Workers ae vos
Ee te the fe Sree 2 sang oe eat egainst. it a sod foq eof a Ont: Y sav ie foq nf 9as .-
ret C++ Sh a tid tate aS Agu B DStTe9 avouttnt of ie. sop hata We rae en eats teeta sae fea. from, “at cont@ining all’ incones,- c_peltoyte. eecentence bs beeMoxg etd accouipanied by record, dividend: declarations:, indeed ,y) on, June, brs °Ast the Financial’ tines, reported. that; Herta Uk gi PPih xo on the | Previous. Jeeks. wh we ide) sen. pee oF Fy tek: 9 people'ts"inheom eo scare S new ech mea Ree « Pa cGe ef 2 Shoe asthe Bie: cotrpol. ga. cot eles disc * of high perre cae vip Ne. Ww S,,marooned’ because, a bare ae ate eae be ines e, "yous forit,yand -1)0 Tahiti Bat a re decla
ts to, be, -Altarro Eto0e
desiradte nee oR ae 88 | at roped 4 ie be: 1a ba, Bod ibe pePspasion™ h ane aes ube as Be by. 2 Vasfo PEM TO peaBLGHORS o- Beene ated ‘the see nent a a teh yu Likely bOseooxt have’ eepr ape ce Gedy Bp tthe” opSibL Tote “ta ing, compulsory; action apainst® bees ePre Cue el ave evaporoted,,,Far from,,be eased into existence by a controlled growth of welfare aieatetes the new policy is being pagupeh din the midst,of)2, crisis, stoppage om-att such Ge The. P io increases, - 409 «
littie’ and Toatdat ete ifs ars obi slike. pcre theirs sx rk reéipients! fron the file ffe x the out Asean eg _ Lea¥enw ons ralofie shot’ them: into’ the’ froniey eit 3° -of.,social, priorities Labolir' 8 = basie “pledge eered Boo yeh are; 9 = hosing; BAG 5
educ &6Z6A° ‘are iahast ao Pt
>, crisis, Ag di e SE Log
thé ‘sans yiaps he ohoaet gs “of. ov sup r ers, tse is anit srw
t 3 P capable of bearin “aos ssenith C5. ane con ext, of radical. str9 advaneé towards @ ino ct oc thy 4 isi shattered. bysthe:wey in whieh°Gedrge Brown° and “Calle an; feel co pelled. (bo dehiner: almost adity- peogeapereaae to te Bitaly Bone be necessity,of; >) rewards’ £62- indtiative: or" oeiee ia ‘bon essanchity off. syod peefrit, ena 8o° one Tne Bisco back oun Re é. a7 heres ubterences... oft Ray GantEry “periaps the~ nose og ay gexe “thet reactionery) etdat Ministér ‘6ftbaboir since: ‘the! WAL rage | v ae, guotate: the o5e5 anxieties” ert elt trade” ‘udlonists. (4100 crcl eased rie ae
“oma edaibe: "6f “the ® “ANd foigese i ;the.. og 6 of wage contr OL is*biéaék ih the- ett zene AS vae tee Nicholas, ‘Pi ghily Fac pointed . out} ’the “contro? of Wee G% te 89 ‘bake place, ates 8 aloow agrécméats ere eorclua 3d, ‘because Begining. £0es on,an.-t Sati se open; “often: “aecompanted By Fierce publicity in the business 1.
