BARBARA CASTLE—"LADY IN RED’

By JOHN WILLIAMSON

The right-wing Labor govern-
ment of Harold Wilson has been
compelled by the militancy of
the mass movement to retreat
and announce that it will not,
for the life of this government,
introduce anti-union legislation
with its proposed penal clauses
against strikers and unions,

But, the TUC General Coun-

ci at this crucial moment, al-
lowed itself to be browbeaten

into a “solemn and binding”

Promise to intervene against un-
authorized strikes which “may
have serious consequences” or
involve “large bodies of work-
ers”.

In the two weeks since the
Croydon emergency TUC, Mr.
Wilson and Barbara Castle have
had five meetings with the TUC,
with the final announcement
yesterday. During this time
Many speeches were made by
both of them that despite the
TUC document, “A Program for
Action” (described and criticiz-
ed in my last despatch June 6)
the Government’s “major pro-
posals cannot wait”. Wilson had
also declared “the passage of
this Bill is essential to the Gov-
ernment’s continuance in office”.

Facing a united TUC General
Council that would not accept
any form of penal clauses and
confronted with a growing cris-
is inside the Labor Party and
Government itself, it was reli-
ably rumored that alternative
proposals were in the offing.
These included: Legislation per-
mitting employers to sue for
damages as a result of strikes in
breach of contract; withdrawal
of social security benefits and
redundancy payments to unoffi-
cial strikers; restricting finan-
cial penalties to unions and not
strikers; putting the penal

clauses into “cold storage” until
brought into operation by Par-
liamentary order. Some have
been denied and some confirm-
ed.

In the event, settlement is
based on the Croydon TUC
document which puts into the
TUc General Council’s hands
the right to “ascertain and as-
sess all the facts” of an unoffi-
cial strike; to help promote a
settlement where it is “unrea-
sonable to order an uncondi-
tional return to work”: to order
the unions concerned to “take
energetic steps to obtain an im-
mediate resumption of work”
where they think this necessary;
and if the affiliated union fails
to comply, to either report them
to the next annual Congress or
even suspend them pending Con-
gress. This entire recommenda-
tion will be put before the next
Congress.

There is temporary jubilation
in the Labor Movement that the
crisis is over. But by their ac-
tion the TUC leaders have help-
ed to foster the illusion that
strikes are one of the main
causes of the country’s prob-
lems. The same retreat by the
Government could have been
brought about without the TUC
concessions. The decisive force
at all times was the strength of
the rank and file opposition,
which was beginning to find ex-
pression in political strikes.

A danger exists that everyone
will now sit back and think the
struggle is over, while Wilson
and Castle carry on their same
anti-working class policies, and
try to reconsolidate their scat-
tered forces. The militant mass
movement will have to continue
and make more effective its
campaign, aiming now at influ-
encing the various unions to
vote against these General Coun-

cil concessions when they are
submitted to the next TUC, and
above all, carrying on the fight
for a complete change of policy
and leadership in the Labor
Party and Labor Government.

The two decisive factors caus-
ing the TUC General Council to
maintain a relatively steady
opposition to the Labor Gov-
ernment’s tremendous pressures
were the determined and mili-
tant opposition of the mass of
of the active trade unionists at
factory floor and trade union
branch level; and the reflection
of this militancy in the election
of a growing number of left-
wingers and communists to key
trade union positions“and com-
mittees.

This government pressure al-
ternated between threats to fine
workers and unions who strike,
pleas to stand united against the
Tories, and passionate appeals
by Minister of Employment and
Productivity, Barbara Castle,
who tried to reincarnate her left
wing past. Nowhere was this
dramatized more than when,
wearing a fiery red dress, she
told the Scottish Trades Union
Congress, “I have come to you
today in my true colors—as a
socialist arguing a coherent
philosophy. I have not come
here as a siren holding out a
poison package”.

But the dour Scots thought
otherwise and, by a two to one
majority,. voted against her
“package” of anti-strike laws.

The new left sentiment among
members was clearly shown in
the elections within Britain’s two
largest unions—the 15 million-
member Transport and General
Workers (TGWU) and the Am-
algamated Engineers and Foun-
drymen (AEF) with over 1 mil-
lion members. No doubt two
names connected with these

unions will have appeared in
America, namely Jack Jones and
Hugh Scanlon..;

Who, are they? Both are de-
clared left wingers, who are
consistent battlers to improve
the economic conditions of their
members. But they also take a
forthright progressive stand on
key political issues, challenging
the right wing in both TUC and
Labor Party. Both are declared
socialists, believing in the
workers taking over the means
of production and establishing
a socialist society. This results
in their readiness to join in
united action with communists
and the Communist Party. Both
have written in the Communist
Morning Star and Scanlon has
spoken at the paper’s annual
celebration.

The election of Jones and
Scanlon — because the unions
they head are the two largest in
the TUC—helped to change the
relationship of forces in the still
right-dominated General Coun-
cil of the TUC. They have been
in the forefront of the battle
against the disastrous right wing
policies of the Wilson govern-
ment.

However, their support of this
compromise reflects the danger
of substituting so-called tactical
advantages — which opens the
door for the same attack a year
hence—for a correct policy. No
doubt, they had divided opinions
in their own leadership to con-
tend with, and they also felt the
strength of their unions absolv-
ed them from any future TUC
threats, but their action indi-
cates the dangers that confront
left wingers whose socialism is
not firmly grounded in Marxist
principles.

