It is now only a couple of weeks before the date when the British Leyland Motor Corporation are due to hand over Thornycroft's (their Basingstoke factory) to Eaton Corporation, an American gear-box manufacturers.
But for the last five weeks, workers at Thornycroft's have been resisting this sale -and the 550 redundancies which would result from the deal - by occupying the factory day and night seven days a week. With only two weeks to go, it is clear that BLMC are beginning to get worried that they might just not have a factory to hand over on October Ist if the occupation is maintained much longer.
The first response of management was to ignore the occupation in the hope that it would peter out within a few weeks. And for a while it looked as if this tactic was working as the numbers actually occupying began to dwindle quite considerably. But the "hard core" that is now left in the factory is a surprisingly large percentage of the work force - several hundreds strong - and very determined to hold out.
NEW TACTICS As a result, BLMC is now forced to try other tactics to defeat the workers. One of these was put into operation two weeks ago. It consisted of management going round to individual strikers' homes offering a redundancy pay cheque - on the spot - if the wotkers would accept redundancy, and showing them a list of vacancies in the company which only those who accepted redundancy could apply for.
This is, of course, a crystal clear example of the old tactic of "divide and rule" Fearing the collective strength of the Thronycroft workers, the management is trying to get each individual worker on his own.
Another recent move by management was to turn off the electric power supply to the site for hours at a time. And rumours are rife that they are preparing to take legal action (on grounds of trespass) to end the IMPORTANT LESSONS These moves by BLMC against the Thornycroft workers underline a number of importFirst they deal a death blow to all the old crap being churned out by the "Communist " Party (see Morning Star, 25 August) and the trade union bureaucracy about this "patriotic" struggle to prevent "a bit more of British industry going American". For British Leyland is a capitalist firm operating in a capitalist system, and its chairman Lord Stokes is only like every other capitalist in paying more attention to what boosts profits than to what's written in his passport. All such dangerous talk can do is to tie in with Heath's "One Nation' philosophy - which means that workers should pay through the nose in the "national" (i.e. employers') interest.
The real issue is not about whether or not the boss was born in the same bit of the world as the workers. The real issue is that he is a boss, and represents a class whose interests are altogether opposed to those of the working class. It is only by understanding that the real nature of the struggle is class against class that it can be led to a successful conclusion by a leadership which acts upon that basis.
LEGAL RULES This brings us to the second point. Since it is a class struggle and not a "patriotic" one, it is impossible te tight it out according to legal rules laid down by the enemy. Most of the workers involved in the occupation instinctively grasp that they have effectively seized a piece of property -and intend to hold on to it. But their leaders (amongst whose number are no less than three Justices of the Peace) are continually trying to keep the struggle "within the law" - ie. within the bourgeois law of prounions from the TUC on day one. The second was a joint resolution from the AUEW and the T&GWU opposing any incomes policy, passed on Thursday. The third was the vote against the Common Market on principle' on Wednesday. Two lesser points were also picked up: the ban on Communists at the National Conference of Trades Councils was lifted, and Mr. Jack Peel, right wing General Secretary of the Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers was thrown off the General Council.
LABOUR TO POWER.
ON A SOCIALIST PROGRAMME Anthony Wedgwood Benn added a few colourful phrases to the "left turn" when he• spoke as fraternal delegate from the Labour Party on day two of Congress. He hastened to dub Labour's past attack on the unions as "mistakes in our approach to industrial relations". The 'direct attack" on the unions today was presented as the "whim' of the Tory government. Benn outlined an 8-point *The trade union movement must seek its political objectives as an integral part of the organised, democratic Labour party, in Parliament, with a socialist programme". What was the meaning of this for trade unionists? "The movement must always exercise its power in the public interest"!
UTOPIAN ECONOMICS Benn's empty generalities were given a fanciful content by Sir Sidney Greene when he outlined the General Council's economic policies on day four. Unemployment, industrial strife and inflation could, he declared, be ended "by a policy of economic growth and full employment". No trade unionist would oppose Sir Sidney's contention that unemployment will be cured by full employment. But the problem is how to achieve economic growth: it depends on increasing rates of investment which in turn require a higher rate of exploitation. To step up the exploitation of the working class means crushing the tremendous militancy which the General Council tries to present itself as leading. THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT Of course, the capitalist class is pursuing Sir Sidney's policy for economic growth very vigorously, but within a realistic perspective. of class struggle rather than wishful thinking. They are therefore using the Industrial Relations Act against the working class. This fight is rightly seen as decisive by militants. And the task of the TUC was to give a decisive lead for mass action against the Indus trial Relations Act. It was the acid test for the Congress. This year's resolution on the Act removed one ambiguity from the last year's position, by giving it a right wing interpretation: opposition to the Act should be confined to non-registration and should not include a boycott of the NIRC.
Scanlon's resolution, which was defeated as the extreme' position, also dodged the issue of an open industrial struggle against the Act.
However, two ways of dealing with the Act did find favour with all the General Council. The first was through continuing negotiations with the Government, It was clear in the stalemate after the freeing of the five that the Government was manoeuvring to change the relationship of for ces between the CBI, itself, and the TUC. The TUC jumped. It had no choice - the only alternative was to lead a fully fledged fight against the Act. As the whole position of perty - and keep claiming that "we are not trespassing".
This approach leaves the occupation open to eviction by a piece of paper called a "court order" or some such other legal nystification (c.f. the end of the occupation at Stanmore Engineering in London). COMBINE FAILURE Finally it is now clear that the Combine Shop Stewards Committee is shirking its responsibilities to the Thornycrott workers. Since the one day token stoppage on 28 August, they have quietly dropped EQUAL PAY, LOW PAY.
