Back to Labour Values index
Back to tripartite talks index
Back to article index
Previous
THE NEED TO DEVELOP A HABIT OF NATIONAL WAGE BARGAINING
Not only did the Labour Government not explain the reasons for the Declaration to the working class, it also did not allow for the development of an Incomes Policy in a democratic way; making the form of it concrete and negotiable so that it could be aired in public and become part of the normal business of politics, something to be bargained about and eventually culminate in state legislation if necessary as the final result of that bargaining process. Instead it seemed to believe that it would simply happen because the TUC, CBI and George Brown had signed a 'binding' and solemn piece of paper. This explains the bourgeoisie's scepticism about the chances of a voluntary incomes policy when the notion was first mooted in late June. FT leader after FT leader pinpointed the problem as being that the TUC even if it agreed could not be relied on in any circumstances [to deliver] the goods (a working class which would co-operate). It also explains why the proposals are in their present form. "The package deal Mr Heath proposes to unions and employers has one great merit. Its simplicity. On wages, there is no mumbo-jumbo about 'guiding lights' (Labour Government, vintage ca. 1968 - NS) or 'norms'. There is no intricate mixture of decimal points and vulgar fractions for Senior Wranglers and Junior Wranglers only. Everybody can understand a pay-rise ceiling of £2. It means, comparatively speaking, that lower-paid workers would benefit at the expense of the higher-paid. A welcome proposal from a Tory Prime Minister ... Somewhere - despite the tough and angry talk of the trade union leaders yesterday - there is the basis of a sane pay and prices bargain ... Otherwise ... Pay rises will not be worth the paper they are printed on." And "Mr Heath's pay and prices plan to beat inflation is being discussed and judged in every factory, every boardroom, every pub. And in every home. It should be judged fairly. The PM has left it perilously late to get round to hammering out a rational and essential prices and incomes policy. But at last ... He has listened to the TUC and employers. Sought their co-operation, in the national interest ..." (Daily Mirror, p. 2, 28.9.72)
This is evidently the stuff of developing the issue in a democratic manner - making sure its form is such that it can be discussed and bargained about. The Government have shown considerable finesse in holding a few concessions close to their fist - to be produced 'as a result of the TUC's demands for a better deal for the working class' at the next round of talks. These are the details of the better deal for pensioners and the limitation of dividends - and probably the reduction of VAT. The Government have understood that the process of winning 'public opinion' is not a matter of producing high sounding rhetoric but rather of dealing with the substance of issues and offering concrete concessions. Interestingly, it was the TUC General Secretary who followed the logic of this through. At the Sept 15 meeting, the usual rhetorical exchange of vague aims had taken place. None of the bourgeois commentators had expected anything different. But at that meeting:
"he (Vic Feather) leaned across the table towards the Chancellor, Anthony Barber, and told the Government to put its head on the block: next time we meet, he said, we must have concrete proposals ... The most interesting reaction (at the 26 Sept meeting) however, came from the railwaymen's leader, Sir Sidney Greene. He at once began to negotiate on the package, challenging figures here, seeking clarification there, and all the time seeking ways of persuading people 'halfway up the tree' (such as his own members) that they would not lose out." (Observer, p.l5, l.l0.72)
It all sounds very much like normal negotiations at the plant or industry level - which it has to be if it is to make sense to the working class.
The TUC have to be able to go to the working class and say "we've got all we could out of them - by digging in our heels we have got these additional concessions, but we can't get any more." And the working class have got to accept their word and carry on producing. The risk of an unofficial strike and repudiation of the leaders' bargain still clearly exists. But the bourgeoisie are aware of it; after all, they have dealt with general strikes before.
The bourgeoisie have all been a bit taken aback by the proposals. Their full implications are still being worked out. What started out as just another set of tripartite discussions (normal enough for the postwar period) turned out to be exactly what Maudling had stated was necessary. The change took place not because Maudling is a power behind the throne; but he had decided the facts must be faced. Similarly the development of the talks over the past three months has been the 'leaders' of the society facing the facts and then going on to translate those facts into a political form which provides for capitalist production to continue and for the satisfaction of the demands of the working class. Up to now, the facts have not been pressing enough to force politicians to take these steps. Profits coasted, money wages increased, prices rose - these were quantitative changes. A qualitative change has now taken place and that fact has been faced up to. It remains to be seen how the working class reacts to the proposals and the explanation offered for their necessity.
The explanation has certainly been in the same terms as the old rhetoric:
"I believe the British people have enough solid good sense not to commit economic suicide. Only self-destruction can prevent an unparalleled improvement in our national prosperity ... We are immensely admired and respected as a people for our tolerance and common sense. It was perhaps because of this that the leading Finance Ministers with whom I spoke in Washington believe that Britain is a country where it is possible to work out a sensible and fair voluntary arrangement to slow down the spiral of rising prices. I believe this too." (Anthony Barber, The Observer, p.1, 1.10.72)
But the substance of the qualitative change and the need for that change to have a political expression has produced a form which gives the rhetoric some life.
"We were asked to put forward a proposal - we've put it forward, we believe it's realistic we can't solve all the problems at once. What we have done is concentrate on two priorities (increasing real wages and limiting price increases - NS) and in this continuing discussion we can deal with the other problems." (Heath at Press Conference after 26th Sept meeting, FT, 27.9.72)
Vic Feather had hoped that the TUC General Council would recommend the proposals to its Executive Committee after the 26th Sept meeting without pronouncing on them one way or another until a 'considered, researched' view had been arrived at. The General Council felt unable to leave its flank unprotected. It rejected the proposals in their present form but declared its intention to continue with the talks and draw up counter-proposals to present at the next meeting. The substance of the talks had been accepted and the TUC are getting down to the serious business of bargaining - albeit with much trepidation about their exposed flanks. The right-wing leader Frank Chapple explained why that flank was vulnerable. "It was supposed to be a voluntary incomes policy, but who would be first to volunteer. My members certainly won't." [quotes not given in original - PB] However, the fact that the TUC are actually negotiating shows that they have accepted the need for the working class to participate in conscious regulation of incomes. Socialist Worker feels that it must expose and reveal the fact that differentials will be eroded. The lower-paid will benefit at the expense of the higher-paid. However, both the Daily Mirror and the trade union leaders are coming clean on this to the working class. This sacrifice is justified by the Mirror because it is "socialist" and by the left TU leaders because the Government will make additional concessions. Dividend restraint, rent control, curbs on property speculation are put forward by the TUC as the substantive issues around which to bargain. They signify the extent of the working class's political consciousness: what it thinks is worth demanding of the bourgeoisie. The reaction of the working class to the desirability of these demands remains to be seen. The three sides are assuming that equality of sacrifice (dividend restraint, end to property speculation) and security (rising real wages, pensions, more growth) are the issues concerning the working class and also that the working class accept the need to increase profits if production is to continue. Further issues of The Communist will take up these points.