New Approach to Industrial Democracy, by H.A. Clegg

[p021] A New Approach to Industrial De- mocracy, by H. A. Clegg. Basil Blackwell. 18s. 6d. Before the First World War, the U.S.A. Congress passed the Clayton Act. A sentence in this Act says: ‘The labour of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce’. This is the myth that employers all over the world use, in order to pro- tect their privilege and confuse the LABOUR REVIE W—October-November, 1960 worker about his status in society. Mr. Clegg carries the myth a stage further. On page 21 of his book he says ‘ownership of industry is irreley- ant to good industrial relations,’ Marxists say that a theory must be tested in practice. The motor car workers of Coventry and elsewhere in Britain know from their everyday living experience that Mr. Clegg is wrong. Even in present-day nation- alized industry, like the mines, the workers there, facing redundancy and possible decentralization, also know he is wrong. Here in Britain, with a population of some 50 million, a small minority own and control the means of pro- duction. This minority have the power to decide in which direction industry will develop. They can plan industry. They can plan redundancy, They can plan the closing of fac- tories, they can plan investment and the transferring of factories and in- dustries. And the workers? Well, they can have the democratic right to oppose. Because, says Mr. Clegg, ‘if the essence of democracy is opposi- tion, then changes in industrial MANAGEMENT cannot be of prime importance to industrial de- mocracy’ (page 29), But the truth of the matter is very different. There cannot be industrial democracy under private ownership. Mr. Clegg very competently outlines all the various developments in in- dustrial relations that were reported to the Vienna Congress in 1958. Britain, France, Germany. Yugo- slavia, Israel and the under-developed countries are all included in this sur- vey. The various types of industrial democracy are outlined: Joint Con- sultation, Collective, Bargaining, co- determination and consultation and, of course, Workers’ Councils. But as presented in this book they are all based on the acceptance of the pre- sent division of society between rulers and ruled, between those who own the enterprises and those who are permitted to oppose. Even this Opposition is of course only on con- dition that you have been able to so organize and grow in strength, that yeu can enforce consultation. All the types of industrial democ- racy outlined in this book are really attempts by the rulers of our society to gloss over the fact that the rela- tions of production are obsolete. The passing of every day brings further evidence of this. Every strike that occurs is a result of these out-of-date relations, It is fashionable nowadays to attack trade unions for causing strikes, for restrictive practices, for ca’canny, boycotts, etc. The real cause is to be found in the economic and social position of the working class in relation to other classes. They are the inferiors in society, they have less freedom, they are, de- pendent on employers. for many free- doms. If there are bad social condi- tions then it is the workers who have them, fatigue, frustration, imposi- tions on the freedom of workers by employers or absence of freedoms. We should never forget why and how trade unions were formed. They arose because of the dictatorship of the employers. They not only op- pose the bad aspects of our limited democracy, they stand for much more as anyone can see who cares to read the speeches in Trade Unions on the debates around Clause Four. The right to be consulted on in- dustrial decisions, or even to share in them is, I think, very valuable, but even more important for workers today is the right to take the deci- sions that will transform industry for the benefit of society as a whole. Today when the economy seems to be balanced so finely that every day brings its different crisis—fuel crisis, transport crisis, inflation crisis, ex- port crisis, and so on, right through- out the economy—the question of who takes the decisions is already on the agenda. Workers’ Control has not received the attention that it should from theoreticians in the Labour move- ment. There is a great deal more thinking and writing to be done about this, before we can say that we know how to harmonize the inter- ests of the worker as a producer, a consumer and a citizen. Outside of Yugoslavia, no other country in the world has introduced the method of workers’ control of management. Mr. Clegg, on page 84 of his book, says ‘there is, however, no logical connec- tion between democracy and effici- ency’. Yet in April this year, Presi- dent Tito was able to say that since 1953 Yugoslavia has more than doubled its production and the aver- age annual increase in industrial pro- duction was 12.5 per cent. This cer- tainly suggests that direct manage- ment of production by the producers

[p022] AUTUMN BOOKS can get better results than other methods. But this is not the whole of workers’ control. In the same speech Tito said: ‘To draw every individual into management, to give him the maximum of possibilities of seeing the results of his work, to judge and value them, means to turn him into an economically and socially free and independent man who lives on his work, and who is freed from all the vestiges of hired labour relations: JIM ROCHE. Background to Carron