Back to Labour Values index
Back to Dock Strike index
Back to article index
Previous
(6) THE PROBLEMS OF UNMARTYRING THE MARTYRS
In the absence of newspapers, it was necessary to use television and radio to perform their functions: a recording of the position of each class (this occurs in every newspaper and is its reporting function; comparison between the FT and Daily Mirror show that both papers give adequate coverage of the same facts - what Heath, Feather etc have said) and the arguing out of what the next move for each class should he (the FT and to a lesser extent the Sunday Times, Observer, Times and Guardian perform this function for the bourgeoisie; while the Mirror, Sun and Express do this for the working class within the ambit of bourgeois politics.)
The Government was best represented on television by Robert Carr. He explained that the Government were not trying to deny the dockers redress of their grievances; indeed the Government had that day welcomed the Jones-Aldington report and undertaken to find the money to implement it. The issue of the IR Act and imprisonment was one in which the Government could not intervene. The Act had been made by a democratically elected Parliament and it was now the law of the land. He could see no reason why the dockers should not obey it. By not doing so, they were hurting their fellow workers (containermen) and not helping their own case (which was being met by the Jones-Aldington committee). The probing television reporters spoke for the nation when they repeatedly confronted Carr etc as to why they were letting the nation come to a standstill, i.e. their function was surely to maintain the community which was manifestly grinding to a halt. The Government's response was (l) only a comparatively few workers were out on strike, (2) no Government could intervene in the independent courts - this would jeopardise our way of life.
(7) The Official Solicitor again intervened and applied successfully on 26th July to the NIRC for the release of the 5. However, he was only able to do so because the House of Lords decision on the other container cases (see 'Act in the Dock) had been rushed out ahead of time (it had initially been postponed in order for the Jones-Aldington Committee to work a settlement without duress). That decision reversed the Appeal Court's ruling that trade unions were not responsible for their shop stewards' actions: "The basic error in the judgement of the Court of Appeal was the Judge's acceptance of the necessity to find some express delegation of authority from the top - a necessity which the union itself consistently and publicly disclaimed, said Lord Wilberforce. 'It is hardly conceivable that a dock worker joining the TGWU would be content to be represented in an industrial dispute by someone who was not in a position to call for industrial action by him and his workmates in support of his claim', said Lord Wilberforce'." (FT, 28.7.72) The Lords had done a highly uncharacteristic thing: taken the reality of the situation as defining the position in law. The Appeal Court had behaved in a normal legal fashion: taken the common law definition of principal and agent as defining the position in law in the absence of a specific directive by Parliament in the IR Act. The Lords behaved like the NIRC because it was only in so doing that they could give a decision in keeping with the spirit of the Act. The NIRC accepted the Official Solicitor's submission that the Lords judgement meant that the Union and not the individuals concerned bore the prime responsibility for UIPs [sic] and that the Jones-Aldington Report pointed the way to a solution: "Sir John said 'All efforts should now be directed to the solution of the underlying problem of which the complaints by Heatons, Craddocks, Panalpina and Midland were but a symptom.'" (FT, 28.7.72) The ruling class had preserved the rule of law for over 4 days and it was now possible to get back to the normal business of industrial relations - that token observance was all that was possible given the stand of the working class.
(8) A dockers delegate conference convened on 27th July to consider the Jones-Aldington report. The report was rejected by 38-23 votes with l8 abstentions and an official national dock strike commenced. The report had granted the substance of what the NIRC had previously condemned the imprisoned 5 for demanding: the dockers should be entitled to container jobs. It met this demand not by blacking but by a joint approach by both Unions and port authorities (on which port employers sit) to 'convince' container employers to give dockers jobs. It also upped severance pay and agreed to all the men on the temporary unattached register being brought back into employment somewhere - i.e. it conceded the existing dockers' right to work in full. It should be noted that the joint approach to container employers is a voluntary method. This is the 'traditional' British way of accomplishing a move like this - one which involves a section of the bourgeoisie putting the interests of the nation before their own as capitalists. It usually works. In the few exceptional cases (e.g. the coal owners in World War II) the Government then uses legal enactment as a last resort. In the first instance, discussion and persuasion by the conscious, responsible members of the ruling class to the less responsible, conscious ones is always more effective. That is why the bourgeoisie prefer democracy to coercion - though they are always willing to use coercion if necessary. The coercion is clearly implied in the discussions, because it is evident to the section of the bourgeoisie being convinced, that the force of the state is behind the more conscious, responsible bourgeoisie who are convening the reasonable discussion. They are joined by the trade unions who are readily acknowledged by the state to be co-partners to the conscious, responsible bourgeoisie in this matter, i.e, they understand the reality of the situation equally well and have a role to play in the process of persuasion,
(9) The Financial Times, Harold Wilson and the Daily Mirror were agreed that the dockers had voted against the Jones-Aldington Report and for an official strike because "continuing anger among dockers was believed by union leaders to have been one of the factors which influenced the national strike decision," (FT, 28.7.72) and "But the dockers who served the nation before the container revolution cannot be brusquely discarded simply because that PARTICULAR job in that PARTICULAR way is becoming obsolescent. First, we have to understand the fears and anxiety of the dockers. Then it is easy to understand their anger," (Mirror, 28.7.72), The Government (Department of Employment Secretary, Maurice Macmillan) contented itself with a gesture against the militants: "'Our real concern should be to rescue the Aldington-Jones plan from the militants and try to help the industry to solve its problems.' The Minister added that he was prepared, if necessary, to act in a conciliation role because he was anxious to try to get the industry back to work and to enable the plan to go ahead." (FT, 28.7.72) This is particularly interesting because it is precisely this conciliation role that the Government has resolutely rejected for itself and its conciliation service since taking office. Conciliation always means further concessions from the employers (and necessarily the Government) in finding the extra money in return for the concession of a return to work by the workers. (Necessarily by the Government since the section of the bourgeoisie are sacrificing for the sake of the class - and nation - as a whole: it is not 'right' that they alone should pay). Jack Jones did not disown his members' strike decision: "After the conference in London, Mr, Jones who looked a disappointed man said: 'I have worked very hard to find a peaceful solution. But my duty is to our members who have called a strike,'" (Mirror, 28.7.72) Far from a trade union leader selling his members out, he behaved in a disciplined democratic fashion - not using his 'authority' in any way, because he realises his authority depends on following his members. It should be noted that all the above 'tools of the ruling class' accepted the strike decision and that further concessions will be forthcoming in order to end the strike.
(10) Why the ruling class caved in and will continue to do so
The further concessions will be forthcoming because the ruling class recognises that both classes have an interest in getting back to normal: the ruling class so that it can get on with its business of administering capitalism and the working class because in the absence of a political consciousness of its strength to take state power there is simply nothing else to do if it is to survive. General strikes have been fairly common events in the class struggle in capitalist countries since the 1890s. In every instance where they have occurred, they have ended with both classes getting back to normal - capitalism continues. Where the working class has been strong and well organised, the general strike has ended with significant concessions from the bourgeoisie to get them back to work. The working class has come out for material concessions or political concessions within bourgeois democracy, e.g. universal suffrage, or against attempted political or economic moves by the bourgeoisie. But even though the bourgeoisie in most countries have attempted to legislate or pronounce general strikes illegal, they remain a last resort open to the working class which the bourgeoisie will not settle by physical coercion because it is materially impossible and will use political coercion sparingly with substantial material concession. The bourgeoisie have learned to live with general strikes when necessary because they have learned that general strikes do not necessarily have to constitute a threat to their rule if they are prepared to meet the withdrawal of labour with concession.