Should Marxists promote splits from trade unions under bureaucratic control?

During the protracted struggle of the Pilkington glass workers at St. Helens, several articles appeared in "Militant" on the question by a GMWU member and by Ted Mooney, an AUEW shop steward at the Liverpool GEC factory, which was recently [1971] the scene of a proposed "occupation" in protest at the combine's massive redundancies. These articles provoked a letter from Comrade John Chappell of Cambridge, which is printed below together with a reply by Ted Mooney. The issues raised in this discussion are so important and so fundamental, that we have decided to use the pages of MIR to develop the arguments fully. [Original introductory note of the MIR Editor in 1971]

Letter from Comrade Chappell

I was sickened to read in your paper [Militant], T. Mooney's article on Pilkington's with its smug, gloating attitude of "I told you so". Apparently his view is that workers should stay inside their original unions however reactionary in order to "fight inside them". But how do you fight inside the GMWU [General and Municipal Workers Union]? Rank-and-file members at Pilkington's had no right of entry to "their" branch meetings, which were only open to the "shop stewards". The latter were elected by their shop [factory department], subject to veto by the branch committee which itself was elected by the "stewards". Thus, given an initial conservative majority on the committee, it is impossible for the workers in any shop to choose even the mildest progressive as steward and, since they have no other access to the branch, the latter becomes a self-perpetuating clique. From this level up, the GMWU is like the army; branches can be "re-organised" and their officers (including the secretary, who is a full-timer) deposed by the Regional Officer, who in turn is appointed by Lord Cooper [the then. General Secretary of the GMWU].

Presumably the GMWU still has occasional Rules Revision Conferences (RRC) and presumably Cooper has no power to appoint his successor as general secretary for when he dies. But even then, how can the lay member use his democratic rights if he is excluded from branch meetings, as at Pilkington's? And until RRC comes round or Cooper dies, with the set-up described above, fighting inside the GMWU is about as realistic a proposal as "fighting inside" the Manpower Staff Agency, which at least levies no charge for its "services" from the workers on its books. Mooney's attitude to the GMWU conflicts oddly with his gibes at other "left" tendencies as "alien to the Labour Movement"; of the latter, Tribune, like Militant is a tendency working in the Labour Party, while the Communist Party still has a greater proletarian following than Militant ever had. As for his vague allusions to the dockers' "Blue" Union, what "lessons" are to be learnt? He does not say. In fact, the success of the breakaway dockers in gaining entry into a small union enabled them to dig in as an entrenched militant body on the docks. Whilst admittedly still a minority, it is since the advent of the NASD that the TGWU [Transport and general Workers' Union] has no longer been able to play its former notorious policing role on the docks, identical to that of the GMWU at Pilkington's or that which the TGWU still plays on the buses. [Note: in 1954 a layer of militant dockers had left the TGWU to join the rival National Amalgamated. Stevedores Union, NASD].

Of course, the breakaway glassworkers never intended to go it alone; their new union, originally called the Provisional Pilkingtons Trade Union, was conceived, as the name implied, as a temporary expedient pending absorption into another suitable union (e.g. TGWU, Chemical Workers' Union, or Ceramic and Allied Trades Union) as happened on the docks. Of course, this would be a breach of the Bridlington agreement which on the pretext of preventing poaching, actually serves to deprive workers in undemocratic unions even of the basic right to vote with their feet; the severest penalty for this would be expulsion from the TUC of the receiving union, leading to free transfer of members between it and others and to competition for membership throughout industry. Whilst the Chemical and Ceramic Unions could not face the ensuing war, the giant TGWU certainly could, and would probably stand to gain more than they lost from free competition, in terms of a mass influx of members from reactionary unions. In particular the GMWU officer caste would be forced to change their policies or wake up to find themselves without any members at all; likewise in the ETU [Electrical Trades Union]. All that the T&G leaders would stand to lose would be their place in the TUC establishment, giving access to the Whitehall "corridors of power" and the possible knighthoods and peerages later on. However the big "Left" T&G chiefs apparently reckoned this too high a price to pay for shaking up the clique of ossified oligarchs which run the TUC, so they cynically stood back, brandishing Bridlington, whilst their lordships Cooper and Pilkington crushed the fighting glassworkers of St. Helens between them.

The lessons to be drawn from the GGWU [the breakaway Glass and General Workers' Union] failure was not that one should never form breakaway unions, but that such unions cannot hope to be absorbed by an established body; even the powerful T&G bosses with all their "left" demagogy apparently prefer to rub shoulders with people like Cooper and Cannon in the TUC rather than accept genuine militants like the glassworkers into membership. The new union must therefore have solid support where it is formed, and good prospects of spreading elsewhere rapidly if it is to survive.