Incounes Policy continued/ press: but the control of prices, if, such it, can be eolled, is to move Tamely Bopp tit: accomplished het, “Underpeid. and underprivileged Broups, wi 0. were, supposed to be Specially protected. ond navenced: “be the poltey,. are. ‘ain fact compelled, to howl An the wilderness as before. Significantly... ‘the. farmworkers , who ore: mong, Britein's most badly treated: workers, were Faknvoy ates the. First ne feol the squceze of Mr. tubrey Jonos:, their claim for a phortet working week was rojected beceuse the independent members, of" the Agriculturay’ HeECs Board, whose vote is almost. always decitive,” were. ofeihst. 6 a reauetion ain hours. "ct this. tine" - Fernworkors. work 2 57 hour. oversee: weeks. their minimun; pasit. “Wabe for 45) hours’ Ws PAL of 210.286 Everywhere. onc looks, underpaid workers Stay" Underpeia, Wonen workers, grossly’ ox ploited, ane hotntiousiy difficult to° orgenipe,. arc, a clossic case in point. Any incomes policy that wes’ even marginally concerned with equity, redistribution, and social. justice would have to begin with "tho? principle of* cqual’ pay, For, eget worke Mr. Brown has? nothing whe Ltever to. say ebout, this mepter.; But, this products e vicious. eirele. Bodly- orghni sci workers. BPE. 6 underpéi dy? Underteid' workers rongin demoral ist d,. pnd. so Fre 10994 | or difficult to “Orgenise. In the. interests “of. ercdo. unloa expensipn,* go hog unions, must. press for. sharp improvenenis in wages ! end “trorki ny conditions, There ts no. Coubt.that they scandalous | Sosition in which léss,than 10. miltion: British, . : workers: are “ orpanis 6a 4% pespousible for most. of Labour's. pol=) itical pobd@éms“Ovor the Lest dtcade. The worst orgenised sections are women ond mony groups of: white coller workers: and! their? eonditions require. militant cetion if_either nedzess or and eroyth! of organised power isjto,be Won,;if.Mar..Brown!s freeze works , it will send its icy brcath' into, the opinion polis abo the Behe time’ as° it’ morks" out stendstill ih tac. fiedd.of rede: ‘union growth, | .
The! Festest- growing white. collar. unions are ese” and-DAdae The Bigcestcand’ most’ suctesstul* union of 241 isthe T &. GY § ++; £11 are opposed to Pr. Brown's poltey., the | most. moribund,unioa among ¢he- ore pettalions is, surely... the. NUGMW.,.Thés sbognates in terms of- membership, oven though | 4t organise workers'in expendifie- @reas* of. the ie pease ties tis _.,allofor;ths.ineames ee Appetentiy’ this‘is becaus ita loadcks. think, that, Mz Brown wil? @6 thott work for: thom BG, WO ba Ohl Ue. Jenkins j bhe enterprising and adtive Leader. OL. ASSET, shrewly pointed oug-at the tVolee of the Unions ' London scminer: OF, Woxkees ‘Controls this-May ,othet-he eoudld only recruit technicians anc. supervisors if hé cbudae work for them, Given that many ot.thom rcesive totalis inédéquate sairics,' oftcn. well under TRCN, a week, it -was vorv unlikely that they could pe inspircd by.Mr. Brown's guiding Licht. AS# eet would necd’ to press. for 20%, .rather than; 3o-inecreases, seid Mr.°-dcnkins, if it wer¢ to do-pits duty. by.its nembers mal thus prove worthy ofstipport. Of coursc, the old ergun 1ent for an incomes policy hes always stressed ;that money wage mETUtARCY is ‘apt. Bree leave, wide sections of workers -D¢! 9 thatmiltions+6f pcopté aré Jépréessce tg the ,leved ef % week, 6#°éven-Pcss. But ¢6 hold back the Dr petanes won '$-pu -clfpenny ‘ints the pockets df the undcerpaid..The only way celp the sé people in an‘Pacdmes policy would be by pionnt:
UW
ty!
'
rene oo
~
Pr) ie:
@]
(2) cthigh@sp’
Incomcs Policy continucd/ the redistribution of wealth, taking from renticr incomes and edding to wage diu salary income. No steps at all are at present bcing taken in this direction,
It ig therefore quite impossible to support both Mr.Prown's veriety of incomes policy and the power and vitality of free trede uniohs.
