IMGpapers

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1968–1988

WORKERS The Death of The Triple

Red Weekly No. 33, 4 January 1974 · pp. 4-6 of the scan · 1,412 words

The scan: rw-no33-jan-4-1974.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-4 of 4; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 4 of the scan

Volunteers signing on for the London Regiment Defence Unit after a Government appeal, during the 1921 Miners strike The last article in this senes traced the rise of the Triple Industrial Alliance of miners, railwaymen and transport workers after the First World War, This powerful body-despite the lack of assistance from the Labour Party and TUC bureaucrats-was able to use its industrial might to win its economic demands and influence Government policy on matters like military intervention in Russia and conscription.

Towards the end of 1919 the British labour movement was faced with a new problemthe refusal of the Lloyd George Government to accept the recommendation for the nationalisation of the mines made by the Commission it had set up carlier that year in order to avoid a showdown with the miners and the Triple Alliance.

When the September TUC voted massively in favour of a motion (seconded by NUR leader and veteran right-wing bureaucrat J.H. Thomas) to 'compel the Government to accept the Commission's report, an even bigger controntation between the Goverment and the unions seemed on the cards. Hut Thomas' support of this move did not represent a dramatic political conversion. It was a typical bureaucratic manoeuvre: going along, tempotarily, with mass sentiment in order to better sabotage the struggle when the opportunity came. THOMAS' TRUE INTENTIONS It didn't take long for Thomas" true intentions to become clear. The railway unions with the Goverument (who still retained control over the railways) since Fehruary. Suddenly, it August, a generous settlement was reached with the engine drivers. and expectations were raised in the NUR for a similar offer. But when the Government finally made its offer on 19 September it involved massive wage cuts-the settlement with the drivers bad been aimed at splitting the rail unions before the showdown with Red Wenly 4 Januery 1974 Page 4 the NUR.

Much against his will Thomas was forced to call a national rail strike. But, like most nghtwing bureaucrats be was more afraid of mass struggle than he was of losing the strike. He did everything in his power to limit the strugele: the strike was called suddenly. without consultation with the other rail unions, and throughout the dispute Thomas refused to call on the Triple Alliance for зирроп.

Despite this open sabotaging oper Thomas, united action saved the NUR from disaster, In a fine display of class solidarity. the rail drivers thwarted the Government's manoeuvre and struck in support of the NUR There was considerable pressure from rank-and-file transport workers especially London busmen and docker for solidarity action. Finally Ernest Bevin, lender of the Dockers' Union, decided that action must be taken even without an invitation from the NUR. A conference was called on 1 October of Labour Party and trade union delegates to discuss support for the railmen, and a committee was set up to mediate between the Goverment and the NUR.

By this point even a left-wing bureaucrat like Bevin was getting cold feet about the prospect of a showdown with the Government. On 4 October he reported to the Dockers Union executive: "I think it must be civil war, for I cannot see how it is possible, once all the trade unions are brought in, for the Government to avoid fighting for supremacy and power and I do not believe our people, if they knew what it meant, would be prepared to plunge into it.

The Government had originally refused to continue negotiations while the strike was in progress. However, under threat of united action by the labour movement, it agreed to lift this condition. Thomas was now terrified of the prospect of a continuing dispute, and so a settlement was rapidly reacked along the lines of an offer the Government had actually sugeested before the strike hegan: wages were to be frozen for a year while negotiations for a long-term settlement proceeded. •WE DID NOT WANT TO DEFEAT THE The national rau strike ended on 5 October. That night Thomas addressed a mass meeting of railmen in Albert Hail and summed up his view of the settlement: "We did not want to defeat the Government. What we have got is a settlement which patifies your actions, a ourable, and one that vindicates your executive.

In the pegotiations that ensued for a permanent settlement, the Government made certain concessions, but insisted upon wage reductions for the highest paid and the 'sliding scale" (the tying of wages to the cost of living, producing automatic wage cuts when prices fell). There was great resistance from the rank-and-file to this offer. The first delegate conference held to discuss the offer rejected it. But Thomas fought hard foracceptance and, armed with som further minor concessions from the Government convinced a second delegate conterence held on 14 January to settle on this basis by a majonty of 28 to 25.

Compared with the struggles of previous years, the railway settlement was a serious defeat for the unions. Moreover, the Triple Alliance had been totally eclipsed. Thomas made sure that the dispute was confined to the NUR throughout, and when other sections of the movement did intervene it was not through the Triple Alliance and was limited to the reopening of negotiations.

These everts were very reassuring in the more astute quarters of the Government. The day after the settlement Thomas Jones, Deputy Secretary to the Lloyd Jones Cabinet wrote: "There has been a big meeting this afternoon of the Supply and Transport Committee [special strikebreaking committee set up by the Government in 1989] -.. lo discuss the question of protection daring a big strike. Charchill made it perfectly plain that he could not furnish troops and the general feeling was in favour of reviving the project of'a Civic Guard, However, I think, in saw of the railwor retlement, ther the power of the Tripie Amiance has been greanly weakened and that we are not in immedt. ase danger of anyrling on a big scale, "(emphasis added)

Thus vindicated", Thomas felt free to go on the offensive against the advocates of direct industiral action' in the trade union movement. The TUC's demand that the Government nationalise the mines had been pending throughout the rail crisis. Lloyd George had astutely retrained trom giving a definite reply on this matter until after the rail settlement. He then simply repeated the refusal of the Government to take such a step GENERAL STRIKE OR 'POLITICAL ACTION'?

In accordance with the resolution of the September TUC a special Congress was summoned to discuss what 'forms of action' to take to back up their demand. This conference lunched a mass propaganda campaign on the theme "Mines for the Nation", The executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) supported this step, seeing it as necessary preparation for future industrial action.

However, the "Mines for the Nation" campaign unconnected us it was to any clear proposals for action and coming at a time when the trade union movement was backing away from united industrial action - was a flop Recognising this fact the miners urged the calling of a further special Congress to prepare u general strike This Congress finally took place in mid-March It was preceded by an intense debate throughou the trade union movement on the best course of action to be adopted. Thomas-now the Chairman of the TUC Parliamentary Committer (forerunner of today's General Council) emerped once again as a staunch opponent of indus trial action. Addressing a mass meeting of trade unionists held at Central Hall, Westminster to discuss this question he said: "What right, then, I ask, have we to call upon men and

page 5 of the scan

¡age pawns mou saum aqt asnes ssajadou ит порапрал с рик оки завм т 101 рикшор SUDIESSIO Jatsury all open plouis toning be pre sit pay впрозд дом ops wc sonteg миру 90018400030405 013-00081 SANDONE SHRITEURINO AO MALIN WRAL 1AA LIES BUT AU DUNE TUMOD papus Заво закона виван на піня 341т00 трилі ви олец пош OOD SIS GOODE ME HRSE SHOUTIN MOL а.... posodiu aq of awauxa lapun Ishany LE to pua of enp siam saul pue seM aram OS se ganer se go sins adem sasRo Sampso nogle person a SLE do see sol meet potent corn pcom got and sauce a pee savit санти вчі інці you ou pies issue pid on dies middle wen

page 6 of the scan

•We have to start working at politics instead of just talking' Seamus Loughran, Provisional, just released from Long Kesh

← THE TORY ATTACK AND THE RULE OF LAWBlanco blast throws Franco off course →

Something wrong on this page?