If the original Pilkington strike had ended in victory for the workers over Pilkington and the GMWU this would almost certainly have happened. But the tragedy of the GGWU was that it was born out of defeat, and therefore did not have a real chance. Only half of the St. Helens glassmen felt ready to provoke more trouble by joining it, and when it came to the crunch most of those were too exhausted from the previous unsuccessful struggle to be ready to fight for their new union. In fact, the GGWU did not even spread to the outlying Pilkington's outposts (e.g. Pontypool) let alone to other glass companies (mostly TGWU-organised, but little better off for it).

In summary, then, the lessons for the Pilkington breakaways are:

1. Expect no help or support from the oligarchies of other unions, however "left" an image they affect.

2. Just as in the pioneering days of trade unionism in the 1890s (e.g. the formation of the Gasworkers, the militant ancestor to the GMWU) a stable and viable new union can only be formed on the basis of a victory, and not on the demoralisation following defeat.

A reply to Comrade Chappell by Ted Mooney (AUEW)

Comrade Chappell's letter to the Militant is particularly worthy of consideration at this time. At the time of writing, about 130 leading members of the massive Pilkington Strike walked the streets of St. Helens, many of them disillusioned and embittered, with little or not chance of finding work anywhere within the area.

The responsibility for this state of affairs rests primarily with an ultra-left sect which throughout the dispute exercised a great deal of influence on the leading elements on the strike committee. "Socialist Worker" of the "International Socialism" group [as today's British SWP was known then; it was also known as the International Socialists, or "IS" for short - Editor's note] vociferously and uncritically supported the breakaway from the GMWU and the subsequent formation of the new union, the Glass and General Workers' Union, which now no longer exists. Other groups share the responsibility as they likewise gave uncritical support to the split.

Militant supported the Pilkington workers from beginning to end, but the Militant stood alone in the Labour Movement in warning the Pilkington militants of the dangerous path they were treading. Unfortunately, Comrade Chappell has learnt absolutely nothing from the Pilkington dispute. He continues still at this stage, even when the IS is having second thoughts about its position, to put forward the same old ideas that led to the downfall of the Pilkington workers. Comrade Chappell was, so he says, sickened to read my article on Pilkington's with its "smug, gloating attitude" of "I told you so." Having re-read my article a number of times and also having discussed it with numerous people in the Labour Movement, including Pilkington workers, I am afraid that I simply cannot see the "smug, gloating attitude" that he refers to. Might I also add that a number of the leading elements on the Strike Committee read the article; not one of them suggested that it was in any way "smug" or "gloating". On a number of occasions I myself, with other supporters of Militant discussed at length with the entire committee at Pilkington's. We [were] received in the most comradely manner and accepted as workers who had a positive contribution to make. Further in every way, I personally alongside all Militant supporters, offered every help to the striking workers; on two occasions I took factory collections to aid them in their struggle.

In retrospect, Comrade Chappell, I see no reason whatever to apologise for my article. If I were to write it again I would do so as it stands.

Democracy in the GMWU

Comrade Chappell raises the question of the structure of the GMWU. His approach is to write off any right-wing or undemocratic trade union in simplistic terms as an incorrigible agent of the employers, as much an instrument of the state as are the armed forces with their hierarchical officer caste. He fails to see the mass organisations of the working class dialectically in constant flux through internal antagonisms, in the dual role that was always implicitly recognised by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. On the one hand, Chappell is right; the right-wing trade union bureaucracy, as personified by Cooper, Cannon, Carron or Deakin, act as a policing agency for the ruling class over their own rank-and-file membership. But on the other hand, with the rising militancy of the workers, this role becomes, increasingly untenable, and the bureaucrats fall more and more under the remorseless pressings of their membership. To protect the source of their privileges, they are forced to reflect superficially the radicalised mood of the workers, if only to betray it the more effectively. In the process they are compelled to concede some elementary reforms, which in turn prepare the ground for their replacement by elements closer to the experiences and aspirations of the workers.

In 1926, Havelock Wilson, General Secretary of the NUS [National Union of Seamen], which incidentally remained a semi-company union up to the recent period, ordered the seamen to remain at work. Many thousands ignored him and joined the General Strike. Subsequently the NUS was expelled from the TUC. Today the NUS can be considered to be moving to the left. The events of 1961 and 1966 serve as an indication that once the members become radicalised and put pressure upon the leaders, then they have to move with the pressure or the leadership will get changed.

