Back to Labour Values index
Back to section index
Back to article index
Previous
DAVID LEA
Trades Union Congress
Thirty years after the great advances made by the Labour Government in the 1945-50 period we now have another great debate. It is a debate which is as fundamental as the debates about the post-war reconstruction and the public ownership of the basic industries.
Thirty years are long enough to reflect on the experiences we have gained, both at home and abroad. Abroad, we have seen the developments both in Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and even the most cursory examination of these developments gives us a good deal to reflect on.
Industrial Democracy and Socialism
There are those who say that industrial democracy would be fine in a socialist society and that, indeed, when we get to a socialist society then let us have industrial democracy at the same time.
But if you don't make progress with industrial democracy as we go along, will the socialist society be what you want when you get there?
The same point applies to the other nationalised industries across the board. Indeed, the statutes of all the nationalised industries are virtually unchanged from the 1940s. That is why we have said through the TUC's Nationalised Industries Committee that it's about time we had a look at them.
Nationalised Industries
There are common factors between the nationalised industries at board level. But this is in no way to say that this level is more critical than the level of colliery planning committees or area policy committees. Obviously, in one sense, what happens on the ground has to be the most important.
It is surely equally apparent why we can't as a TUC start at the bottom and lay down any sort of universal scheme of union involvement at local level.
We re-opened the question of industrial democracy in our evidence to the Donovan Commission in 1966. That was after 20 years' experience of nationalisation and now another 10 years have elapsed. It was 10 years ago, in 1967, that Congress called for a report to be prepared.
Less Talk & More Action
Now that recommendations have been made, I would say that the mood of Congress, taken overall, is that it is about time that we got beyond the stage of endless talk and saw some action. This mood was indeed reflected in the terms of the composite resolution which Congress carried by an overwhelming majority.
There are a number of strands in the Congress resolution and in considering new systems of representation, I would underline the last sentence of the resolution which reads as follows: "Congress further believes that the objective of making the public sector of industry serve social purposes will be strengthened by effective worker participation on management boards and urges immediate steps to implement the proposals of the Nationalised Industries Committee for parity trade union representation on the boards of nationalised industries where it is the wish of the members."
The Right to Representation
I would draw your attention to the last phrase in particular, namely, "where it is the wish of the members". We are not talking - nor was Bullock taking either - of a universally mandatory solution. In this respect - as in others - what we have come up with is quite different, and I would emphasise this - from the legislation they have in Germany, or many other countries where there is a law which spells out a formula which has to be operated in each industry .
That is not what we have proposed. What we have proposed is the right to representation - and equality of representation - when the unions in the industry want it.
We did not propose on Bullock that unions with a minority interest could veto the whole process, but on the other hand we recognised that they had a right to be represented on any joint union machinery which emerged, whether they exercised that right of representation or not.
But before going into more detail, let us agree on our starting point. Developments in the field of industrial democracy must be based on clear trade union principles. That much we can all agree.
But what are these basic trade union principles?
Principles of Trade Unionism
I would suggest that when you get to the heart of the matter there are essentially two basic trade union principles.
First, in all their activities unions must be representative of their members. And the second principle bears closely on this. Not only must the representatives be elected by the membership, but they must be directly accountable to them.
Once those principles are satisfied perhaps we don't need to be so dogmatic about trade union methods.
Jobs of Unions
Trade unions have a range of jobs to do. At national level we are interested in securing economic expansion, a fair tax system and so on.
This requires a wide involvement with Government and a degree of public control in the planning of the major industries.
You are involved in - indeed you have reached agreement about - the tripartite plans for the coal industry at national level in which you accept the role of government, and equal participation with the NCB. So the argument is to some extent an argument about the degree of involvement, rather than the principle.
So let us not allow the rhetoric to get in the way of the reality. What then are the real issues lurking beneath the rhetoric?
What Are the Real Issues?
First, in discussing major plans - say on a reorganisation in the colliery - do you want a decisive voice or would you accept a position where you can be systematically outvoted?
Not all of you will give the same answer. Some of you may say you want to be consulted but take no responsibility for the decision. Well, that is one clear position, it's where you are now.
But if the answer is that you want to affect the decision, can you have it both ways and say that you want to have a decisive voice, to have enough seats on the decision-making body to be able to determine what happens, and then have no responsibility for it at all?
The Development of Workers’ Control
Surely the whole history of trade unionism has been the history of making more issues the subject of joint regulation or indeed autonomous regulation by the union. Isn't that also what we are here for?
But the question then arises, why not 51 per cent involvement or more? I'm sure that other participants in this conference will have their own interpretation of the phrase "workers' control". But it's not a very precise phrase to indicate what the proposition is.
In any industrial society, whether it's Yugoslavia or Sweden, Poland or Spain, there is going to be a mechanism for the allocation of capital.
This has to be decided in conjunction with the Government or through a capital market more directly.
But it takes two to tango, so you have to have a type of agreement - call it, if you like, collective bargaining between labour and the state, or between labour and capital.
Role of Management
But leaving that aside, it also raises at operational level the whole question of how we see the role of management .
Which leads therefore to my third and final question, how should we now see the role of management? Should we view it in just the same way as for the past 30 years, or is that changing too?
It is only fair to add, of course, that there is more to this than meets the eye.
There is the question of unions representing management grades, and indeed we welcome the affiliation of unions representing management grades to the TUC.
Mining Management
One development in the last year of which you are all aware has been the affiliation of the British Association of Colliery Management to the TUC, and Mr. Schofield is now a member of our Fuel and Power Industries Committee, along with four NUM representatives and a representative of NACODS.
We have welcomed this, as indeed has the NUM. It is very relevant to this discussion. Closer working relations between unions representing all grades of workers are one of the keys to the successful development of industrial democracy.
There are many practical difficulties of course in defining the role of management, and it is for each industry to work this out for itself. If it is of any comfort to say this, your problems in this respect are certainly not unique. But to solve these problems is surely a positive challenge to us all.
Yes, management's role has to change. Obviously if we say that management's job is absolutely unchanged, then everything else is unchanged as well.
It's like talking about the British constitution, which in practice changes as the years go by, much to the alarm of Lord Hailsham. The role of management has changed, is changing, and has to go on changing.
Management will increasingly operate on the basis of an agreed strategy in which I am sure you will increasingly wish to play a full part at every level.
Let’s Start Tomorrow!
The three questions I have posed are all difficult questions. The answers aren't straight-forward. In answering them, we want to make sure we are going in the right direction.
But if we are clear about the direction, then we must not hesitate too long before getting on with it. We know that Rome wasn't built in a day. But it would be equally appropriate to conclude by borrowing a phrase from Mao Tse Tung: "If it's going to take a thousand years, then let's make a start tomorrow."