venor's Committee in ate the strengths and ich shook Manchester passage from a much any of its lessons ch are taking place at To achieve this end, management used every opportunity attempts to isolate workers. One of their main weapons was a continuous flow of company letters to the homes of every individual worker. In a letter to all Hawker Siddeley workers they emphasised the weakness workers' position. example of the continuous per ot letter below is a management propaganda, employees engaged in the Manchester engineering dispute.
'You may find it interesting now the latest position in the district. Of the 250 Federated firms in our İssociation, 193 are now normally, 11 are working virtually Formally, 13 are suffering meaningful sanctions, 4 have some form of strike, 8 have laid off their workers who have gone home, and 21 have sit-ins.
'Of these working reached settlements and 6 include some small change in conditions as well, but in no case a reduction in working hours.
It has been claimed that Faireys rave agreed to reduce the veek in 1973. AllI can say is that their Chairman and their Director have assured the Federation That they have not agreed to this.......
• With the of the country naking reasonable progress settling the claim, it seems crazy for Manchester in general and Stockport ~ particular to throw common nd good wages to the wind in the ace of fair offers from employers. his can only do serious damage to he long term future of the district and s companies, discourage potential mployers from setting up in business ere, and encourage unemployment. This cannot be what the average man ants - when will they say so? Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited, lanchester letter to all imployees, 25 April 1972)
Even though these letters presented the workers' ey played a major cological wartare for breaking down orkers resistance. The only defence gainst this type anda was the newssheet produced by Socialists (foreanner of the SWP).
This newssheet attempted -ordination of the larger factories, at with a circulation of only ten lousand, it failed to reach a major coportion of the workers.
While workers faced this uneven ruggle -WIC has ask revented national trade ders from mobilising sistance. Two major reasons stand (1) At time had. ntemplated an pute. Events, however, overtook em. The Manchester tiated by rank and file members satisfied by the inactivity nonal level. The Manchester action s therefore outside of their control. are their of the sent to all to working normally, 37 working Managing burden of national leaders the in the struggle, they sense Manchester success national end in contro This their disadvantage mis- massive defeat that. the inflicted position, part in the workers have learned from working class struggles.
propa6€ The 1972 sit-ins during that they also aspects national period, while (hers action was beginning of a new chapter.
the post-war shop stewards ment.
(2) Once Manchester accepted the leadership, it allowed opportunity of sitting back to watch developments. If the workers appeared to be winning labour, could force the EEF back round the table in a weakened ›osition, and so take credit for th On the other hand if Manchester failed they could step in and agree to a settlement, while blaming the Manchester workers for the weakness of their position at the bargaining table. In either case they become would be able to come out of it at the position laken by the national leadership was an obvious the Manchester sit-ins. It played a major part in the employers workers. The HIcssons these defeats will become evident in future alternative political tended , belong to the history of struggle between labour and capital. Much of what occurred Even so, months was unexceptional. It would have happened in any strike. But there were of that struggle which working represented the end of one historical ideology, signified the beyond The sit-ins were a massive blow to move- industry The post-war boom enabled workers to gain economic concessions - skilled by exerting pressure at the point of production. Particularly in industries such as engineering, where there was a continuous shortage of skilled workers could to a certain extent play off one employer against In engineering the struggle workers took place on a plant by plant basis. Because in the main gains were achievable at this level, workers neglected to co-ordinate on For national level. Plant bargaining enabled shop stewards to the natural leaders engineering workers.
As evidence the Donovan Commission (1965/68) noted;
power has moved away in trade unions from the top, from the Ter tuner officials, particularly from the national officials, and in fact power is now concentrated on the shop floor, and it is concentrated in the shop steward.
This shift established shop stewards that took place in the 1950s and early 1960s increased the militancy of engineering workers and responsible in part for the reputation that British industry had of being 'strike-prone'.
This type of militancy disguise IneT overall weakness and lack of organisation. Shop stewards were the spearhead of whatever the limitations of their political ideology - and on the whole it was reformist if the organisation and practicé to unite the class hạd too, would have gone simple economic unionism.
The plant by plant maustry by divisions of the working class, as well as divisions between and unskilled, men women, black and white workers are the effects of the organises the working class attempts to dominate it.
This domination is reflected in the labour movement, where sectionalism is incorporated in the organisational by structure of all trade unions. The 1972 sit-ins attempted to restrictions of sectionalism. Engineering shop stewards an between factories. But they wine ion made attempts able to develop any real alternative of union bureaucrats meant that many stewards only felt loyalty to workers within their own destroyed any real between factories.
The failure of shop stewards to move away from traditional practice was a significant point in the final defeat of the Manchester the also removed any illusion that some socialists held about shop stewards benguard of the working class being future The Manchester sit-ins that this hope was utopian. What was revealed was the reformist attitude of the trade union movement, which was only part of its historical foundations.
