A recent public opinion poll quoted in last week's Sunday Times indicates that the initial response of many trade unionists to the government's proposals for wage restraint has been a very confused one.
This is not really surprising: one of the major mechanisms employed by the ruling class to maintain its power is the manipulation of "public opinion", Public opinion polis actually gauge the ideas that people are forced to develop in response to the activities. of public authorities. These must be worked out on the basis of limited and often distorted information, no opportunity for discussion with those who are similarly affected, and cut off from any collective means by which new alternatives to those that are actually offered might be developed. It is little wonder that such opinions generally support the status quo.
Many trade unionists at first responded in a similar way to the Industrial Relations Act. It was only after an extensive campaign of discussion, education and protest organised by the TUC, the LCDTU and local trade union militants that the vast majority of the trade union movement became resolutely opposed to the Act, This defines quite clearly the urgent task that currently faces revolutionaries and trade union militants: we must launch a big campaign to educate the mass of the working-class in the implications of the Government - TUC negotiations and begin to prepare a serious strategy to fight any attempts at wage restraint, from whatever quarter they may come. WHAT IS E2 WORTH?
The essential contents of the current government offer are that increases in basic wage rates over the next year should be limited to £2, gross earnings to £2.60, and retail price increases to 5 per cent. In order to lessen working-class fears that such an agreement might leave them defenceless against rampant inflation the proposals allow for a "threshold" clause that would grant an extra 20p in earning wages for every 1 per cent rise in the cost of living above 6 per cent; on the other hand, the government has insisted that any settlement involving a reduction in hours must set against the wage rises they have allowed a corresponding reduction at the rate of 75p Per hour.
What exactly would such restrictions mean for the British working class? First let's take the "average" industrial working man. At the present time the gross earnings of such a worker are about £34 a week; over the past few years his earnings have been rising ›y about 11 - 12 per cent cach year in money terms. This would mean that he coul reasonably expect a pay rise of.E3.50 - E4.00 this year. In other words the effect of the wage restraint would be a pay cut of about El a week. In fact the government offer represents a relative pay cut (ie. less than could reasonably be expected without it) for all workers who earn £22 gross or over per week - this involves over 80% of male industrial workers. NO RESTRAINT ON EXPLOITATION When Marxists say that the working-class is exploited under capitalism they refer to the fact that only a portion of the value created by the worker through his work actually comes back to him in wages or other social benefits: a substantial share is taken by the ruling class for their own purposes in the form of profits, rent or interest (Marx referred to this portion as surplus value). So when we ask - how will the wage freeze affect the exploitation of the working-class? what we want to know is whether the workers wages will represent a greater or lesser share of his total output. If we assume that prices will rise next year by 5 per cent (a very generous assumption - obviously the government's desire to set its "threshold" at 6 per cent indicates that they consider this a minimum figure) and productivity at about 5 per cent, then the money value of the "average" worker's out put will increase by about 11 per cent. Thus any worker whose money wages rise by less than 11 per cent next year will be facing increased exploitation by the capitalist ruling class. With earning's increases limited to £2.60 this would apply to every worker currently earning more than about £24 a week, In other words, the Heath plan involves increased exploitation for about 75 per cent of the male industrial working -class.
"BUT IT'S ALL FOR THE LOW-PAID"
The line that is being pushed most persistently by the Heath government is that all these sacrifices are necessary to get a better deal for the worst-off sections. This is of course an old trick of capitalist governments:
rather than attack the profits of the ruling class, income is simply redistributed within the ranks of the exploited. But how much benefit can the low-paid actually expect from this package?
So far we have been operating on the assumption that workers would actually receive the full benefit of the proposed £2.60 limited increase. This is certainly an incorrect assumption with respect to the low-paid, (and has limited validity for the higher-paid, who, for example, must pay out an aboveaverage share of any wage rise in income tax). Firstly, they are presently receiving low wages precisely because they are working in relatively marginal sections of industry or are poorly organised (or both) and there is no reason to assume that they will automatically get £2.60 or even £2 extra at this point. The government's proposal guarantees them nothing; it only fixes a ceiling to any amount they might be able to win. Secondly, there is the fact that the low-paid currently receive a range of social benefits (income supplements, subsidized social services, family allowance, rent rebates, etc.) which are cut back as their income increases. The following table (taken from the Financial Times) shows just how much extra cash £2 a week really amounts to for a range of working-class situations:
EARNINGS AFTER EXTRA CASH RECEIVED E2 RISE Single Married Married Person -1 child -3 children 16.00 0.96 0.55 0.65 18.00 0.96 0.48 0.67 20.00 0.96 - 0.16 0.96 0.96 0.55 24.00 1.03 0.96 0.48 26.00 0.96 0.87 This would indicate that the most a low-paid worker could expect to receive under these circumstances is less than an extra 7 percent take home earnings: for most 4 per cent would be a more likely figure, and others would even be unfortunate enough to actually lose money in the end. And all this is money increases, not real ones. When we recall that prices are likely to be going up by at least 6 per cent then it becomes clear just what a fraud the government's concern for the low paid really is.
WOMEN WORKERS The lowest of the low-paid are, of course, women workers. A £2.60 increase would be a substantial percentage rise for the vast majority of women workers. However the nature of women's employment- • will vory there is rarely much difference between basic rates and gross earnings. Thus the Heath plan effectively means a £2 limit to the increase of most women's earnings during this next year.
With the current average level of women's earnings being aboug £17.50, and the level of wage settlements running around 14 - 15 per cent, this would mean something of a cut back in the expected level of wage rises for almost 75 per cent of women workers (all those making over £14 a week): hardly a "great gain" for the suffering low-paid! Many industrial groups of women workers have been able to increase their earnings by considerably more than £2 - during 1970 £2.90 in the paper and printing industry, and £2.16 in engineering; during 1971 £2.31 in food, and £2.12 in chemicals. These sums, of course, represented even greater percentage increases than the same rise would involve today.
In fact, previous government pledges on the question of equal pay and the possibility of a number of serious equal pay campaigns being mounted within the trade union movement, should have led to an acceleration of the rate of wage settlements for women next year. The Heath plan will stop that "but it's all in the interest of the low-paid, after all".
INFLATION ON THE THRESHOLD Thus far we have been very charitable to the government proposals and assumed a prospective rate of inflation of only 6 per cent (in line with the Heath "threshold"). But clearly even they have very little confidence in their ability to do this. During the life of the CBI price freeze, which was to keep price rises to 5 per cent, the official government index showed an increase of around 6 percent. With the impact of entry to the Common Market on food prices, the effects of VAT, and the consequences of the Housing Finance Act for rents, we could reasonably expect a rate of inflation double 6 percent.
The "threshold" agreement is not designed to protect the wage gains of the working-class from the effects of inflation, but only to serve as a re-assurance that unpredicted levels of inflation will not completely wipe out or reverse gains that are made. It operates on the assumption that a proportion of any wage increase won is not