Back to Labour Values index
Back to section index
Back to article index
Previous
ARTHUR SCARGILL
Yorkshire NUM
Over the past few years the question of Workers' Control has been discussed widely. Initially, it was confined to the academics and intellectuals but, in recent years, has involved the TUC, Labour Party, Liberal Party, CBI and even the Conservative Party.
Suspicion of Workers’ Control
The one common denominator between all these organisations is their apparent acceptance of some form of workers' involvement. With this in mind, I think that our Union, and the Trade Union movement in general, should consider the matter seriously and regard attempts to introduce workers' control and/or participation with deep suspicion.
The case for workers' control is not new. It has been with us for well over 50 years and has received in that time, varying degrees of support. Former leaders of the NUM, like A.J. Cooke and Mabon in South Wales, argued for workers' control in a pamphlet called The Miners’ Next Step. [1] In recent years, the case for workers' control has found faith with Ministers, such as Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and leading members of the Labour Party National Executive, such as Eric Heffer.
[1] In addition to calling for industrial democracy (and the elimination of the power of the shareholders) as the eventual objective of working class struggle, The Miners' Next Step was primarily a demand for workers' control over the union in opposition to the sort of top down leadership that was personified by 'Mabon' (William Abrahams). And, contrary to widespread belief, AJ Cook wasn't one of its authors, at least so say Hywel Francis and Dai Smith in The Fed - A History of the South Wales Miners in the Twentieth Century, University of Wales Press, 1998 (but originally Lawrence & Wishart 1980), pp.13-16. Scargill, or whoever was transcribing his remarks, may have confused Mabon with Noah Ablett. - PB
The Case Does Not Stand Up
I believe that their case does not stand up to close examination and that to pursue it will inevitably weaken the British Trade Union movement and delay, if not stop, the advance towards a socialist society.
We have many examples of workers' participation and involvement in British industry and it is interesting to look at one or two ways in which workers' participation has been attempted, and, more important, the consequences of that attempt.
Consultative Machinery
The National Coal Board, a number of years ago, introduced the Consultative Machinery - its aim, according to its architects, was to involve miners at all levels in what was taking place in the coal mining industry and to listen to their views in the hope that they could contribute towards the success of the industry.
I am quite sure that every person who has any knowledge of the Consultative Machinery will agree with me that its main function has, in fact, been as a vehicle for "pushing" the decisions and views of senior management in the coal mining industry.
Conflict of Interest
At local level, its main function has been the analysis of production targets, output figures and absenteeism in the industry and it is with this latter that we can see most vividly the conflict of interest which comes about with worker participation.
A number of years ago, the Consultative Committees at colliery level introduced an Absentee Committee to analyse the reasons why men were not attending for work, to interview them and, if necessary, take disciplinary action including dismissal where the Absentee Committee thought it warranted.
I can remember quite well an example of how this worked at a colliery in the Barnsley Area a few years ago.
Example: Absentee Committee
The members who comprise the Absentee Committee began to look at the statistics and forgot they were representing human beings. They were, in spite of themselves, more concerned with the fact that 20 per cent of the men had been absent over a certain period of time rather than assessing, as Trade Union representatives, why these men had been off work.
When a man advanced an excuse that he had been off work because his wife had been taken ill, or that his children had been taken into hospital, the Committee looked sceptically at the case. They became, in spite of their determination not to, "management orientated".
They started to take decisions which were completely out of character with the accepted role of Trade Union representatives. What followed was to show the conflict of interest more clearly than any academic could ever explain.
Union Put in Impossible Position
The man who had been dismissed took his case to the local NUM and asked them to represent him in an attempt to persuade the management to withdraw the notice of dismissal. It should be remembered, of course, that the Union Branch in question had already participated in the decision to dismiss the man concerned and this placed the Miner's Union Branch in an impossible position.
He then took his case to the Branch Meeting and the Branch members overwhelmingly supported his case.
Bizarre Results
The situation was now bordering on the bizarre, i.e. the representatives of the Union having participated in the decision to dismiss the man had then taken a decision that they could not represent him in negotiations with management because they had been part of the management decision to dismiss.
In effect, the rank and file at the pit were challenging not only the NCB at local level, but also the NUM at local level. The men at the colliery threatened strike action and the result was that management had a rethink about the case and the man was reinstated and, according to my latest information, is still employed at the colliery some 10 years later.
A Union in this situation is completely impotent and can do nothing except watch the rank and file pressurise management and, in effect, the Union to rethink their decision.
Discredited Union Leaders
This has the effect of weakening the Union and discrediting the leadership in the eyes of the miners. It also weakens the Union's ability to negotiate effectively with the management because miners begin to distrust a leadership who are prepared to participate in dismissing a member of the Union when this is clearly a management function and a management decision which can, and should, be challenged by the Union as the representatives of the membership.