While the working class struggled to overcome the reformism, the carefuly examining its own weakness. In 1965/68 thé Royal Commission on Trade Unions, chaired Donovan defect in British industrial relations is their the disorder in factory and workshop relations and pay structures promoted trade by the conflict between the formal and the informal systems.... Certain features of trade union structure and government have helped to inflate the power of work-groups and stewards.
attack strikes, reducing The (1964/70) was 1968)
ensured leaders Hon government confrontation of way capitalism in its overcome the the sit-ins:
in Manchester co-ordination happen again.
factory, which co-ordination sit-ins. It revolutionary showed have agreements strong of fight. bourgeoisie stewards. by Lord 'The central working class.
. such as and shopdesperate loud and clear. Capitalism needed to regain control of the labour process at the point of production. This problem became even more pressing as British moved into economic recession. Unemployment, speed-ups and the removal of restrictive working practices were deemed necessary to working •class. The organised opposition to this came through ' unofficial led by shop stewards So defeat or regulation of rank and file leaders became the main ingredient for reforming collective bargaining.
Since 1968 government legislation industry been aimed at unofficial strikes, and through that the power of shop.
stewards. This was first attempted by a Labour government in 1968, and again by a Tory government in 1971.
Labour
Borerinci the first to attempt legislation against unofficial strikes.
Their White Paper (In Place of Strife, created massive opposition from rank and file activists, rightly appreciated that they were the main target of any legislation. :This that resistance was forthright than many trade • union probably intended Faced with this reaction from the working class, the Labour government agreed to drop legislation.
Even so, this did not prevent the new Conservative government (1970/ 74) from introducing the Industrial Relations Act (1971). The strategic intention of this legislation was to compel the unions themselves to discipline their members, to decrease the volatility of factory-based industrial relations, and thus to minimise the effective bargaining power of the rank and file shop stewards organisThe defeat of the Conservative government at the hands of the miners (1974). ensured that the new Labou based industria strategy on collaboration instead of Though even this attempt failed because of the refusal militant workers to accept responsibility for the crisis.
Defeat of this type of legislation overall strategy. They opted strengthening the trade union leader. ship's control over the shop-floor. This has been a necessary precondi tion for the collaboration of the trade unions and the state in its attempts to restructure British capitalism The 1972 sit-ins in Manchester demonstrated the weakness of the rade union moyement, given the xisting forms of organisation, bu these lessons were not missed by the more politically conscious stewards As one engineering steward called John Deason pointed out at the end of 'Every engineer in Manchester mus be aware by now that they were left in the lurch first by the national officials and later by the local ones. And unless we do something about this it could The only solution to these problems is to have the control of the unions and the dispute in the hands of the rank and file "The so-called left-wing leaders of the AUEW have made such a cock-up that they have opened the door to the return of the right wing and that is what we have to guard against at al costs by making sure we have real democracy in the union.
"There is no doubt that the result of the Manchester dispute has been to increase the unevenness factories rather than uniting them. This is going to make the struggle next year even harder because now we all run out at different times. The only answer is to start preparations now and mount a campaign for a national Events since th sit-ins have justified the fears of many militant Labour government returned to power in 1974 adopted the strategy of collaborating with the trade union leadership • to control the The working class has still to draw its lessons from struggles the Manchester sit-ins.
Reformisr still dominates the labour movement, the unions' leaders still have no strategy to go forward, and capitalism is getting more and more 20 S
JOSEPH MSIKA, secretary general of ZAPU THE liberation armed struggle in Zimbabwe has reached advanced stage indeed. The Patriotic Front forces are waging a relentless war with courage and determination.
have demonstrated b defeating first the UDI.
We have defeated lan Smith. Ian Smith was forced by the Patriotic Front lo change his tactics, realise that he did not change HICHLON. He has tried to use manoeuvres by woeing some of our unprincipled brothers in Zimbabwe to accept being used as political instruments in the fight against their own people. To this say shame, Shame Muzorewa. a naive bishop, a person who hasn't the foggiest idea of what it is 1o fight and liberate your country. (Voice from audience: Put him under ncary manwers.)..
Comrades, we know that you will ask me what is it that the Patriotic ‹Where were you, developed that into a council of both ZAPU very tees of both movements.
this by but we This right thrugh liberation armed struggle.
Bishop We called upon negative. remove Smith and decolonise. answer was negative... no she to co-ordinati and ZANU with the right to make decisions and answerable to joint executive commitWe have also organised a defence council made up of the command of both ZAPU and ZANU and they are in the process of making the necessary relations in order for us to fight the war as one Patriotic Front, because we realise this is an essential element in the revolutionary armed struggle.
Ine briush covernment ha for many years, since 1890, equivocated, prevaricaled ano laken a solneless stand when it came to taking their role as a colonising power in Zimbabwe, the history the them to take a stand to end UDI. The answer was We called apon them to The question today Britain coming up and telling us that take her right
----- pull-quotes -----
...not able to develop any real force "
Britain, since 1965?'