement had failed, Jackson mobilised the entire union machine for his
campaign. The reports of full time officials turning up at different branches to
influence and even vote in nominating meetings read more like a mafia story than
a trade union election.
At union headquarters, a full time organiser is believed to have been
orchestrating Jackson’s campaign. The local MP John Spellar was heavily
involved and had an office at the union’s HQ. Despite all their shenanigans,
all the apparatus at their disposal, they were defeated by a candidate backed
only by a campaign organised by rank and file activists. Even an iron clad
rulebook cannot protect the union bureaucrats once the members move to reclaim
their union. However, whilst a change in mood amongst the rank and file is the
necessary condition for defeating the right wing it is not enough on its own.
The opposition must be organised, must have a programme – in this case democracy
in the union – and must work for their victory. In the end it was a combination
of a changing mood not just in the AEEU but in society as a whole being
reflected in the election of left candidates in one union after another, with
the work of committed activists which secured the historic defeat of Sir Ken and
the election of Derek Simpson to the post of General Secretary.
History of the MSF
The Manufacturing, Science and Finance union was formed in January 1988 by a
merger between ASTMS (Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial
Staffs) and TASS (Technical, Administrative and Super
