Back to Labour Values index
Back to tripartite talks index
Back to article index
BREAKDOWN OF THE TALKS
On Thursday 2nd November the tripartite talks between the TUC, CBI and the Government failed to reach agreement on specific proposals to move towards the "objective agreed by the three parties for economic management in the present situation, namely faster growth in national output and real incomes; an improvement in the relative position of the low paid and moderation in the rate of wage and price inflation. We are all in full agreement on the objectives." (From Heath's statement on breakdown. Financial Times, 3.11.72) The failure to reach voluntary agreement was greeted with almost audible sighs of relief from the Labour Party, many bourgeois commentators and sections of the Conservative Party. There has certainly been no pressure from any political quarter on the three participants to try again to gain "'another prize which in the long run may prove of even greater worth (than the curbing of inflation etc, NS). That is the prize of having a more sane, more rational, more peaceful method of organising the whole of our national economy.' He was referring here to the Government's proposal that if the Downing Street talks succeed the CBI and TUC would join with the Government in a permanent body to help decide the nation's economic and social priorities in the futures" (FT report of Heath's speech on new Parliamentary session, 1.11.72)
On Monday 6th November the Government announced that it would impose a 90 day freeze on prices, wages and dividends in order to give the nation the necessary breathing space in which to work out a longer-term approach to inflation. During this time the tripartite talks were to continue. It had become necessary to enact a Freeze while continuing to talk about what to do next because the initial talks had raised inflation as an economic problem which had to be faced if 'life as we know it' were to continue. The Government had to take what it said to the TUC and CBI (and on which the two had agreed) seriously; if there had been no freeze it would have been legitimate to ask why the talks had been convened in the first place. But, "the real test of it (that is the Freeze) will come, as the Government must be all too uneasily aware, when we move on from Phase One to Phase Two (the longer term agreement, NS). Means have somehow got to be found during the next few months of ensuring that the sequel to the freeze is not an explosion of prices and wages which would make faster economic growth impossible. It is to be hoped that both the CBI and the TUC, once over their initial disappointment, will feel able to play their part in devising workable machinery." (FT leader, 7.11.72)
At a meeting on 8th November, the TUC economic committee stated that further discussions were impossible "'in circumstances where the results of collective bargaining are to remain frozen by such ill-judged and objectionable provisions'. This however leaves a possible loophole because union leaders could argue later that collective bargaining was not 'to remain frozen' in the second stage. In other words, the door has been left open for talks to be started, maybe after Christmas, when initial anger over the freeze may have cooled. Significantly, Mr Jack Jones, of the Transport Workers, who attended a parliamentary lunch-time gathering said 'We are prepared to talk and negotiate in the best interests of the British people because we are as British as anyone who claims to be, from any other quarter.'"(FT, 9.11.72)
The TUC's reaction stiffened when the Government announced that negotiations conducted during the Freeze period would have to be examined in the light of whatever ground rules Phase 2 laid down for for wages, i.e. that collective bargaining as normal would be unwise because for the foreseeable future there would be no 'as normal'. The CBI therefore advised employers to defer negotiations until Phase 2 had become clear. Vic Feather said, "My advice to unions and to employers is to go on talking and to go on negotiating. If some employer accepts what I consider irresponsible advice about freezing negotiations, he will be heading for unnecessary double trouble. He will not only be in trouble about the freezing of wage increases but also in quite extraordinary trouble if he were to refuse negotiations on account of the freeze." (FT, 23.11.72)
On 22nd November the TUC General Council also decided "it did not want any more tripartite talks on the economy ... The decision ... stems from a belief that the CBI's presence in Downing Street was counter-productive. But the TUC is expected to be willing to have talks alone with Ministers some time in the future on plans for the next stage of the wages policy - provided the initiative comes from the Government. This decision came after a long argument in the council, with moderate union leaders arguing that they must find out what the Government has in mind while Left-wingers argued that talks had been shown during the past weeks to be a waste of time and should not be repeated. It seems therefore, that at some time during the coming weeks the TUC will probably hold talks with the Government on the second stage of the statutory policy." (FT, 23.11.72)
The logic of the TUC's position both on the freeze and on continuing talks is directly contrary to the logic of their participation in the tripartite talks. By seriously taking part in the talks, the TUC acknowledged that a problem existed. When the talks failed to find an approach to the problem, the Government legislated a stopgap. Moreover as we will see, its legislation took into account and made concessions to every aspect of the TUC's bargaining position. The TUC stated its grievance to be that the economic struggle was not to be let go on "as normal" and is very clearly not therefore going to provide any lead to its member unions as to how to behave during the Freeze except as 'normal'. Furthermore, the TUC made these statements in the clear knowledge that it would again be talking with the Government about 'the problem of inflation' and that further policies which alter normal collective bargaining will emerge out of those talks. How is this contradictory behaviour to be explained? Similarly contradictory is the behaviour of the Government over the last three months. Its volte-face towards the economic struggle was outlined in the October Communist. In that article ... [the rest of the line is cut off at the bottom of the page - PB]... analyse these contradictory behaviours by showing that they are consistent - not with any internal spiritual or principled logic but with the facts of the situation.