Anyone who considers himself a socialist and is not prepared to work inside the unions with reactionary leaders can in no way be classed as revolutionary. Lenin once said "that if necessary we work within these unions in order to win those backward elements to socialism."

Is it not true that the structure of the G&M at the Pilkington factory since the strike has undergone far-reaching changes, even though they leave a great deal to be desired. Cooper was forced to concede one of the main demands put forward by the rank-and-file Committee, i.e. a branch for each of the six factories in St. Helens, thus allowing the members the basic right to voice their opinions in the branch. If the leading elements had stayed in the G&M then their other demands - removing the "Company" stewards and replacing them with the Rank & File Committee members; branch committee members to be elected by the branch (thus ending the appointment system operated by the Regional Secretary); and capturing the nine seats allocated to the St. Helen's group on the glass NJC - would have been achieved; for the very obvious reason that the rank and file gave unswerving support to the strike leaders during the dispute!

Is it not also true that shortly after the Pilkington's strike 4,000 GMWU members in the GKN Sankey Group in Shropshire, who had never previously been involved in strike action came out demanding £5 a week increase, and stayed out for six weeks with official support from the union? During the recent local authority workers' strike also, which cost the G&M £400,000 in strike benefits!, the union leadership were forced to involve the members to a point - unprecedented in the past - of holding delegate conferences. And during the recent Electrical supply claim the leaders were forced to report back to a delegate conference on two occasions!

If Comrade Chappell requires further proof of the tremendous movement now taking place inside this Union, last year twenty-one strikes were recognised as Official (significantly more than any other union) which cost £700,000 in strike benefit! In 1967 the G&M paid over £27,000 in benefit!

We know of course this does not signify a revolutionary change in the G&M leaders; but it does reflect, a significant change of mood by the rank and file membership of that union and once this pressure is exerted from below the leaders are forced to move in that direction.

The fact is, Comrade Chappell, that a new awakening is taking place in the G&M. An awakening, that unfortunately, the militants who led the Pilkington strike are now excluded from participating in and giving conscious leadership.

This new mood among the workers and the relationship of their TU officials started some four or five years ago in the AEU [Amalgamated Engineering Union] and the T&G, and now is catching on in the formerly most conservative Unions like the G&M. In the coming period it will gain strength and find its expression in the ETU and USDAW [Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers], etc. Let me remind Comrade Chappell that a few short years ago the AEF [Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry Workers] was among the most reactionary of Trade Unions. Lord Carron reigned supreme; Carron's law was the order of the day. Today things are somewhat different. Is Comrade Chappell suggesting that during Carron's reign, the militant shop stewards should have led their members outside the AEF? If this had been done, then what would the position have been today? Likewise with the T&G. Even during the time of Frank Cousins this Union failed to reflect the mood of its most advanced members: for a time it continued the banning of members of the Communist Party from holding office; but under the pressure of events, the union now stands to the left of the trade union movement. Some workers, however, did leave the T&G. They formed the NASD, the Blue Union, but more about that later.

The Rule Book

Comrade Chappell refers to the G&M rulebook and wonders if it will ever be changed or is it possible to change it. A perusal of the rulebook does indeed show that it is a document needing radical change in order to ensure a move in the direction of democratising the union. To a great extent the rules provide for a self-perpetuating bureaucracy and quite obviously for the G&M membership this means a struggle to amend the rulebook. But Comrade Chappell should be aware that numerous branches of that union have in fact already tabled amendments which will be discussed later this year at the G&M annual Conference. They illustrate the growing demand of the members for democracy. One of the many amendments calls for the election of all officials, subject to recall - re-election every two years, their wage to be based on the average skilled workers' pay, etc. Perhaps they will not be carried, but once again they indicate a movement within that union, a movement which needs direction, and a movement from which Comrades Potter and Caughey are now excluded because they followed the advice of the IS. Comrades Potter and Caughey, I believe, recognise their mistakes in relation to this aspect of the struggle. (See Socialist Worker, 10th October, 1970).

During the strike Militant supporters discussed with the rank and file committee the question of staying in and linking up with those other sections fighting for democracy. If this had been done, then the St. Helen's factory branches could have been the established basis of the left move within that union. Some of the strike leaders, in personal discussion, admitted at that time that this would have been the most obvious thing to do, but as this had not been fully discussed with the St. Helen's glassworkers, in desperation they took the advice of the IS and led the movement for opting out of the G&M. Had the glassworkers' federation been successful in forming their own union, then quite obviously the management would have been able to play one section off against the other. Because this move was doomed to failure - and not for the reasons Comrade Chappell has pointed out - the G&M bureaucrats, in liaison with the Pilkington management, re-employed these glassworkers with the loss of their pension rights and union benefits.

