BLAZING A TRAIL TO CORPORATISM

This week the Post Office unions' bulky case for a 'catching-up' increase under Phase Three of the Tory pay laws is expected to arrive at the Pay Board.

It will take the board some time to digest. But the most important point about the case is not its length, which is considerable, but its role as a pacemaker in the unions' rush towards corporatism.

The six unions involved enjoy the doubtful distinction of being the first across the Pay Board's threshold with a Phase Three claim.

The man who must bear chief responsibility for this move is Tom Jackson, general secretary of the big Union of Post Office Workers.

But he has enjoyed the tacit support, or at least silence, of 'lefts' and Communist Party members on the UPW executive; their role, and that of their co-thinkers in the leaderships of the other five unions, must not be forgotten.

Uther evidence ot the corporatist trend in the Post Office union leaderships was revealed at last month's annual conference of the UPW, held well out of reach of the main concentrations of postmen counter clerks and telephonists in Douglas, Isle of Man.

Delegates lacea a situalon n.1. [and in which their leaders had just accepted a Phase Two pay deal, without a fight and without consulting them. Their real earnings had been cut and, as a result of the leadership's .und.. Analina aalinine prouucuvny-utdung poncice, the 'potential membership' of the union had been cut to an estimated 208,000.

It was not surprising, therefore, that the feelings of the membership should be reflected in a number of defeats for the executive council.

But here again the 'lefts' and the Stalinists of the CP came to the rescue, despite the vicious witch-hunt launched against them by Jackson on Saturday, May 19.

Thus the EC was able to gain approval for its decision to go to the Pay Board and, postal mechanization excepted, it was not prevented from pushing ahead with more productivity deals.

Like ine actual submission of the Phase Three case this week, the conference revealed the urgency of building the revolutionary • alternative to the present leadership:

Throughout the first two days of conference, delegates speaking Onl rules revision ananhina malar namicinu urged some redress in the balance of power between the conference floor and the platform.

Marginally, they were successful. Amendments of direct annncition. will ho allaund to UpPUSuUl wIll uE alurcu LU future EC recommendations, and where amendments have been composited into one the right of reply to the debate will rest with the mover of the amendment rather than the EC.

The logical proposal to extend the same right to the movers of all amendments to EC recommendations fell to Jackson's witch-hunting.

Clearly the EC felt at this point that their ability to defend their corporatist record was too much in danger to rely on the formal logic of Citrine.

Delegates such as Bridgewater JP Bert Reid, who had previously waxed eloquent join battle for the real defence of democratic rights-the right of Communist Party, Socialist Labour League and International Socialist factions to fight for their policies at conference.

Delegates like Reid were only too eager to rush to rostrum to proclaim moderation of their views and their sole allegiance to Labour Party.

It was one such dele; ¡ate, John Taylor from Lon 10n, who, on a point of order, cut short the condemnation Jackson's remarks which an SLL member was making.

Such sensitivity did not prevent the defeat of the amendvent the dereal or tne amenaCommunist Party members likewise refused to rise to the defence of democratic rights.

They insisted that to demand that Jackson withdraw his remarks woulu only vt playing anananal, ...ld aml.. into the hands of a provocation, adding that in any case Jackson could not possibly have made his statement with the permission of the EC.

If this was so, of course, it was the responsibility of CP members on the EC to descend to the rostrum and speak out.

Indeed an EC member was to do precisely that during a later debate on mechanization. But EC Stalinists Maurice Styles and Les Hewitt remained silent on the witchhunt.

Not only did the Stalinists refuse to speak out.

Following the repetition of the witch-hunting remarks, deputy general secretary • Norman Stagg in the following Monday's London 'Evening News', Communist Party memhers were discouraged from entering any of the crucial debates on 'Adpost' : productivity and mechanization.

The Party did not, however, prevent one of its leading Scottish members, Jim Birnie, from advocating the EC line that 'Adpost' should be accepted as a possible way of preventing the reductions of services and loss of postmen's jobs.