The right wing in the TUC is
most consistently represented
by Lord Cooper of the General

and Municipal Workers ant
Cannon, renegade C0 ;
leader who openly supports iy
son’s proposed anti-unlon 7 |
lation, calling it only @ m8 |
trusion into the ene
powers” of the unions, py
will not be “undermined .
legislation. inf |
Lord Cooper, while not soe |
for the Governments abot
Paper proposals, talks © 4.
“shocking unjustified ft
ganda” against it. Hes |
fers to “the man ie Bs |
happy” being a laz ft
ana attacks Scanlon for sir
ing the strikers at ;
Motors. two H
No wonder the only tag |
ions who instructed thelf “og
bers to go through th A
picket line during the 146 oat
official” strike were thesé
two. A
One of the outst
strengths of the Commun Pi
ty in Britain is the actiVl? i |
influence of its members od
factories and unions. Bas og |
their tireless and devot sts d!
championing the interme)
their fellow workers ant od af
pursuit of a policy of um ois!
tion and left unity, CO’ of
are elected to positions ~
tional leadership in se pit
unions (among others te
ers, railwaymen, engine?
men, sheet metal, draug™” ie
building trades, teachers; tf
tists). This is multiplied wr)
times over at district,
and fact level. 4a ot
In sore all communists
known in the unions am j pe
Long and sharp strugé ight 1 |
won for communists the MF g |

be elected to all position§ op

leadership from sides!

jon "

union
steward to national Py
The only remaining exceP’ ob
this is the Electricians’ U”

LABOR SCENE

By Bruce Magnuson

Canadian

rail unity needed

_

The railway workers’ tedious
negotiations in 1965-66 and the

subsequent strike action, term-

inated by government interven-
tion, proved rather conclusively
that a shrinking number of
Canadian railway workers can
ill afford to remain -divided
among 18 unions. The rational-
ization process in the industry
continues and tens of thousands
of railroaders have lost their
jobs .permanently.

The real enemy of the rail-
way workers in this situation is
private monopoly and private
profits at the expense of ser-
vice to the public and the work-
ers involved. '

What is urgently needed now
is a genuine Canadian transport
Policy. Such a policy must be
based upon the coming into be-
ing of a fully integrated and
publicly - owned transportation
system. Operating in the natio-
nal interest, such a system must
benefit the public and protect
workers’ jobs and ‘living stand-
ards. Both of these aims are
possible because of technolo-

gical change.

- The struggle for policies be-
neficial to workers and the com-
munity at large requires some

streamlining of the unions of
the railway workers.

It is precisely on this back-
ground that one must evaluate
what took place at the recent
Montreal Convention of the
Canadian Brotherhood of Rail-
way, Transport and General
Workers, (CBRT).

This special convention was
a follow-up to the “Policy State-
ment on Rail Union Unity”
adopted at the union’s 1967 con-
vention. That convention de-
cided upon a “determined and
well-planned campaign .. . to
achieve the unification of all
non-operating railway workers
in Canada into one national in-
dustrial union.” The method re-
commended was “to seek volun-
tary merger” with other unions
in the industry while preserv-
ing Canadian autonomy, or, as
the union put it, to “preserve
our national character.”

The issue at the Montreal
convention was to approve spe-
cific conditions and give consti-
tional authority to officers of
the CBRT to continue negotia-
tions for organic merger with
the Brotherhood of Railway,
Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and

BACRIC TRIBUNE JUNE ZY 188! Bad

Station Employees (BRAC), an
international union with 240,000
members in the United States
and about 20,000 in Canada.

In view of the 1967 conven-
tion decision to seek voluntary
merger with other unions this
would appear to be a move in
the direction of progress toward
that aim. But the delegates to
the Montreal Special Conven-
tion this month, by a vote of
305 to 61, uproariosuly rejected
a constitutional amendment that
would have opened ‘the door to
such merger negotiations. Why?
How come?

The answer is that the CBRT
membership and convention del-
egates did not reject the idea of
unity as put forward in the 1967
Convention. In fact, it is ques-
tionable if there has ever been
greater and more exemplary
unity exhibited by rank and file
members and leaders from one
coast of Canada to another at
any union convention on record.
This included workers of both
French and English Canada.

What the workers and their
delegates rejected was a merger
without adequate guarantees
that the Canadian membership
of a merged union would be

autonomous, and that their de-
cisions, made in Canadian con-
ventions, would be final and
binding without any danger of
veto or change by conventions
and leaders situated across the
Canada-U.S. border.

What was also rejected was
the top-heavy and bureaucratic
approach by which President
Smith and his officers and sup-
porters sought to implement
their ideas without proper ex-
planation, without taking the
membership into their confi-
dence and thus winning their
support. This was interpreted
as contempt for the rank and
file. It was seen as an attempt
to “put something over.”

Added to this is the fact that
the move which took the
CBRT out of joint negotiations
with the international union in
1966 did nothing to enhance the
process of practical cooperation
in struggle, a process which
brings members closer together
in battle against their common
enemy—the employers.

The last railway workers set-
tlement was reached without
participation -of the member-
ships of the unions. While CBRT
members participated in .a. for-

ip"
mal vote of ratification, thee
ternational unions did not righ
give their members this iswol
The settlement has left 14 6s

. ® a |
workers far behind in " tio
and cenditions, . a sa )

which has not endeared } net |
ship in the eyes of the men pet )
The idea of greater C00 il!
tion, including eventually © yp
mergers, is the only T0a" igh
ward. But this is a process yt
should commence with 57 ail
ity and joint committees ° oti
the various unions in né
tions and struggle. ce
This could lead to the forty
tion of a Canadian Rae
Workers” Federation, ope oth”
railway workers’ unions. 2
er on, this process coul aie
panded towards an all-eM og |
ing Canadian Railway WP. te
Federation, . with appror ng
divisions in railways, tru©
air, sea and pipelines.
course of this process a PIB 4
of joint action would emere, ,
program which would incl of
fight by Canadian trams 8°
workers to achieve genuiN® jig
tional autonomy, while a ert!
same time maintaining frat

ties with the international a

movement. . 22>