But true cs this is, it is equally cloar that this unpicesa nt choicc must cause real heartsearching in the unions. Even though the Government is sadly in error to promote such a policy no scne trade unionist we nts to challenge it, or to threaten -its chances of survivel. Wethave so few Labour Govern= ments, and those thet we do heve ere usually so dclicately bala need, that every trede union activist must think extrenic Ly. carefully before prejudicine this one.
Yet to accept this policy is to cbort the prospects for a renewed Lebour victory, As happened during the wage freeze in the post-war Labour Governnents of 494.5457, this wage slow-down can only demoralize the unions and create disscnsions within then to “the extent that it is effective. Indeed, beccuse this La’ our Government hes morc resources for the promotion of wolfoare schemcs, the ill-cffcets of Mr.Brown will be cven sharper than whose of his foro-runners, In “991, it @bite ot the WORCHETCOZC y the war in horea and ‘the Bevan split, Labour polled a record vote. This stemmed from the populer fccling that Labour had promoted measures that needed ‘to -be dcfondcd, But in 1965 the municipal elections have clready revealcd a’terrifying growth of abstention, and an over-all 10% swing which, if carried on, would ccrtainly topple the Government et a new Generel Election. The scent of disappointment fills the air, °
In this context, the unions hove & erucial decision to.take. They can't adecent Mr. Aubrey Jones 'deei sions oe wagcSe But neithcr can uney simply ignore the Government's appcals. Above ell, they need to acvclop a probing, Ceciniares Mie resnonse to the challenge of incomes policy which will allow Mr,\Wilson to go on to the offcnsive, which will put the cmployers on the spot, cand which will make it entirely plain to the public dt lexeo tha
Ao} it is not the unicns, but business, which is the culprit and
Cede AA the cause of our cconomic difficultics,.
ft is for this rcason thet an increasing numbcr of pcople cre turning te the problem of details of the kind of plan upon which an incomes pchicy could be based. Clearly, shore ore ¢ least two pre sconditions for such & policy. First, it must be part of an over-all strategy - of advenee towards social control of the cceoncemy as <a wholc, Tt must be phascd cnto a plennod developMcnt of structural, anti-ccpitalist changes in the ecntrol, ownership and circction of production. Second, and gust as important, it must be the creation of thc workpcopls themselves. ae goals, priorities, and dircction of the policy must not merely be accéntable to trade unionists; they must be detormined ay them. Any other approach to the problem can only undermine the democratic powers of the unions, and with these powers, the
Incones policy .continucd/ cntire fcbric of the clements of -political democracy which oxist in Britain todey. With thc unions built into a state plan whose priorities werc dcterminsd by technicians, top managers and revrcesentatives of business, not only would the creative initictive of the working pcople be blockcd cnd thwarted, out the very foundation of political choice in Britain would be qomolishecd.
In fact, these two basic pro-conditions for incomes, policy were already spelt, out by -the ,TUC. in the composite resohution which was cpproved in 1964. This speaks of planning "...by applying an xtensicn of public ownership based on popular control in which unions »yarticipate ona domocretic basis at all lcvels." These guiding principles have not up. to now (been sciccn at cll seriously in the subsccucnt incomes policy discussion.
If we-ere to sce a:significant growth of -public ownership and control of industry, and the beginning of serious: planning, then “Incomes policy becomes neccessary as onc wcapon to use egeinst rentier incomes in thc.trensition to the new order of things, But cvcn thon, such a pohicy must. be used to develop and stimulate the power and awareness of the unions and their members at the cxpcnse of the prcorogatives of .capital-—in the ifectorics. ‘It is for this reason thot as « crucial pert of the transition, we need to téke up the demand for the opening of: the accounts of cvery firm to workers' inspection. Until, all tho basic industrics have ocgen socialiscd, the cxistencce.of seercey in-acdcounts will incvitably make it possible for the omployers ond. the financial controllers to cheat and short-cirevit any incomes policy that ‘could be formulated.
