The Tory trade union proposals come as no surprise. It was obvious before the election that an incoming government, whether Tory or Labour. would attack the trade unions. The British capitalists and their international creditors were demanding an assault on the trade unions in order to boost their declining profits. The "democratic" luxuries which the bourgeoisie could allow the British working class in the early part of this century can no longer be financed from British imperialist profits. Therefore they must go. Any capitalist government is trapped by that inexorable logic.
The Meaning of the Proposals The Tory measures are not, of course, really about strikes. They are aimed at the pay, working conditions and living standards of the working class. They are only concerned with trade unions because these are the main tool of the working class for maintaining its standard of living. If any government were really worried about the amount of production lost through men missing work, they would act against industrial accidents, unemployment or sickness. Five times as much production is lost through industrial açcidents as through strikes, 30 times as much production is lost through employment, and 80 times as much through sickness. All these losses are the direct product of capitalism and of the governments it produces. For instance since 1966 deliberate action by the Labour government raised the number of unemployed from approximately three and a half hundred thousand to over six hundred thousand. This policy was dictated by their aim of propping up capitalism; the increase alone in unemployment represents an annual loss in production of over twelve times that of the production lost through strikes. As for accidents, these accidents in țurrare largely due to capitalism's greed for profit. For example, the 1969 figures show that four times as many men were killed in accidents caused by management negligence as were killed in accidents due to workers negligence. If a government really wished to increase production, let it act against unemployment, improve the health service and impose thorough codes relating to the prevention of accidents. The problem is that any capitalist government, be it Tory or Labour, is incapable of doing these things. Capitalism exists for profit, not for people. The whole fraud of the "lost production argument was exploded by, of all things, the Financial Times, when it pointed out that "..if one-eighth of the working population has been forced to take two days off as a result of the Mao 'flu epidemic this Christmas, then the little germs will have done more damage, in terms of working days lost, than all the strikes of 1969."
As for the Tory argument about prices, this is an even bigger fraud. In fact the Tory government is encouraging firms to put up prices. This was revealed by Peter Jay in the Times Business News in the second week in September. If the Tories want to keep prices down, they need look no further than cutting the huge profits made by British capitalists. Last year the ten biggest British firms alone made over £1,383,240,000 profit. Every penny of that was created by the effort of the working class. For example, Fords made t22 per week per man profit and British American Tobacco made £24 per week per man For a start off they could do something about them and about Holco Trading which makes an astronomical 89.2% profit and IBM United Kingdom Holdings which makes 56.8%. But of course to hold down prices is inconceivable for a capitalist government, be it Tory or Labour. Capitalist governments exist to increase and protect profits-not to keep up the real purchasing power of a wage packet. In fact the entire set of Tory proposals have nothing to do with lost production or with rising prices. The sole aim of the proposals is to increase profits by attacking the living standards of the working class.
But these are not the only points we have to make to the Tories. We shouldn't just sit back defensively and try to prevent laws against the trade unions. Instead we must ask the question, "For whose benefit is this country to be run for the handful of capitalists or for the working class-the vast majority?" Let Ted Heath and Harold Wilson answer the following questions: -Merely to keep the number of slums from increasing, let alone improve the housing situation, we need to build 500,000 houses a year Last year 360,000 were built. What are you going to do about that, Mr. Heath? -Prices have been going up at 6-8% a year, but in at least 90 industries wages have only been going up at 4% a year. What has Mr. Heath got to say about the tailors who have only got ar average rise of 1½% a year since 1966? And what about the canteen workers who have received an average increase of under 2% since 1965? And when, Mr. Heath, will the average seamen no longer have to work an average of 26 hours overtime a week in order to get a living wage? - In France and Germany, a family of three gets over £23.0.0. a month in family allowances In Britain they get £6.18.0. Is your move to get us into the Common Market so you can quadruple our family allowances, Mr. Heath? And while you're at it, French and German metal workers get 10 days more paid holiday a year than us How about that for another import -Turning to one of his favourite subjects, taxes, perhaps he would like to explain why taxes or the highest incomes fell from 46% in 1949 to 28% in 1963, while for the 60% majority in th middle it went up from an average of 10% to average of almost 20%?
-As you also like to insist that income be earned, perhaps you would also like to explai what you're going to do about the fact that ir the last six years of Tory government, income from wages went up by only 29%, while incon from rents, dividends and interest went up by 72%? -Finally, perhaps you'd like to explain why w should expect anything other than a complete capitalist fraud from a Cabinet who between them have held directorships in six Banks, owr a total of nearly 70,000 acres of land, and hold 39 directorships in other firms? In particular, why should we expect anything other than pur profit making ideas when, for example, the ma responsible for laying down safety regulations for trawlers has been the Chairman of the huge Associated Fisheries company? And as for education, what exactly are we to expect as a view of state education from a Cabinet all but three of whose members went to public school and where the Minister of Education has such faith in the state schools she is supposed to run that she sends all her children to private school Somehow, we think the answers to these questions are rather more important tha the 0.1% a year of production lost through strikes!!
N.B. Facts and figures in this article were taken from the TUC Programme for Action, the Brookings analys of the British economy, Financial Times 6.1.70, Repo of "Income Data Ltd." on 126 Industrial Groups and the Lloyds Bank Review, January 1967.