Earlier this year in Torquay, the National Committee of the Engineering Section of the AUEW decided that the union would present a new claim to the employers after the present agreement had run out on 25 August.
This claim calls for an increase of £10 per week on the national basic rate for skilled workers and proportional increases for other grades, equal pay for women, a 35 hour week, and four weeks paid annual holiday. This claim, which is being put to the employers on 14 September is one of the biggest ever lodged in any British industry - the employers estimate that it will cost them £7 million per year. AUEW President Hugh Scanlon has constantly pointed out that pursuing such a large claim will inevitably mean a clash with the Government. Judging by his reluctance to withdraw from the TUC-Government talks, that is a prospect which he probably doesn't feel too happy about. At stake in such a clash would be much more than just improved conditions for engineering workers and reduced profits for the employers - the Government's entire economic strategy would be threatened.
The claim is being submitted at a time when the working class have been on the defensive against Government attacks. Nobody has successfully challenged the £1 + 4% norm imposed by Phase 2. Even strongly organised sections of the working class, such as the miners and the Ford workers, have steered clear of confrontation with the Government. The Tories have attempted to drive home their advantage by attacking pickets - an attempt to weaken the rank-and-file organisation of the working class in preparation for the coming battles. The 24 building workers on trial in Shrewsbury, some on charges of conspiracy, have received only a fraction of the support that is necessary for an effective This is in sharp contrast to the situation last year, when the Tories were sent reeling by the miners' strike and the struggle which freed the *Pentonville 5'. If ever there was a chance for the working class to put the boot in that was it. It is the gentlemen of the TUC who must be given much of the credit for the fact that the Government was not only able to recover trom those blows but found itself able to resume the offensive. When the Tories desperately needed something to prevent the working class from heading towards an all-out offensive, it was the General Council who came to the rescue. By participating in negotiations with the Government and the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC accepted that the working class were responsible for the economic problems of capitalism. No wonder they ended up by being prepared to consider the Tories' suggestions about how to keep wages down. With this kind of "leadership' it is hardly surprising that the working class have been unable to fight Phase 2 and find themselves in the present situation. Almost exactly a year later, the TUC are around the table with Heath again (with Scanlon wishing he could be there too), talking about capitalism's economic problems and "negotiating' the reduction of working class living standards in order to try and solve these problems of the ruling class.
Red Weekly 7 September 1973 Page 4 In this situation, the rank and file leadership of the working class are faced with a burning quesLORE - which way forward? The Labour Party "lefts" and the trade union bureaucracy are anxious to make sure that the road taken does not lead to any serious struggle which might upset their more serious business of making Parliamentary speeches and indulging in cosy chats at Downing Street. They promise that the grass will be greener over the next hill and that, of course, is the next general election.
The recently adopted "left-wing' programme of the Labour Party is dangled in front of the working class: more nationalisation and 'workers' participation' are offered as the key to the future. All our efforts, they tell us, must be concentrated on making sure that the Labour Party wins the next election. This conception of the way forward for the working class is counterposed to organising a real struggle in the Autumn.
General Strike The issues raised by the Labour Party programme, such as nationalisation and workers' control, should undoubtedly be taken up and discussed throughout the whole working class movement. But an electoral struggle for a Labour Government is clearly not the next key step forward for the working class.
Getting rid of the Tory government is an objective which the whole working class must set itself. If we simply concentrate on combating particular policies of the Tories, we will find ourselves jumping from one Tory attack to the other without any clear perspective of winning the war. Support for every struggle against the government should be organised throughout the whole working class, thus preparing to draw the whole movement into a general strike to kick out the Government altogether. This is the way forward which should be offered by the militants to the working class - not the promise of a vote and a programme at some future election. This is why the engineers' claim can be so important for the working class in the present situation. The AUEW is one of the most powerful unions in the country, and has often been in the front line in combating the attacks of the Government on the working class (at least in words, if not always in deeds). A struggle between the Government and the AUEW over such a massive claim as the one being submitted this month would be the most decisive showdown since the miners' strike. Its outcome could determine the balance of class forces for the whole period to come. A national engineering strike could easily spark off a struggle of general strike proportions - a struggle which would challenge the very existence of the Government. It is for this kind of struggle that working class militants must be preparing now. Scanlon and his companions in the bureaucracy of the AUEW obviously do not feel at all happy about such a prospect. Like most trade union bureaucrats, their main concern is to secure the quietest possible life for themselves and they much prefer amiable negotiations to organising struggles. The claim, however, poses them with certain problems.