Comrade Chappell has a mechanical approach to TU democracy. Democracy concerns more than an alteration of the rulebook; it concerns the involvement of workers in struggle. How was Carron able to dominate the AEU? The answer is simple. It was because Carron held office during a period of relative prosperity; during a period when because of this prosperity the membership was inactive, not involved. But economic circumstances have changed; the members started to move, and hence the election of Scanlon. "Ah!" says Comrade Chappell "but the AEF has a democratic rulebook". This is true to a great extent. But it still didn't stop Carron from putting it aside and getting away with it. Carron committed the greatest sin possible in the AEF: he over-ruled the Final Appeals Court and got away with it; this would be almost impossible at the moment. In short, democracy is more than the rulebook; it is concerned with the participation of workers who are moving in a more radical direction, and a leadership of such workers should involve them in the course of struggle for a change in rules.

Might I add, Comrade Chappell, that even when the left wing have control of a Union, if the workers are not involved in struggle then bureaucracy can thrive. The bureaucrats can still have control in certain areas of the AEUW. Certain districts of this union are most right-wing in their attitudes, despite the apparent control of the district committees by the left. In short, when the leadership has an inadequate base among the members. Such is the immensity of the work which the D.C.s [District Committees] have to do, that they become rubber stamps for the officials. But when the workers move, officialdom is swept aside.

The Blue Union

What are the "lessons of the Blue Union", asks Comrade Chappell. The lessons of the Blue Union are many. Is Comrade Chappell not aware that, prior to the formation of the Blue Union in 1956, on the Liverpool Docks there was 100% membership of the TGWU? At the time of writing there are large pockets of non-unionism on the docks (some estimates put it as high as 20%) and this is a result of the formation of the Blue. What happened was quite simple: thousands left the T&G and joined the Blue, thousands more left and joined no union at all. At the moment there are three groups on the Liverpool docks: T&G members, non unionists and NASD members, with many of the latter holding two cards.

Comrade Chappell suggests that all the militancy on the docks stems from the existence of the Blue. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are that on the Liverpool docks, almost every single militant is a member of the T&G. In relation to the Devlin recommendations, which propose large scale redundancies, shift work, etc., the Blue Union were prepared to accept the report almost in its entirety; simply because it offered them limited recognition. It might also be worthy of mention at this stage that Blue Union shop stewards have only limited recognition by the employers. Their authority as stewards ends at shipboard level. When it comes to negotiating with the employers, they are debarred from participation. Under these circumstances their work as leaders of the working class is hampered by unnecessary fetters.

Comrade Chappell thinks it worthless but the Blue Union has no voice on the TUC. I cannot agree with his attitude. It is true, that the TUC is no general staff of labour. It plays a reactionary role on most issues and acts as a fetter on the development of the movement. Nonetheless, many genuine militant workers have illusions in the TUC and work within its ranks. To say that it has no role is to abandon it and once again divorce oneself from the very people we are trying to influence, i.e., genuine rank-and-file militants. It is necessary to have a voice within its ranks, and to demand that it live up to its historic responsibilities in giving leadership to the entire movement.

Other Tendencies

It would indeed be a great pity if we adopted Comrade Chappell approach to a discussion on other tendencies. I am not concerned to argue in childish terms of "we are bigger than you". This would be degeneration of politics. The criticisms I made of other political tendencies were criticisms of a programme, or lack of a programme, for workers in struggle. I am well aware that many workers hold allegiance to the Communist Party, the Tribune group and even the IS.

Tribune

What was the position of Tribune in relation to the Pilkington dispute? Tribune has made no secret of its political programme. It sees itself not as an organisation which proffers a lead to workers in dispute, but simply as a radical left-wing newspaper, with an emphasis on objective factual news. It offers a platform to the most diverse elements to put forward their ideas (including Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle).

In specific relation to the Pilkington dispute, it gave plentiful reports of events, opening its pages to John Potter, one of the leading elements in the dispute. Tacitly they thus approved his actions without commitment. Oh! No doubt Tribune can argue that at no time did they ever say "we support the breakaway from the G&M." But neither did they warn the Pilkington workers against such action and draw the lessons of similar mistakes made in the past.

