Should the workers strike?
The final arbiter in any dispute is force. When arguments fail, when negotiations reach deadlock, when all forms of diplomacy and compromise are exhausted, then force is the only means of ensuring the victory of one disputant over the other. When this stage is reached in disputes between nations, the diplomats are recalled and the generals take the field. It is in preparation for this that governments store armaments and maintain armed forces. When this stage is reached in disputes, between workers and their employers, the negotiators step back and the strike committee comes to the fore. It is in readiness for this eventuality that the workers must preserve the right to strike.
When workers resort to strike action it is an indication that the negotiators of their Trade Unions have failed. It indicates that either negotiations have been so protracted that the workers have lost patience or else that the negotiators have been unable to achieve anything satisfactory to the Union members. In either instance the Trade Union chiefs who are responsible for the negotiations, unless they can provide adequate reasons and excuses for their failure, lose prestige in the eyes of the members. They are not usually lacking in explanations why it was not possible to achieve success. They object to their Union members taking matters into their own hands and using force because then they are discredited in eyes of the government and the employers. They protest at the melting away of the Union funds and seldom give their sanction to qualify a strike as official. When the Union leaders have arrived at an agreement with employers and have signed a contract covering the wages and conditions of employment of the members of their respective Unions, they want that contract to be honoured by the members. If the members will not accept, the leaders find themselves between a rebellious following on the one hand and distrustful employers on the other. It must be very disconcerting for these dealers in labour power en masse, having bargained for its price and arranged for the conditions of its delivery, to find it continually heading up the wrong street. If they can find a way to stop that, they will.
At the Trades Union Congress held at Bridlington during September this year, the question of unofficial strike action was discussed, as it had been on previous years. There were threats to use union discipline against those who promote, organise and lead unofficial strikes, and accusations against those who advocate and engage in them. Sir Will Lawther, better known as Will Lawther, president of the National Union of Mineworkers and president of this year’s Trades Union Congress, had a few things to say. He is not alone in the ideas that he expressed, but in his presidential address he put them into words that sum up the attitude of many prominent Trade Union leaders. Speaking about unofficial strikes, Mr. Lawther said that the strike,
“. . . has been, in days gone by, the strongest weapon in the Trade Union armoury when it has been wielded under Trade Union authority for clearly defined industrial purposes.
Trade Unions have been forced to use the strike weapon when there was no other way open for them to redress their wrongs.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 6th. 1949.)
We can anticipate from this statement by Mr. Lawther, that he considers the strike weapon out of date, that there is now, in his estimation, some stronger weapon in the armoury, some more effective way open for the workers to redress their wrongs. There must also be a reason why Mr. Lawther thinks that strikes were the strongest weapon and are not necessarily so now. He gives it to us.
“We can go on in the old way. treating every difficulty that arises in industry as the manifestation of an irreconcilable conflict of interest between the employer and the employed; or we can recognise that the attainment of political democracy in this land leads on to the fulfilment of industrial democracy.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 6th. 1949.)
So, according to Mr. Lawther, there are two ways in which the workers can tackle their problems; the old way, based on a recognition of the class struggle, or this new way that leads on to the fulfilment of industrial democracy, whatever that may be. We can assume that Mr. Lawther considers “the old way” as outmoded as the strike weapon.
The arguments put forward by Mr. Lawther and other Trade Union chiefs are based on the conception that industry is run for the benefit of the whole community in each national state; that the workers are a section of this community and their interests are sectional interests must be subject to the national interest. Strikes, according to this conception, become an attempt by a section to impose its will upon the whole community. They are decried as a type of blackmail. They interfere with the smooth running of the community’s industry and must be “outlawed”. This is the line of reasoning of many Trade Union leaders, in high and lowly positions, and, unfortunately, accepted by many workers. Disputes, they, argue, must be settled by negotiation and arbitration.