Bullock Report
The recent report of the Bullock Committee, which recommended representation on the boards of management, would "compromise" the trade union representatives more than ever.
The National Coal Board, I have no doubt, would be prepared to accept worker representatives on the National Coal Board. If this took place, the Miners' Union would find itself facing decisions which had been taken not only by the National Coal Board but with the agreement of NUM representatives. It would be, on many occasions, a decision which was in conflict with Union policy.
The people who accepted seats on the boards of management would be regarded with deep suspicion by the members of the Union and the workers would be constantly faced with the problem of having to examine decisions which had been taken by the National Coal Board, part of which consisted of their own Union representatives.
Workers’ Control Impossible
It is impossible to have workers' control within a capitalist society. Capitalism, by its very nature, produces contradictions which cannot be resolved until and unless we change the system of society. We have to change the system, otherwise workers' control cannot be obtained.
What we can have within our society is class collaboration and compromise with the mixed economy.
Those who advance the theory of workers' control in a capitalist society are putting forward "the intellectual’s dream of Utopia" - idealistic, unworkable and unobtainable!
Worker Directors in British Steel
The attempt to introduce worker directors in British Steel a few years ago proved unmitigated disaster. The rank and file in the Steel industry regarded the representatives on the board of management with open hostility and, at the very least, with deep suspicion.
They saw, in my view quite correctly, that participation on the board of management produced a conflict of interest which was irreconcilable with the role of a trade union leader.
There have been attempts at workers' participation in Europe and these only serve to justify my case.
Germany
In West Germany there has been legislation since 1952 providing for workers’ councils and trade union representation on supervisory boards. It is fair to say that the unions in Germany are gaining, increasingly, a reputation as "company unions" as a consequence of their involvement in the processes of management.
France
In France, where there has been legislation for a considerable period of time, the only thing to distinguish their workers' involvement system has been its utter failure.
Scandinavia
The Scandinavian countries have long been held as a shining example of how to operate schemes of workers' participation. There are workers in countries like Sweden who openly criticise the worker involvement that takes place in that country.
It should be remembered that systems of participation, like those in the Scandinavian countries, still leave the ownership and ultimate control in the hands of the ruling class. The respective roles of the working class and owning class remain exactly the same and for all the grandiose claims, it is generally accepted that, in most of these countries, the ruling class have now probably a tighter control than our ruling class here in Britain.
The Co-Operative Movement
The best example I can offer why workers' control cannot work is the Co-operative movement. I speak as one who has been involved in the Co-operative for many years, including a number of years serving on the Regional Committee of Co-operative Retail Services.
We should remember that the Cooperative movement is completely owned by those who shop at the Co-op and hold a share book. It should equally be remembered that the Co-operative movement operates within a capitalist system and, as a consequence, finds itself competing alongside firms in the private sector and also finds that it is subject to both national and international economic pressures.
The economic principles which determine the Co-operative movement's attitude today have more in common with Marks and Spencer than with Karl.
Those who sit on boards of management in the Co-operative movement find themselves taking decisions from a management-orientated point of view. It may be that many of the representatives are trade union officials themselves but they inevitably find themselves wearing a different "hat" when they begin to sit on the Board of Directors of the Co-operative movement.
If there is any doubt as to the truth of what I am saying, I would say "ask the unions who have to negotiate with the Co-operative Boards and look at the strikes which have taken place within the Co-op movement particularly in recent years, of those who deliver milk".
We Do Not Need Worker Participation
I submit that we do not need workers' participation to play our part as a trade union inside the National Coal Board or any other industry in Britain. Provided the trade union is prepared to exercise its strength, we can convince management to change its views or, at the very least, modify them in many fields.
It is often argued that workers' representatives on the National Coal Board would be able to take decisions in planning and investment. I submit that if this is true it is entirely consistent for those who support the theory of workers' control to advocate that the representatives on the board of management could make similar decisions on wages and conditions.
Experience shows clearly that this would be disastrous for the trade union movement. If the miners in 1972 had been part of NCB management, they would have had before them the statistical data then available and, undoubtedly, the decision would have been taken not to concede a wage increase because the finances were not available.
What was required in 1972, and what was eventually decided, was a political decision and not simply an economic decision.
There is no reason why the Unions should not extend their traditional role in collective bargaining to the area of planning and investment without becoming part of the management process.
Those in our Union who support the concept of workers' control are supporting measures which will hold back the development of the working class in its advance towards a socialist Britain.
Participation Will Perpetuate Capitalism
Those who advocate workers' control in capitalist society are, in fact, the "apologists for a socialist alternative".
Participation will only perpetuate capitalism. The NUM should not be misled into supporting the theory of workers' control within our existing society.
It cannot work and it is against the basic constitution of our Union and the wider Labour movement. Our constitution calls not for collaboration with capitalism, but for a change of society.
It is only when we have achieved socialism that we can have workers' control.