The impression of a talk shop was reinforced by the debate on the resolution affirming support for the abolition of sex discrimination in employment and the TUC's commitment to industrial equality for women. Mrs Pat Turner from the G&MWU made a couple of basic trade union points. "While women remain confined to job areas at the lower end of the scale.. .. victory in the equal pay field will be a hollow one". And again, "the real force for change is going to come from trade unionists, not from legislation. Given the employers' attitude, and given the Governments view of women in industry, what is to be done? "The trade unions must campaign", says Mrs Turner, "to get the issues across". Across to whom; how? In no sense were any plans laid for a fight on this issue - or on anything else. The TUC's role is to air the grievances of the working class; and only under great pressure to act on them.
THE LEFT COVER If the decisions on the central issue of the Act were anything but a 'leftward shift' what about the Common Market and the question of incomes policy? On examination, the CommonMarket votes turns out to be inconclusive: the section of the General Council's report dealing with the Common Market was not reversed, leaving the TUC with two contradictory policies. As for incomes policy, the Financial Times put the essence of the matter when it pointed out that it would be quite easy for the General Council to agree on the substance of a voluntary wage freeze under a name which did not directly contradict the resolution. Thus at first sight the TUC congress presents a contradictory picture: some left moves and some right turns. But a closer look presents a different view. The Financial Times, in an editorial on Monday, 4 September, provided an accurate picture of the real intentions of the General Council. It pointed out that the big class battles of the last months have produced "second thoughts about confrontation both among Ministers and among trade union leaders". Few trade union leaders, says the Financial Times, "would wish to see the period between the miners' strike and the jailing of the dockers repeated. Both sides have tried to move away from the collision course on which they were headed". In other words, when faced with a choice the TUC leadership would infinitely prefer a deal with the Tories to a fight. At the same time they must not lose credibility with the rank and file in this tense atmosphere. They therefore welcome left-sounding resolutions on one condition: that as the Financial Times editorial delicately remarked, "they (the resolutions) will be drawn up in sufficiently general terms to allow TUC leaders a reasonably free hand in translating them into action". In short, says the Financial Times, "the trend on both sides is towards a rapprochment".
There is just one point which the Financial Times omits to spell out: that the General Council is retreating when its supposedly mortal enemy is in a tactically weak position, and that when the General Council has given the Government the necessary breathing space to recover its strength for the counter-attack, no such gentlemanly retreat will be made by Mr. Heath.
As for the Scanlon left it refuses to raise demands which bring the working class the issue. Their earlier statements (that they were going to stop the rot of BLMC's rationalisation policy by making Thornycroft's the place where it stopped) are now being shown up as merely so much hot air. But Thornycroft's must not remain isolated. Not only do they urgently need support (both financial and in the form of sympathetic industrial action), but the issues raised by this dispute are so important that they must be placed before every worker. Only in this way can our understanding of this fight as a class fight be put into practice. Only in this way can the fight be won. Workers need more than Scanion's rhetoric into struggle over basic issues like the Industrial Relations Act and thereby shows no basic difference with the right on theTUC General Council. Therefore the whole debate about a great battle between "Left' and 'Right' at Brighton is nothing but a diversionfor the rank and file. For bureaucrats who wish to avoid at all costs a sharpening of the class struggle, 'left' motions mean little more than a cover to confuse the rank and file as to the real direction in which the General Council is moving. The 'left" has no policy for the mobilisation of the strength of the trade union movement. Its role is to "put pressure' on the rest of the bureaucracy and on the government as a substitute for mass activity. NO CHANGE So, despite the Communist Party's position on the Congress, it is clear that the pattern of previous Congresses has not in fact been disturbed. Shifts right or left within a pressure politics framework have a slight significance, but not much for the working class in struggle. The only "shift left' that would mean something would be if the leaders of the working class took up the challenge that has been posed by Heath. The choice really is between "the rule of (bourgeois) law" and the "rule of labour" On a whole number of points, the shift left' turns out to mean the reverse. First, there is no understanding of the reasons behind government policy on the trade unions. The only strategy offered is an economic policy for capitalism which is unworkable. Secondly, in conjunction with economic pie-in-the-sky, negotiations with the Government continue. Thirdly, the total reliance on the Labour Party to "deliver the goods" continues. No strategy was advanced to bring the working class into activity to defend themselves. Not one policy passed by Congress was seen to have any direct effects on what workers should do next.
RANK AND FILE COMMITTEES Perhaps one of the most significant features of the whole Congress was the complete fiasco of the LCDTU lobby on Tuesday. The Communist Party had made this Day of Action' the sole task of the LCDTU after its conference on June 5th and preparations were greatly helped by the struggle to free the five. Yet the only strikes were by small sections of workers in Scotland. There is every indication that the LCDTU lobby was sabotaged by the CP itself. The reason is quite simply that the Communist Party has exactly the same conception of the tasks of the rank and file as the trade union bureaucracy: to put pressure on the official leadership. When the CP leadership realised that it was going to be flattered and complimented atBrighton it had no more use for its ginger group lobby. But whatever happens to the LCDTU, the task of building rank and file Committees for the Defence of Trade Unions becomes even more important following the failure of the TUC to prepare a real struggle against the Act in Brighton this year.
Clarissa Rosa Lea Place (ERP) Mario Emilio Delfino (ERP) Humberto Segundo Suarez (ERP) Anna Maria Villareal de Santucho (ERP)