his was porfectly, clearly understood .ten years ago by Beroness Wootton, in her celebratcd study. .'The Social Foundations df Wage Policy',."A rationcl wege policy", she scid ‘thon, "“eannot “bc cithcr constructcd or exceuted in the dark. Somchow the scerecy which invests the subject of personal carnings, and particularly the uppcr reaches of the pyramid, must be dispéllcd," (p.171) Three yoars. ago this ‘vicw -wa strongly roinforcca .oy the publicetion of Professor Titmuss! cuthoritative work on ‘Income distribution and Social Chengc', which showed how the myth that Britain was approaching closer end closer to income cquelity was complctcly unfoundcd, and documented sone of the key-ways in which top incomes can be protcctcd ‘from the visitations of the tax man. Wheat is now most urgently necded is somo similar survey of the extent to which corpomte financial manocuvres, s¢élf-findnceing devicas,-end similar-modern trends in business administration, affect th, picture.
Be thet as it may, there can be no doubt whatever that the fact thet wages afc known, while rcntior incomes are not, makes it absolutely impossible to even begin joint negotiations through incomes policy to bring about any change in the social distribution of income.
Inconcs Policy continued/
Once agein, ct an abstract level, thc TUC has already at times given thought to this problem. In 1960 it scve evidence to the Jenkins Committee on the reform of comnany law. Hore tne unions laid very hceavy stress on the demand thot "the imeortcnee of providing workpcople with adequate information sheuld be
|
oxplicitly recognized". igain, in 1962, the General Council minutiag its welcome for some of thc recommendations of th Jenkins Report, ee that the report did not sive explici rce@nition to the ccntral esccrtion thet workneople hed 2 ricat to receive information about the affeirs of their ccomnany, and that the provisicn of this information should not mevely be 6 by-product of obliccations laid upon companies for other DUPPOSOS « (TUG. Report p. 2768.) Phere is, unfortunetely, no evidence thet this vital matter has been pr roporly considered in its csscntial
42-9,
relevance to the discussion round incomes pelicr. If tne inecucs policy is net ceo constrain weges in order to allow ciuployers to moke hay, it is absolutely vital that more information ccout company accounts should be placed before _the unions, lorc: it is impossibly dangers us for the unions to play ball with Mr.3rewn until, as a matter of rizht, they have access to all.the books of the firms with which they negotiate. Then only can they — to veto any moves to choat,. There cen be no excuse for cmployc witholding such rights: they already policc wages jointly “ey the Government in PAYE. A minimum beginning for any real control of rentier incomes is thet.workpcople should be able to have corresponding joint powers with the Inlend Revenuc cgcinst their ema Loycrse Unvil this right is won thc; will be operating blind~ fold in c situation pregnant with hazcord.
itis
r
Of course, if workers can invede the yi Rene eR! secrets of their cmolovcrs, their power will be grectly augmented. At last thes will begin to extend their control over reelly Significant onrts of the dcecision-tcking process. Such moves will be all to the good. At present Mr. Brown! s attacks on "restrictive practiccs Ut ee bAc opposite eireg uot. Linked with the diseiplinarien
of Mr. Guntor and the constant probcs of the emplcycrs,
t incomes policy is cbove cll an cssaqult on such
f workers! control as atresdy exist in industry. Attacks
ift' im learned pepers cre followed in the industricl
e
7 attempts to curtail stewarcs' freedor of move-
-cstoblish management's 'richt to manage'.
foe Pik S Pipe to reverse this retrogradc movement. Oven the toows $ fr cxvending werkers’ rigs and trade union control, py curptclilz: Bons eacwts BCSraEE Pree s and by decvenine the politics: reverent cvewards soeialisation of industry, the Peescnty sorry -se= of ats fortunes can be. sharply dvVerccns ; and & new ontimism cmd Forvour ccn sweep through the movement.