Strikes of the 1970's

[berniedicters]

Do you have to present such blatent bullshit with such a nice smile?

I do apologise. I saw an interesting thread, with some rather naive ideas presented in the OP, and thought I'd contribute.

If I'd realised how much I was going to offend you by doing so, perhaps I wouldn't have bothered.

 

[danny la rouge]

This is what they did:

What was engineered - in Marxist terms - was a crisis of capitalism which re-created the reserve army of labour, and has allowed the capitalist to make high profits ever since.

Alan Budd - economic advisor to Thatcher

Precisely.

 

[London_Calling]

Clearly it was unsustainable that organised labour could continue to have 'too much' power. However, that value measure, 'too much', is a ruling class judgment. The narrative we now have is the post-Thatcher consensus that organised labour 'needed' to be challenged. And thus we have even the party formed by the unions in order to deliver working class representation in parliament agreeing with the Thatcherite anti union measures, and extending them. In job security terms, we are back in the days described Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, but without the working class organisation and solidarity. We are atomised. Which is 'right', of course. You're not meant to get together to do things, you're meant to be on your own.

There is a quite different question about whether union bureaucracies themselves turn into ossified power structures. And, of course, they do. But that wasn't what was tackled by the Thatcher measures. So now what we have is the professional union bosses in place (of course) - as an 'arms length' part of HR, but with the rank and file left with much less power in their hands (of course).

You are though answering several questions not asked.

I was asking if you honestly believed Thatcher wasn't a reaction by the electorate to TU excess. I'd argue she was and that that point is not deniable.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

the lady who led the print union

Brenda Dean iirc

 

[London_Calling]

Brenda Dean iirc

As was. Now Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and a Privy Councillor.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Blimey! I had no idea. I just assumed she'd retired into obscurity. I shall have to see what she's been up to. I feel woefully uninformed about things that aren't directly connected to the things I feel strongly about (children & disability issues).

 

[oryx]

As a teenager in the 70s the thing I remember above all else is the three-day week, which happened under a Conservative government.

I don't remember unburied corpses or uncollected rubbish but that may be because it didn't affect the area I lived in at the time especially badly.

My guess (I was too young and not politically aware enough to analyse it at the time) would be that people in the 70s viewed strikes as they do now, in that some think the TUs are the root of all evil and some support workers after a fair pay & conditions deal. (The three-day week and Winter of Discontent were both based around pay).

'In the general election held in February 1974 the Conservative campaign emphasised the dispute with the miners and used the slogan "who governs Britain?". The election resulted in the Conservatives losing seats and Labour becoming the largest party in the Commons, but without an overall majority. Heath failed to secure sufficient parliamentary support from the Liberal and Ulster Unionist MPs, and Harold Wilson returned to power for his second term.'

I've just got that off Wikipedia and it shows an interesting perspective on the question you're asking.

 

[newbie]

My guess (I was too young and not politically aware enough to analyse it at the time) would be that people in the 70s viewed strikes as they do now,

not really. there were two words in very common circulation then which have more or less vanished now, but which made a huge difference to how strikes were viewed.

differential
demarcation

 

[oryx]

not really. there were two words in very common circulation then which have more or less vanished now, but which made a huge difference to how strikes were viewed.

differential
demarcation

But were they in common usage by the general public and rank & file union members?

(& anyway, what do they mean?!)

 

[ViolentPanda]

The trade unions created Thatcher by pissing everyone off in the country enough to vote Tory.

No, not really. If you look back through British political history from Thatcher's entry into politics onward, and assess the statistics for labour strikes, then measure the data against media reportage, you'll find that what created the apparent need for a politician of Thatcher's ilk was actually the way trades unionism was represented by the media.

