Back to Labour Values index
Back to tripartite talks index
Back to article index
Previous
WHAT WOULD THE CHANGE MEAN?
What would the conscious regulation of wages involve that necessitates the change from the present system of collective bargaining? At the tripartite talks it was agreed (for the sake of discussion only) that there should be a common figure for wage rises for all workers. If a sector of the working class were to have more than this amount, their entitlement would have to be accepted by the rest of the working class and the "nation" as a "special case". The only change which this involves is that instead of establishing the wage bill as a by-product of all the separate disputes described above, it is established with reference to the amount of the economy's resources which it is decided by both classes can be devoted to consumption. This amount is established after assessing the ability of the economy to produce at the present point in time; assessing how much of its resources should be used to produce means of production to enable production to increase; and assessing how much is an adequate level of subsistence for the working class. The only price increases which the Government will allow are those caused by an increase in the capitalist costs.
The TUC opposition to conscious regulation is that it changes the old way of collective bargaining and that the old way is the only way the working class has. The questions which the conscious regulation of wages raises which the TUC does not deal with openly are
(l) if the global amount of wages (consumption) is to be consciously determined, why should differing amounts received by differing sectors of the working class continue to be determined unconsciously, as a result of the vicissitudes of the economic struggle, by sectors of workers competing against each other. It is not immediately apparent under the old form of economic struggle that wage increases are determined in competition between sectors of the working class. Incidents like the summer 1972 dock strike against container workers occur infrequently. The TUC's position is that such matters are best left to "tradition" and that the lower paid worker should be helped by:
"eliminating lower rates or shortening unduly long salary scales which do not reflect differences in performance; improving the job content, and therefore earnings potential of lower paid grades; extending incentive schemes to lower paid grades or increasing basic rates in order to reduce undue reliance on plus payments such as overtime, piecework and other variable bonuses; reducing the age at which workers receive the adult rate; and the elimination of unfair discrimination against women workers. The policies set out in this paragraph are far more relevant than any question of reducing the differential between the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled rates." (p 43)
This completely begs the question of why there are wage differentials and also the question of where the wage increases for the lower paid will come from. Once the global figure for consumption is consciously determined, it becomes immediately apparent that it must come from other workers.
(2) once how the means of production and labour power are to be employed (in producing commodities for consumption or means of production) becomes a conscious social decision, then it also becomes apparent that non-productive labour is socially necessary labour (is employed and paid) only because productive labour has permitted it to exist. The question of what in fact constitutes productive labour arises. (That this is indeed the case can be seen by the action of the working class in World War II when the nation had decided that an increase in production was necessary, i.e. both bourgeoisie and working class. Workers committees introduced changes in the production process to increase production: they consciously regulated it.) The question of why a chargehand or foreman is being paid for non-productive labour when he could be working productively is definitely on the agenda. I have pointed out that management already acts on the basis of the working class regulating its own conditions of production. The conclusion that non-productive labour in the production process should be abolished is definitely viable: i.e. the working class has the ability to enforce it because the function that the non-productive labour of chargehands and foremen at present fulfils can be undertaken by productive labour itself.
ARE THE TUC LEADERS OR ARE THEY REPRESENTATIVES?
By refusing to deal with these questions, the TUC has not betrayed or gone back on demands made of it by the working class. The working class' consciousness has not reflected the changed situation in the economy and indeed still sees the old system of collective bargaining as the only way of defending and furthering their interests. The working class is taking up a conservative position on the basis of its consciousness and the TUC is leading the working class from that position. The 'left' have enforced this conservatism by arguing, as does the TUC, that the only reason the Government has introduced the Freeze is "arrogance" and the desire for more consumption for the bourgeoisie: greed and avarice. The 'left' have also enforced the conservatism by arguing that the present system of economic struggle is quite adequate to defend the interests of the working class.
The TUC's and the "left's" leadership is pure oppositionism, which is indeed the essence of a conservative position. The conscious regulation of wages is opposed and because neither the TUC nor the 'left' acknowledge that changes in the economy make changes in the political forms relating to that economy necessary, they have not found it necessary to argue that another mode or form than the Government suggests should be put in place of the Government's Freeze.
The inevitable result of taking up a conservative position is that the change in consciousness and form necessitated by the change in economic reality will be determined by the conscious elements in the society who are willing to deal with the changes and develop politics and consciousness on the basis of the changes. In fact, the TUC and 'left' have abdicated the leadership of the working class to the Conservative Party, the Heath Government and the CBI, because these have proved the only conscious elements in the society who are dealing with the changes in the economy. The TUC and 'left' are relegated then to mere instruments or vehicles of the working class. What the TUC and 'left' do is determined (a) by the changed economic conditions, (b) the changes in political form and consciousness being ordered and determined by other elements in the society and (c) their formal position of holding back any change in the name of the interests of the working class.
The "solution" which the TUC and 'left' have put forward is that things should go back to where they were before. Ken Gill, far-left member of the AUEW was asked on television what he thought ought to happen. Though he had previously expressed his belief in socialism as the only goal for the working class, he unhesitatingly replied that we ought to get back to "free collective bargaining." I have not mentioned the Labour Party in this description for a definite reason. The Labour Party has ceased to have any force in this situation because it has been sharply reined in by the trade unions and the 'left' for any attempt to change political forms or consciousness of the working class. Putting its existence as a political party before the need for politics to deal with changes in material reality, the Labour Party survives as a political party (as opposed to a working class pressure group) through the sheer weight of historical inertia: there is no reason for it to disappear at a stroke so it will simply wither away as a political force unless it does face reality and not funk the question of putting that reality to the working class.
The 'left' have been gleeful at this withering away, taking it as a sign of the ripening of revolution in the soul of the working class. In fact, it represents the failure of working class' consciousness to develop and face reality. The 'left' will certainly not be able to supersede the Labour Party as the political party of the working class, because the Labour Party has been acceding to every Conservative suggestion put forward by the 'left'. The Labour Party has indeed historical inertia on its side and the 'left' will not be able to replace it as long as they simply try to be more militantly conservative than the Labour Party, because militant conservatism is being practised at the moment very successfully in the Labour Party.