Just as the workers in the UCS fought the clowns on the Clyde, so we have the right to fight for our jobs,' he said.

Similarly, on an earlier, successful motion to terminate the recruitment of female and of part-time labour, he preferred to oppose it, claiming that it could lead to the loss of services and the cutting of 20,000 jobs, rather than take up the question of defending both jobs and conditions together.

The refusal of both reformist and Stalinist speakers at conference to take up the defence of democratic rights, and the defence of the right to work, was responsible for the success of the EC line on productivity and wages.

Although 'Adpost' was rejected, the EC constantly played on the real fear of many delegates that a refusal to explore and accept productivity deals in many areas of work would result in considerable job losses.

John Taylor, moving the ban unity of the working class, not executive that, on the evidence, Concern ai the UPW leadership's on all productivity deals until the courts, can get rid of cor- the enemy is the Post Office. policies produced several votes the Post Office produced 'There is no evidence to against the platform (left) at the five-year plan for the future It's a lie that trade union suggest that the government recent annual conference. This of the whole post and tele- demands have ought to do has got its hands round the was despite the witch-hunting communications industry, in- with inflation. Let's smash neck of the Post Office.' efforts of (above left and centre) sisted that the motion was not this roten Tory government.' On February 1 Jackson depuly secretary Norman Stagg opposed in principle to pro- Jackson and the UPW leader- clarified his position even fur- and secretary Tom Jackson, and ership, of course, stand dia- ther, again in an interview with the silence on this issue of Stalinist Maurice Styles (right).

Consequently a succession metrically opposed to this of speakers from inland teleg- 'As to bringing the governraphist grades rose to explain During, the Post Office ment down, he said, I think son made this attack, and for whatever reasons the Stalinists ance of productivity or exter- that they faced either accept- strike of 1970, at a time when Tory Ministers were whipping following a mini-General Strike that a government going to bat are in fact preparing a rod for chose not to reply to him, both mination. The only answer the up the middle class with in- would probably win hands reformists could give was that flammatory speeches about 'the The fight for revolutionary exceptions would have to be monster of inflation', the union 'That's the nature of the politics in the unions, and the secretary issued a categorical British voter. I don't believe defence of the right to conduct The move to ban product- denial that his members' fight that the trade union movement that fight, is a vital task for ivity deals was thus defeated, was against the government. can force a General Election every single trade unionist in but the issue was immediately 'We had suspected we were and hope that the left will win the struggle against the Tories' brought to life again with the up against the government and corporate state plans. successful reimposition of a that the government was This, essentially, was the ban on letter and parcel exercising its influence upon justification for winding up the the Post Office,' he said. Post Office strike. And this has Defending his defiance of 'Now we know we are just now become the justification the same decision last year up against the Post Office. The for going to the Pay Board.

Jackson stated: 'I would do fact that agreement has not At the UPW special conferthe same tomorrow if I had been reached is not the fault ence in February of this year, of the Ministry or the Minister, Jackson addressed himself He later told the 'Morning both of whom have worked to specifically to the alternatives Star' that the decision could produce circumstances in facing the labour movement. mean the end of the parcels which a settlement could be The first was to negotiate "a better deal' with the Tory In lengthy debate on wages, Backing for this view came government on the basis of nd Oring ruption. ing ial ctductivity deals. er, ing position. lie, ine remade. he he tc 1Cate nd mechanization. rethe lads would streets.

'In this situati Party would not dustrial Relatiol remain on the and Britain wo even more react ment than at pr At Douglas, tł reformist philos the justification the Pay Board a to silence all such corporatis down. witch-hunting thi unionists to l views and organ in their defence.

This is a m and sinister dev‹ it.' For whatever be out in the ion the Labour t win. The Inns Act would Statute Book ould have an ionary governesent.' is reactionary, sophy became for going to and attempting opposition to it moves by their own backs. e right of trade hold political lize factionally ost dangerous elopment. reasons Jack-