 

[newbie]

they were part and parcel of a large proportion of strikes- not every one but enough that they came to symbolise the 'sick man of europe' mentality..

differential: the difference in pay rates between different groups of workers, which may belong to the same or different unions. As group A won a pay increase so group B saw their differential eroded and started to campaign for more money, meanwhile group C saw the higher paid A & B get even further away and also started to agitate. All good, but only really applicable in heavy industry; groups outside that saw few or none of the increases.

demarcation: where one job, and one union, ends and the next begins. Management wanted each task done most 'efficiently', by getting the lowest paid and lowest skilled worker to do as much as possible, or a single worker to do a variety of tasks (eg all the construction, mechanical fitting and electrics for a particular installation). Unions engaged in demarcation disputes to keep those tasks separate and in the hands of their members, so construction, fitting and electrics would be done by three different people. Again, this was only really applicable to the heavy industries, many of which were nationalised and subsidised from taxation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You honestly think Thatcher wasn't a reaction to perceived (by the general public) TU excess?

Of course she was, but the point is that rather than her being a "creation" of trades unionism's perceived excesses, she was a creation of a combination of the right-wing media, her own particular brand of right-toryism and of the political circles she moved in.

 

[oryx]

they were part and parcel of a large proportion of strikes- not every one but enough that they came to symbolise the 'sick man of europe' mentality..

differential: the difference in pay rates between different groups of workers, which may belong to the same or different unions. As group A won a pay increase so group B saw their differential eroded and started to campaign for more money, meanwhile group C saw the higher paid A & B get even further away and also started to agitate. All good, but only really applicable in heavy industry; groups outside that saw few or none of the increases.

demarcation: where one job, and one union, ends and the next begins. Management wanted each task done most 'efficiently', by getting the lowest paid and lowest skilled worker to do as much as possible, or a single worker to do a variety of tasks (eg all the construction, mechanical fitting and electrics for a particular installation). Unions engaged in demarcation disputes to keep those tasks separate and in the hands of their members, so construction, fitting and electrics would be done by three different people. Again, this was only really applicable to the heavy industries, many of which were nationalised and subsidised from taxation.

That's interesting........I've never heard of 'demarcation' used in that sense before but have certainly heard of the concept.

So when you say they made a difference in how strikes were viewed, were they flagged up in the media as examples of TU bureaucracy/intransigence (a bit like the 'health and safety/political correctness gone mad!' concept more common today)?

 

[berniedicters]

Of course she was, but the point is that rather than her being a "creation" of trades unionism's perceived excesses, she was a creation of a combination of the right-wing media, her own particular brand of right-toryism and of the political circles she moved in.

To misquote Voltaire...

"If Thatcher did not exist, it would be necessary to invent her"

Or at least someone like her.

 

[nightbreed]

they were part and parcel of a large proportion of strikes- not every one but enough that they came to symbolise the 'sick man of europe' mentality..

.

Getting up to date, will the banks now replace the unions symbolically in the 'sick man of Europe mentality. I reckon the behaviour of the banks in recent times and all their excesses far exceeds anything the entire UK union movement did in the 70s.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The problem was that many weren't democratic. They had done what happens so often in this kind of group - only the radicalised ever went for the elected offices, and a vicious cycle of radicalisation followed as the membership felt less and less represented by those officials, who were adopting a more and more political line, and so tended not to vote. Ultimately, many unions were striking and speaking out on an almost purely political basis.

While I'd agree that some unions were less than democratic, and that "entryism" into the union power structure was often practiced by some of the so-called "far left", occasionally to great success, I'd say that many if not most unions managed to walk the line between the need to represent their interests of their members and the necessity (bearing in mind the Labour party's historical purpose) of exerting influence on policy in line with those interests. Some union leaders (left and right) turned their organisations into personal fiefdoms, sure, but the media claims, measured against the reality, show that it was a minority, not the organised "red" conspiracy of the right's nightmare fantasies.

I was a teenager in the early 80s, and just beginning to become politically aware. I can well remember the sense of shock I got from realising that unions's core purpose wasn't to operate as part of the political hierarchy, but to represent their members' interests. Many of the strikes of the 1970s had been politically motivated - albeit tangentially about protecting jobs - and the "coming out in sympathy" disputes and the ideological tone of a lot of the rhetoric was undeniably political.

I think you're mistaking old and established solidaristic practices (sympathy/secondary strikes) with politically-motivated malice.
By the way, the very purpose of the formation of the Labour party was to give a party political voice to the trade unions, so operating as part of the "political hierarchy" was very much a part of the job of the trade union bosses.