When Bill Carron was President of the AEU in the 1960s, decisions of National Committees, wage claim into the laps of the shop stewards.
The engineers in Manchester were forced to stick their necks out because of this policy and as a result, got their heads chopped off. Without a national struggle for the claim there was little hope of the demands being won - and Scanlon knew it.
The call to the membership to do their own thing to "defend the union's policy after the National Industrial Relations Court fines was again a way of ensuring that no big struggle would break out - that would have required leadership at a national level. By passing the buck in this way, Scanlon has managed to utilise the militants' lack of political perspective to prevent any major struggle unfolding. He has thus been able to avoid getting his own hands too dirty from openly selling out.
But the limits of this tactic have been reached After last year's fiasco, any suggestion that this year's claim should be fought for on a local basis would be treated with contempt. The militants are looking for a lead on the national level, and for the bureaucracy to try and pass the buck over this claim would now be seen as a sell-out.
That is why Scanlon is so annoyed at being pulled out of the talks with the Government The bureaucracy were pinning their hopes on a deal with the Tories which would contain enough concessions to isolate the militants from the mass of the working class and so avoid any big struggle. Now that a deal looks extremely unlikely, the bureaucracy will be faced with the problem of what action to take when the claim is rejected.
Communist Party This headache of the bureaucracy is a problem for the Communist Party. The CP have emphasised the need for an 'autumn wages offensive" in the columns of the Morning Star and in public meetings up and down the country Their strongest industrial base is in the AUEW, and the engineers' claim ought to offer the best possibility for smashing the Tory pay laws. Yet the CP have remained uncommitted, so far, on what kind of struggle, if any, should be waged. The CP, if they wanted to, could organise meetings and publicity throughout the engineering industry to prepare a struggle over the claim. The trap that they are caught in, how: ever, is that they have continually built up Scanion as someone who is a vital ally in the struggle against the Tories. When that vital ally' openly supports the TUC-Government talks (which the CP themselves call a 'crime and a scandal'), and when he is clearly not prepared to back an "autumn wages offensive', the CP find themselves in something of a dilemma. The whole logic of preparing for an autumn wages offensive means fighting people like Scanlon who want to make deals on incomes policy with the Tories. But the CP will not do this. For the CP, as always, their alliance with the left' bureaucrats comes before the real interests of the working class. Size of claim In spite of the apparent size of the claim, it does not have as much to offer workers in the engineering industry as the figure of £10 would seem to suggest. This increase would be on the National Minimum Time Rate (NMTR). The problem is, however, that a simple increase in the NMTR would not automatically give all workers in the industry an increase in their wage packet. This does not mean that such an increase would just be an irrelevancy to many workers in the industry, however, first of all, the NMTR is taken as the figure on which overtime and shift rates are based, so in that Outside Pentonville jail last year-chance to put the boot in was lost then. (Photo: Serena Wadham) sense all workers would gain from an increase in the NMTR. But more important, the NMTR is taken as a reference point for determining the level of earnings of every category of worker in the industry, even though their wages, may not be directly tied to it. Pieceworkers, for example, constantly have an eye on the difference between their actual earnings and the NMTR (the piecework incentive ). If this difference was reduced drastically, as it would be by a £10 increase in the NMTR, the only course open to pieceworkers would be to submit claims on a local basis for increased piecework prices in order to restore the differential. As can well be imagined, a local struggle over such a large increase is not a prospect which any section of workers in the industry could face with confidence. The other main category of workers who would not automatically receive an increase from the claim are those who receive a fixed bonus on top of the NMTR. The question facing them is, would that bonus disappear or would it remain in the event of the claim being won? Last year's agreement actually contained a clause stating that where workers received earnings above the level after the increase, the bonus would be eroded by the amount of the increase. Consequently, they would receive nothing. Such problems are real obstacles to militants in the industry who are trying to win support for the claim. There must be solutions to these problems which ensure that the fate of the earnings of such categories of workers is determined by the outcome of a national
struggle and that the militants must not be allowed to face the prospect of going out on a limb after such a struggle. We should press for the negotiators to demand from the employers that there be no reduction in the piecework incentive and no erosion of bonus. This would give these workers a direct interest in winning the claim and would unite these sections behind a struggle.
