Bitter anti-union campaign in UK demonstrates value of labor papers The British press is, in the main, a highly monopolized institution, openly serving the interests of big business and its political party. Al- though Britain has a militant trade union movement with more than 12 million members, that move- ment has no daily paper. I read the nine daily papers pub- lished in London during three weeks immediately preceding the May 14 Day of Action sponsored by the Trade Union Congress, and eight of them carried on a vicious campaign of distortion against the TUC, the like of which we have not ° seen in this country. The so-called provincial press, in the main, took its cue from the London press which, because of the relatively small distances in- volved, is read in most British cities and towns. Only one daily newspaper con- sistently defended the TUC and gave full support to the preparation for the May 14 Day of Action: the Communist Morning Star. The positive role of the Morning Star was recognized by Britain’s largest trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union (2,- 500,000 members) when its na- tional council donated 5,000 pounds ($13,325) to the paper’s ‘sustaining fund. The announce- ment of this handsome donation drew some bitter comments from the establishment press. For example, there was the fol- lowing in an an editorial which ap- peared in the Daily Telegraph May 6: ‘‘The answer is, of course, that the political opinions of the mem- bership are about the last consider- ation in the minds of union execu- tives when it comes to the alloca- tion of union funds. Were it other- wise they would find themselves al- locating half their political sub-_ scriptions to the Tory party. So there is nothing remotely surprising about the destination of Mr. Evan’s generosity. The explanation given though is not unrevealing. The TGWU reckons that the Mor- ning Star sets an example to the rest of Fleet Street when it comes to re-- porting of union activities, which indeed it does. Apart from such ob- vious lackeys of capitalism as.Mr. Frank Chapple and the EEPTU (Electrical Union), the union lead- ership is treated in the Morning Star with a deference matching that displayed by Pravda towards the Politburo.” That comment must be seen not only in the general context of Brit- ish politics, but also in the more im- mediate context of the prepara- tions for the Day of Action, which the Telegraph opposed. On May 13, the London Times LABOR COMMENT BY JACK PHILLIPS ran something of a sobering article on the Day of Action by Paul Routledge, its labor editor. It was not pro-labor, but it was more re- alistic than most commentaries by the establishment, as the following quotations demonstrate: “Before the issue is finally lost in media hysteria, it may-be instruct- ive to recall the origins of the TUC Day of Action. “. . .it started out as part of an otherwise unexceptional resolution at last year’s Trade Union Con- gress, which duly went to the TUC economic committee for imple- mentation. A day of protest against the government’s economic and la- bor policies was set as long ago as last December, and preparations have been going ahead ever since. “Fleet Street, having elevated the Day of Action far beyond the TUC’s intention into a one-day general strike, will measure its ef- fectiveness by how many millions do not take part. “That is not the objective test the TUC will apply. “Tt will be a long campaign they admit, but the unions are pacing themselves and they believe their timing is right. “The Day of Action is not seen as a short-term public relations New constitution urged Continued from page 1 economic importance of the west- ern provinces. . . But it must also provide protection against the tendency in all provinces which are rich in natural resources to sell them to American multinationals without worrying too much about the needs of Canadians. . . “Ryan and the Liberals pose an- other question: In view of the de- feat of the PQ option, who should negotiate for Quebec in federal dis- cussions? They ask for an election no later than the fall. Let us recall the open letter of the PCQ to the Parti Quebecois congress last year which warned: If the PQ insists on posing the question of sovereignty association, with sovereignty asso- ciation defined as political separa- tion, it will risk not only the refer- endum but also the loss of the next election at the hands of the party of big business, the Liberals. “*With such a situation, with ser- ious consequences for the working class and the nation, we can no longer accept that the working class remain at the tail of the PQ, a petit- bourgeois nationalist and reformist party. “The working class carries the responsibility to take the leadership of the national and democratic movement to address the national aspirations of the French-Cana- dian nation while safeguarding the unity of the working class of Can- ada in their common struggle against monopoly. . “The results of the referendum show the urgent need for the work- ing class to unite around a just solu- tion to national oppression and in- equality, if we don’t want to go around in circles in federal-provin- cial conferences. . .”’ The statement reiterated the PCQ “‘option”’ of “negotiations between equals of a new constitu- tion for Canada, based on the right to self-determination for the two nations and on the guarantee of so- cial, economic, cultural and linguistic equality, and including the right of Native peoples to self government on their territories and the rights of national minorities.” “That sovereignty option does not sacrifice the unity of the work- ing class,”’ it said. PACIFIC TRIBUNE— MAY 24, 1980—Page 12 trick, and it is conceded that a lot of people who cannot go to work will be very annoyed. But in the long term, people will remember it was the TUC that pointed out what was going wrong.”’ The Daily Telegraph, which was yy TES consistent in its opposition to the Day of Action, also gave a reason- ably accurate account of how the idea of the day originated: “Mr. Murray was not the archi- tect of the Day of Action which was called for in a composite motion at last year’s TUC conference at Blackpool. “The composite motion took in resolutions from most of the mod- erate unions. It called on the TUC to support the actions already taken by the General Council and pursue a vigorous campaign against government policies of all TUC affiliates on a National Day of Action, uniting workers in both town and country in opposition to cuts. ““However, it was also discussed by individual union executives who decided that it should become a more militant protest against the government policies. “This militant revolt was led by the printing unions, the seamen and the normally moderate Na- tional Union of Railwaymen, led by Mr. Weighhell, who felt the fu- ture of the railways was in peril.”’ The Tribune, a weekly British paper which is the voice of an influ- ential left trend within the Labor party, in its issue of May 2, carried areport on aspeech by Len Murray of the TUC. Lashing out at those.who were publicly criticizing the cgncept of a day of protest, Murray Said: ‘‘Not a whisper of criticism comes from them when the government contin- ues to destroy the welfare state, raises inflation to 20 percent, put- ting the survival of key industries at risk and sees unemployment soar past 1.5 million.’’ Specifically, Murray was hitting out at Frank Chapple, general sec- retary of the powerful Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union, who had publicly criticized the proposed Day of Action. It should be noted that other top trade union leaders also gave negative statements to the daily press. Although they did not- go as far as Chapple, their state- ments were hardly conducive to guaranteeing a maximum mobili- zation for May 14. The seizure of a number of hos- tages in the Iranian embassy in London seized the attention of the British press, television and radio for a week, relegating the Day of Action to minor importance. But as soon as army commandos took the embassy by storm, killing six out of seven hostage takers, the Day of Action became the main news story up to May 13, when I flew back home. For example, there was this front page headline in the Daily Express of May 11: ‘*The Growing Anger: Damn Your Strike.” In the same issue, the chairman of the Express Newspaper Limited demagogically offered trade union leaders four pages in the Daily Ex- press to explain their case against government’s economic and politi- cal policies, on the condition they would call off the Day of Action. - Another feature on the Day of Action in the same issue had:this headline: ‘‘Do you want to knuckle under to these people?” The Sunday Post featured a front page editorial May 11 with SUNDAY EXPRESS MAY 11 1990 a [var you J knuckle Ke underon J TE ety Mo Sena Set oe nt cea Sa aes ; BRITISH PRESS... this headline: ‘‘Losers all round!”’ The owners of the Daily Express (which led the hue and cry against the TUC), sent a letter to the 8,000 employees, threatening dismissal if they failed to report for work May 14. This followed a ruling by the High Court that a strike on May 14 would be a political strike and that every individual was free to work without victimization. However, in strict legal terms, this ruling meant that workers who failed to report on May 14 could be subject to dis- missal without the protection of the industrial disputes legislation. Still, the Guardian May 12 quot- ed a spokesman for the chapel of National Association of Operative Printers at the Express as follows: “As far as we are concerned, noth- ing has altered. We will not be prin- ting a newspaper for May 14.”’ It is too early to give a rounded out evaluation of the Day of Ac- tion. We will be able to do that only after we receive more hard news and informative comments from labor sources in Britain. However, a final comment on the role played by the British press isin order. A friend whois an active shop steward in a London factory saw me off at Heathrow airport on May 13. When I asked him if the media had adversely affected the campaign for a Day of Action, he replied, ‘‘Oh, yes! Very. definite- ly ! ” A front page editorial in the -Morning star of May 13 put the question of the press as it affects the British labor movement in proper perspective: “‘The voice of labor gets little or no time on the air. Its message hardly appears in the dis- torted mirror Fleet Street holds up. ‘Yet for all this the movement’s anger shows through “‘TUC policy has been the same for nearly a decade. “Many unions have adopted resolutions urging support for the labor movement press for Tribune: and Labor Weekly and for the dai- Cityor town... ee Postal Code SN ONO Old © - ANGER: DAMN YOUR STRIKE HE SUNDAY TE. AT MAY 11,1980 +2 j i vas Rieu attacking the labor movement. iRIiBONE Published ‘weekly at Suite 101 — 1416 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3X9. Phone 251-1186 Read the paper that fi ior for labor ey ees ee er ee ae OA a 2 ie See a © S099 nah Sie Vie 099 0-050 yp bibe eke 8 § 8 wee, | am enclosing: 1 year $105 [ 2years $18 6 months $6 0 New © Foreign 1 year $12 © Donation $ ¥ Sir be JOuN mutts a ihe by DON Prev - ~ ACKSON: Dyan shew od WHIGMRLY, teers Lees eee are bod 6 ONOSALR ly Morning Star. : “Of course the establishm will rant and rave when they The incredible-abuse Moss Evans was subjected to over the TWG U i donation to the Star special fun was a taste of the kind of denigi tion the establishment heaps On. those who work to bring the move ment the power of the media. — “But the message, as ever, is that if the unions want to win the war words and ideas then they need daily press on their side.” In closing, areminderis in or readers of the Pacific Tribune help win the war of words and id in this country by making a do tion to the Tribune campaign t raise $65,000. More than any other paper in British Columbia, it sup= ports the trade union movement. | Pension bill draws fire Continued from page 1 quarterly indexing of public service pensions to the federal cost of live ing; increased employee and. employer contributions. q But as the Federation pointed out, the pension plans are facing — shortfalls “because they are poorly” administered.”’ Pension funds have often been used as a vast source of investment dollars but there has been little ac countability as to the rate of return or the use to which the funds were put. That, coupled with govert- -ment chiselling when the plans var first established, has aggrava the problem. B.C. Teachers Federation oll dent Al Blakey said that the BCTF, i whose members are also affected by the changes, ‘‘will press for con tinued full indexing to pensions.’ (Next week, Labor Commefiiia analyzes the pension legislation and the sesponse); = a 2S pe Ee wt RA RRR RR