I was outraged at what Margaret Thatcher did to the labour market, both then and now. But in a way they presented her with no option - a lot of unions were pretty nakedly pursuing some kind of class war agenda, and they HAD to be tackled head-on and have their teeth pulled.

There's no "had to" about it, IMO. Economic circumstance would have caused the unions to wind in their necks by about 1982 anyway. What Thatcher did was not to "pull the teeth" of unions, but to cripple (or, if at all possible, kill) them in order to facilitate a shift to a neo-liberal economic mode

Thatcher did that - she just went on to utterly destroy a lot of the core industries from which the more militant unions drew their support - coal, steel, and so on. I don't know if that was ideology, market forces, or sheer bloody-mindedness, but it has left us as a country with a dependency on foreign manufacturing and home-grown service industries which worries me...

It was ideology, the prescriptions and proscription of the "Chicago School" economists combined with a thoroughly middle-class loathing of "the working man" and the fact that we dared exert a little bit of influence over power.

Think of the above as a personal impression from someone around - and just becoming aware - at the time, rather than a deeply-researched critique of 1970s labour relations...

I do, I do!

 

[Poi E]

So surely the policies of the Thatcher/Reagan era are partly responsible for the situation we are now in?

Don't we still have a lot of the polices of the Reagan/Thatcher era

Thatcher: sell it off, deregulate the city (that might change soon), fan of tax havens.

Reagan: spend like a motherfucker and pretend to be fiscally responsible.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because very little of what they were doing was about "trying to extend equality and raise living standards for ordinary people", and rather more was about "smash the bosses".

I remember very little "smash the bosses" rhetoric emerging from the trade unions in the mid to late 1970s, and rather more emanating from the Micro-Trot groups. You should bear in mind that many of the larger unions were more inclined to reaction than revolution. They were interesting in securing the "rightful dues" of their members, not in governing.

And - and I recognise that we may well disagree on this - "smashing the bosses" is no way to extend equality or raise living standards: one thing that most economic theorists recognise is that there needs to be some kind of engine of industry to provide an economy within which equality and prosperity can function. In my view, the unions, a lot of the time anyway, went about trying to achieve that in completely the wrong way - ludicrous demarcation disputes, politically-motivated actions, disproportionate strikes for ridiculous reasons, and often a complete unwillingness to work alongside employers to secure the best compromise for both sides.

With reference to "demarcation disputes", although folk myth tells us that most car plants struck at least twice a week on such matters, the reality of many such strikes was that they only ever came about when management attempted to redefine jobs outwith negotiation, i.e. attempting to circumvent prior agreements with the unions for their own purposes.
As for "complete unwillingness", given that both parties in any dispute had recourse to ACAS as a final binding arbitrator, such intransigence would have proved pointless.

 

[newbie]

So when you say they made a difference in how strikes were viewed, were they flagged up in the media as examples of TU bureaucracy/intransigence (a bit like the 'health and safety/political correctness gone mad!' concept more common today)?

a huge proportion, led by the Mail & Express viwed them as a communist plot, many of the rest just thought they were mad, or at least selfish. Arguments raged across what could be loosely called 'the left' about whether they were in the overall interests of the working class, bear in mind it was difficult to be critical because no-one (on the left) wanted to harm the interests of any group of workers actively engaged in struggle, but those members of the working class who were paying for the nationalised industries and watching this from afar were far from happy.

Getting up to date, will the banks now replace the unions symbolically in the 'sick man of Europe mentality. I reckon the behaviour of the banks in recent times and all their excesses far exceeds anything the entire UK union movement did in the 70s.

no, they're not really comparable. There's no seriously organised body of political opinion anything like as opposed to the bankers as there was to the unions throughout the 70s. They were demonised by the press, the tories, the IMF, everyone in Labour to the right of Barbara Castle and so on, and that's even before the '79 winter.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I do apologise. I saw an interesting thread, with some rather naive ideas presented in the OP, and thought I'd contribute.

If I'd realised how much I was going to offend you by doing so, perhaps I wouldn't have bothered.

Bah, it's when you know how much you're going to offend someone that you become obliged to bother!