But is the “old way” referred to by Mr. Lawther, really out of date? What is the relation between the worker and his employer? Is that relation different in a “political democracy” to that in other places? Has this relation undergone any change since “the days gone by”? An answer to these questions will solve the problem that besets many Trade Unionists to-day—“To strike or to arbitrate?”
Before the necessities of life can be produced, three essentials must be available; materials provided by nature, worked up into what we call raw materials; tools and machinery, which we name the instruments of production; and human labour effort which must be applied to the nature-given materials through the instruments of production in order to produce the consumable product. The workers do not own either the materials, or the instruments of production. They have only the human labour effort contained in their bodies. The other two essentials are owned by that smaller section of the community known as the capitalist class. In fact, it is this ownership that constitutes them a class distinct from the non-owning workers. The materials and the instruments of production are useless to the capitalists unless the labour effort of the workers can be engaged to operate them. On the other hand, the labour effort of the worker is useless to him unless he can have access to the tools and machinery and the materials. Those who own machinery, mines, land, factories, workshops, etc., seek to buy the energies of the workers who, in their turn, are anxious to sell in order that they may live. The relation of employer and employed is really one of buyer and seller of human labour effort. The employer does not buy the labourer, that would be chattel slavery. Neither does he buy the labour, that is the application of the workers’ energies to the materials. The capitalist already has the material and the worker does not own any, so he cannot offer it. He can only offer his ability to labour, his physical and mental energies. That is what the employer buys, by the hour, day, week or contract. When the specified amount of energy, measured in terms of time, has been extracted, the worker is free to go his way and spend his wages, which are the price he gets for the energy that he sells He must of necessity spend them on replacing the energy he has expended.
Is this position any different in what Mr. Lawther terms a “Political Democracy”? Do the workers receive a share in the ownership of the materials and the instruments of production? Obviously not! They are still employees, having no other means of obtaining a livelihood except by selling their labour power. Their status is not altered by the fact that they have universal suffrage or by the introduction of State ownership. If they find employment in a nationalised industry, it merely means that the State buys their labour power and pays for it with a wage as does any private employer or business concern. The wealth produced belongs to the State, not to the workers who produce it. The workers in State controlled industries can only get back as much of the wealth produced by their class as their wages will buy. The relation between the State as an employer and the workers that it employs is the same as between a private employer and his workers. That the workers have a voice in deciding which political party shall operate the State machinery’ does not alter their position either.
Neither has there been any fundamental change in the relation between the workers and their masters since wage labour and capital first emerged as factors determining the mode of production. The working class has always been, and still is, that section of the community that, owning none of the means of production, must sell its mental and physical energies in order to live.
Capital is a concentrated social force, but the worker has only his individual working force. If he would make effective demands upon the force that is capital, he must combine with his fellows to create am opposing force. For that purpose Trade Unions were formed. The position has become one where a body of workers, organised in a Trade Union, bargain over the price and condition of sale of their labour power. If they cannot get the price and conditions they require, they refuse to sell. Such a refusal is known as a strike. Some matters can be settled by negotiation without resort to the strike weapon, but, let it once be known that the workers are not prepared to use the only forceful means in their power, and they will be permanently on the losing side at the negotiating table. If any man who has something to sell lets it be known that he will not refuse to sell it at any price that is offered, he will get the worst of every bargain.
During the last war, in an effort to eliminate strikes, the Government introduced the Employment and National Arbitration Order, known as Order No. 1305. This made arbitration compulsory and the decisions of the Arbitration Tribunals that were set up were legally binding on both workers and employers. The order came into force in 1940 and still operates. It makes strikes and lockouts illegal unless 21 days notice of an impending dispute has been given to the Minister of Labour and he has failed to intervene. Many Trade Unionists now consider that this order is a hindrance to the furtherance of their demands, and wish to see it terminated. Mr. Clem Bundock of the National Union of Journalists, speaking at the Trades Union Congress, put the case simply. He said,
“Some Unions—and I fancy a growing number—have emerged from the tribunal with nothing for their members but frustration.”—(Daily Herald, Sept. 8th, 1949.)
Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, has a different view. He says, referring to Order No. 1305 that it is
“. . . the best weapon that the Trade Union Movement has got.”—(The Record. August. 1949.)
If the National Arbitration Tribunals were composed of men who saw the relationship between employers and employed as we have outlined it, who were sympathetic to the workers and whose decisions were still legally binding on both workers and employers, then, maybe, Mr. Deakin would have a case. But the men who are appointed to these tribunals view the problems brought before them from the same “community of national interest” angle as Mr. Lawther, and Mr. Deakin. The nation is a capitalist one, which means that they view all the problems from the standpoint of the interests of capital, not of the workers, except that the workers are necessary to capita] as the source of labour power. The Tribunals are influenced by consideration for selling goods cheaply in foreign markets, ensuring that industry “pays,” and all the other problems of capitalists. If these tribunals continue to function, the workers can be sure that they will be used, not only to frustrate them, but to worsen their wages and working conditions, either by enforcing wage reductions, extending working hours, or pegging wages down whilst prices rise. If the workers surrender their right to strike in favour of this “best weapon,” then, to use a popular phrase, “They’ve had it.”
The strike weapon is double edged. It often brings suffering to the workers whilst only inconveniencing the employer. If other means, less harmful to the workers than strike action, but effective in securing satisfaction for working class demands, are available, they should certainly be used. The history of our class teaches us that there are no other effective means which are not backed by a preparedness to use the force of strike action.
Workers who are duped by the notion that the nationalised industries are now the property of the community and that those employed in them are servants of the community, ready to reap a reward as soon as “the country is back on its feet,” are due for a sad disillusionment. We find an example of this idea in a leaflet entitled, “For Busmen Only,” issued by the Central Bus Section of the Transport and General Workers’ Union.
“The movement has struggled for years to achieve the Nationalisation of the Industry, so that we should work for the Public and not for the benefit of shareholders. This having been achieved, it is incumbent upon us all to Rive the best service possible.”
The leaflet goes on to say that you can’t get more out of a quart pot than you put into it, the implication being that the more you put in, the more you get out.
The workers in nationalised industries work for their employer, not for the customers who purchase the goods or services that they produce. If they are employed by the State they are servants of the State, not of the so-called public. And the State is not the community, it is, in brief, the executive committee of the capitalist class. Its function is to see that capitalism runs as smoothly as possible. This is usually termed “keeping law and order” or “ensuring the nation’s food supply.” The State has the task of smoothing out disputes between employers and their workers, because such disputes can slow down the flow of profit to the capitalist class. Trade Union leaders like Lawther, Deakin, Tewson and others are drawn into assisting in this smoothing out process. The National Arbitration Tribunals have partially served that purpose, but workers are now getting wary of them.
The worker who urges his fellows to strike on any and every occasion is as dangerous as the “peace-at-any-price” advocate. There are times when it is obvious that a strike is doomed to failure from the start. At such times it is contrary to working class interests to advocate strike action. There are times when it may be possible to secure something satisfactory through negotiation. At such times it would be folly to fritter away working class enthusiasm and funds in a strike. But once let the workers say “We won’t strike,” and they place themselves completely at the mercy of their masters who will not be slow to profit by such docility.
The class struggle goes on. It does not.cease when an industry passes under State control. We do not have the spectacle of a class struggle for some workers who are still privately employed whilst those employed by the State are immune. The State behaves like every other employer, as workers in State controlled industries have discovered.
Yes, the class struggle goes on, and every weapon in the workers’ armoury must be kept sharp and ready for use. The strike weapon is not out of date. Maybe, the lessons of years of working class struggle may show how it can be used more effectively and with less harm to the workers who use it, but it must never be discarded whilst wage labour and capital confront one another.
W. WATERS