The Communist Party

Like Tribune, the Morning Star reported the dispute daily; every move in the dispute was covered at length. But, like Tribune also, as a newspaper giving objective news. Once again, no advice was given on the direction which the workers should take, no attempt to inform the Pilkington workers of the experience of the Blue Union. No doubt too, like Tribune, they can absolve themselves from blame by suggesting that they did not support the breakaway but only "reported the facts". Such a claim by Tribune is at least plausible as they claim no other role, but the C.P.G.B. claims the leadership of the working class.

'International Socialism'

From the outset the "International Socialists" grouping, as we have previously said, played an influential role in the Pilkington dispute. A number of IS supporters were regularly on the picket lines issuing leaflets etc., and generally supporting the struggle. But the credit they earned in this manner was completely negated by the criminal irresponsible ideas that they poured into the minds of the leaders of the dispute, which were eventually passed on to the Pilkington workers: ideas which directly resulted in the present state of affairs at St. Helen's.

The culmination of the IS activities at Pilkington's was the publication of a pamphlet by Colin Barker entitled "The Pilkington Strike". It is a "Socialist Worker" pamphlet. We can assume without hesitation that it lays down the official IS line.

Barker poses three alternatives for the Pilkington workers. First of all, he says, they could stay in the G&M and form an opposition movement within but he dismisses this as impractical. "Can the GMWU be reformed from within? The obvious answer is to say no, since the right-wing bureaucracy has so many safeguards built into the constitution to prevent militants getting into influential positions, since the rules prohibit organisation between branches, and since history shows now the NEC can chop off and re-organise any sections whose policies, etc. it does not like". But then Comrade Barker does an apparent about-turn. He goes on to say: "Nonetheless there are 800,000 workers in the GMWU and it is useless to suggest that they should just sit there and take it. What is needed is a real fight inside the union over a long period probably to re-introduce the basic principles of trade unionism into that organisation, to clean the union up".

Comrade Barker and the IS should be more specific. Are they staying in the GMWU or not?

Alternative number two, says Colin Baker, is to leave the G&M and form a breakaway Union based on the glass industry. On this issue he isn't quite sure what to do as a perusal of the first section of page 22 of his pamphlet will show. He points out some of the advantages of such a move, i.e. "On first sight this (idea) has obvious attractions: the rulebook could be a genuine democratic one from the start, the members would not be bound to sets of procedures and officials they distrust, etc." He goes on to mention many of the snags, and concludes the passage as follows: "All in all, the prospect of an independent union for glassworkers does not seem very encouraging. Those who proclaim this idea should look up the history of other attempts of this kind."

Once again no commitment from Comrade Barker. I suspect that Comrade Barker is against such a move now that the damage has been done. But this most certainly is not the position that was held by the IS during the actual events.

The third alternative is to join the TGWU. But, says Comrade Barker, it won't be easy and, once in, no problems will be solved. However, there are differences between the T&G and the G&M. They are only small but they are there, and if you do get into the T&G it will only be with the help of other workers. These are the comments of the IS at this stage. But yet again we have no recommendation from the author; just the simple posing of three alternatives with a few of the pros and cons thrown in.

In short the IS pamphlet is a typical academic production; it explores some of the avenues in a completely abstract manner. Its conclusions, so far as they exist, are merely ideas which are dangled in the air from which the workers may take their pick. And such is the general approach of the IS to work within the Labour Movement.

The pamphlet in other ways too illustrates just how far out of touch the IS are in regard to our movement. For instance, Comrade Barker believes that the ETU is moving to the right. Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise Comrade Barker believes that the "Closed Shop" is a tool in the hands of the employers. Ironically, at this stage the Tory government agrees with Comrade Barker that the Closed Shop should be abolished, and at the same time the entire Trade Union movement is fighting for the safeguarding of the Closed Shop, a condition it has struggled [for] for years.

Conclusion

These then, Comrade Chappell, are my criticisms of the tendencies involved in the Pilkington dispute. They have no other intention than to clarify the issues, to draw the correct conclusions for the benefit of the Labour Movement. In my article in the Militant I attempted to do that. Perhaps within the technical limitations of such a publication it was done inadequately. However, I did categorically state that to leave the G&M would be incorrect and would only lead to fiasco. And finally, that the line of action should take place within the G&M which under the pressure of its members will move to the left at a later stage. Events have confirmed the validity of my approach.

[Originally published as "Marxism and the Pilkington Strike" in Militant International Review, No. 4, Summer, 1971]