 

[berniedicters]

Bah, it's when you know how much you're going to offend someone that you become obliged to bother!

Personally, I think the mistake I made was failing to notice that this was a thread in the politics forum - I usually avoid the place because of exactly that kind of reaction! Ah well, lesson learned

 

[tangentlama]

I am writing from an anarchist perspective.

I think you need to read William Godwin's Political Justice.

I don't see anarchism in your perspective yet. Keep trying.

 

[Shevek]

From what I read of Chomsky he seems to view unions as a progressive force. What I am driving at is that the union movements of the 1970's must have been progressive according to Chomsky's analysis. Why then was so much vitriol poured on them. Why is the period commonly viewed as the unions 'having too much power' surely it is better and more democratic that unions exercise power than big business.

 

[purplex]

We had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That really grated. Then there was the exposure of strike vote rigging. I remember (just) the power cuts under Heath.

I remember the candles, that was exciting, I was very young

As for going cap in hand, there was a series of global recessions in the 1970s, things didnt improve properly until the mid 80s. Thatcher and her policies had little to nothing to do with that. We were an industrialized nation but we couldnt sell if people werent buying and because of the poor economic environment people werent buying. Thatcher of course blamed Labours mismanagement of the economy which wasnt true(see US GDP data from the era for evidence) she lied to everyone, the recessions were global events as this one is. We cant just improve GDP and grow our receipts independently. We are simply a cog in the wheels of the global economy [/derail]

 

[danny la rouge]

You are though answering several questions not asked.

I was asking if you honestly believed Thatcher wasn't a reaction by the electorate to TU excess. I'd argue she was and that that point is not deniable.

From what I read of Chomsky he seems to view unions as a progressive force. What I am driving at is that the union movements of the 1970's must have been progressive according to Chomsky's analysis. Why then was so much vitriol poured on them. Why is the period commonly viewed as the unions 'having too much power' surely it is better and more democratic that unions exercise power than big business.

The point I was making in my post is that this > "if you honestly believed Thatcher wasn't a reaction by the electorate to TU excess. I'd argue she was and that that point is not deniable" is the New Right version. The Thatcherite consensus won, and so it is the received wisdom.

 

[newbie]

From what I read of Chomsky he seems to view unions as a progressive force. What I am driving at is that the union movements of the 1970's must have been progressive according to Chomsky's analysis. Why then was so much vitriol poured on them. Why is the period commonly viewed as the unions 'having too much power' surely it is better and more democratic that unions exercise power than big business.

"commonly viewed" by whom?

If you want a case study you could have a look at this site which has collected a timeline about British Leyland, using cuttings from the Times.

 

[Shevek]

The Thatcherite consensus won, and so it is the received wisdom.

Oh I see what you mean, thanks. I hI just been reading what London Calling has been saying in another thread about wages, saying that IT consultants and lawyers can earn as much as an MP virtually straight out of uni. I am a graduate and this doesn't reflect anything I could hope to earn. I think this represents the kind of stratified society we should seek to avoid.

 

[purplex]

Oh I see what you mean, thanks. I hI just been reading what London Calling has been saying in another thread about wages, saying that IT consultants and lawyers can earn as much as an MP virtually straight out of uni. I am a graduate and this doesn't reflect anything I could hope to earn. I think this represents the kind of stratified society we should seek to avoid.

my last partner is a solicitor and earned about 22k after 5 years of study, none of her mates from legal school earned anywhere near that either.
Consultants are often paid for the value they can add to a company either through savings they make or potential earnings. Its really very rare that anyone coming straight out of education earns those figures, particularly in IT, as new grads rarely have any level of experience. The city is an exception to most rules however.

 

[durruti02]

hi shevek good thread .. ok there is a few things out there written by the uk ultra left which argues we have a distorted view of that period ( from the media and thatcher ) and that it was a lot more progressive than it appears

( butchers do you have any links .. phoenix something??

 

[butchersapron]

Great texts on the Endnagered Phoenix and Revolt Against and Age of Plenty:

The Winter of Discontent: 1978-79 - should be read with Aspects of a History of the British Miners and Long Lost Wildcat Strikes in the UK and Notes on the Winter of Discontent 1979-80