Although the words 'equal pay for women' appear in the text of the claim, this is something different from the resolution adopted by the N.C. calling for a 'vigorous campaign for equal pay'. It will probably not play any major role. "in the union's objectives for a settlement with the employers. One of the problems is - and this was probably intentional - that equal pay is useless as a specific demand over which to wage a struggle. Equal pay with whom? Men? Which men?
The lack of clarity on this question causes great any specific struggle. The demand which the AUEW should be pushing for as part of the claim is for the abolition of the category of 'women' in the industry, and the grading of women into the grades of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled. This would abolish the whole concept of "women's work' which the employers use as their justification for discriminating against women.
Finally, whatever the terms of any agreement made with the employers, there should be strong opposition made to any proposals for another package deal. By tying wages at a specific level for a period of one or two years, the workers are at the mercy of constantly rising prices, as well as having sold their night to fight for higher living standards at any time. The resolution adopted by the union's national committee instructed the Executive Council to "mobilise the membership for national industrial action if necessary'. Time and time again since then the term 'national industrial action' has been used in relation to the projected struggle over the claim.
No one has ever clarified precisely what national industrial action is necessary. Scanion has already spoken of a national overtime ban. The question of what action should be taken to fight for the claim is already looming large to militants in the engineering industry, and will increasingly become the burning question. Every militant should be fighting to get the union committed to a national engineering strike.
As Scanlon has already pointed out, the struggle will be against the Government, who will unconfusion as to precisely what the objective is in doubtedly use all the forces of the State against the engineers. If the engineers are to win the claim then there can be no half-measures. All the forces at their disposal must be utilised. A national overtime ban would not only be completely ineffective as a weapon of struggle It would also completely divide the workers, as so me sections of the industry depend to a large extent on overtime to boost their income whilst others do not.
Nothing short of a full scale national engineering strike can hope to win the claim. It is the preparation for this kind of struggle that militants in the engineering industry should be engaging in. Resolutions calling upon the E.C. to prepare a national strike should be put through branches, snop stewards committees and quarterlies, District Committees etc. A call for a national strike from the Engineering Voice' conference in Birmingham on 9 September could be extremely important in initiating a campaign in the industry for this perspective.
Resolutions should also be put to District Committees and local sections of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions to organise conferences of shop stewards in the industry in the area to elect a local strike committee and to run a publicity campaign in support of the claim. A national delegate conference of shop stewards committees should be held to elect a national strike committee to organise the forces at a national level. Such a \ conference could make other vital preparations such as centralising information about the state of preparation of the enemy. If the strike committee knew what firms have vital orders to meet this year, which are well-stocked, which depend on exports etc., mass picketing and occupations of the most vital companies could be organised with the maximum efficiency The maximum amount of pressure should be put on the bureaucracy to take such initiatives. But we cannot rely solely on them to prepare the workers for the struggle. Initiatiyes should be taken by the rank and file leadership independently of what the officials do. Some District Committees have already taken steps to organise special shop stewards aggregates to discuss the claim. But where the D.C. is not doing this, steps should be taken by shop stewards committees to organise such a conference. Special bulletins publicising the claim should be put out by shop stewards committees in the factories; mass tactory meetings to discuss what other steps can be taken would also be an important way to involve the mass of the workers in the preparation of the struggle. All these kinds of activities are not only necessary to ensure the success of a struggle should one break out, but they are also essential to demonstrate to the mass of workers in the industry that they have a determined and serious leadership and that they can have a direct say in the conduct of the struggle. Winning the claim would then be seen as a real possibility, instead of just the day-dream it seems to many at the moment.
Another vital factor in boosting the confidence of the engineering workers would be demonstrations of support from other sections of the working class. AUEW branches, D.C.s, shop stewards committees, etc., should press other unions to send delegates to any conferences that may be organised on the claim to pledge solidarity with any action that the engineers take. Trades Councils should organise delegate conferences of shop stewards committees throughout the district to prepare to organise practical assistance to the engineers Undoubtedly, the National Committee did not have this kind of thing in mind when its resolution spoke of mobilising the membership'. But if such steps can be taken at a rank and file level, they could be a vital factor in determining the outcome of the recall N.C. to take a decision to call a national engineering strike. Such a struggle could quickly pull in other sections of the working class, and could well sink Phase 3 and the Tory Government itself.