The Newsletter, vol. 6 no. 246

After Aldermaston:

EDITORIAL IS the bargaining over the terms of Britain's entry into the European Common Market approaches the time for decision, the inability of the Gaitskell leadership to produce any concrete policy on the question becomes more and more ludicrous. eir dilemma is pathetic. since be right-wing Labour leaders are entirely dependent on capitalism, they are unable to decide on questions where the ruling class itself is divided. le section of big business is frightened of losing traditional connections with markets and investments in the Commonwealth. The other sees its only hope in linking up with the growing economies of Western Europe. ș Macmillan Will be reminded in the course of his American discussions, the United States government, led by Gaitskell's hero, Kennedy, is pressing for closer ties between its European allies, so as to facilitate military preparations against the USSR. American capital would also be delighted to replace the older imperialists in the colonial countries. Meanwhile, European reaction prepares for battle against the Labour movement as the trade war grows hotter. This is what makes the otherwise comic indecision of the Labour leaders so dangerous. ne working class movement must prepare now for the coming struggles. In this preparation there can be no line-up with one or other section of Capital, nor must workers of different countries allow themselves to be played off against each other. le problems of Europe cannot be solved within the capitalist structure. European unity is possible only on a socialist basis. 1 the struggles on questions of wages and conditions must be seen in this light and made part of the fight to build a united socialist Europe. CND Needs Political Leadership By The Editor 100,000 anti-H-bomb demonstrators massed in Hyde Park, London, on Easter Monday, Mr. Gaitskell's friend, US President Kennedy, was giving the signal to his military chiefs to commence nuclear tests.

Many of those who marched called for talks between the great powers. Members of the Communist Party were busy shouting slogans for Summit negotiations.

Yet even the most ardent of these demonstrators must surely be forced to admit that the possibility that war can be outlawed by such talks is sheer nonsense.

In fact, the statesmen of Moscow and Washington have been shouting at each other ever since the Cold War began. And here we are once again on the verge of new tests. Mr. Gromyko has replied to Kennedy by stating that the Russians will also resume testing.

Limitations

The limitations of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the peace movement lie in their inability to understand that the threat of H-bomb war cannot be removed except through the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of socialism.

Mr. Gaitskell is at one with both Kennedy and Macmillan. He personifies those Labour right-wingers who far from wanting to get rid of capitalism are busy conforming to it.

The political speeches at the end of the Aldermaston demonstration only added to this confusion. Mr. Frank Cousins hailed the declaration of the Liberal leader Grimond that he opposed the H-bomb. But the Liberal Party stands to preserve capitalism. Mr. Cousins simply piles on the confusion.

The pacifists talk about MAY 21 1962

sponsoring candidates for Parliament in opposition to the Labour Party. Such woollyheads are a positive menace. They equate the millions • who vote Labour with Mr. Gaitskell.

A setback like the Blackpool conference last year sends them into a dither and they react by a pr licy which can only weaken 1 he Labour • p. 2, col.

on both Aldermaston and May Day marches, SOLALD LADUR AN STOP WORK C TO IN IMPERIALISM SUP WORK O Page Industria on both the need 1 action agai st e bomb is: Aldermastor May Day to integrate anti-bomb he t ma and eme of SI banners ches, thu stressing anti-Tory truggles. TT pr 28.1962 RECAN 1AS00R0

1tn second annual comterence THE second annual conference Sunday, demonstrated that the socialist policies.

In spite of a vicious witch-hunt launched in the private of the Young Socialists, and Mr. George Brown's exhortations the conference overwhelmingly adopted resolutions condemning bill, demanding the unilateral alliances, the withdrawal of a co-operation with working clas A resolution condemning the pay pause and the trade union leaders membership of the Tory National Economic Development Council was carried with only four votes against.

Time and time again speakers stressed the need for the Young Socialists to go out on to the streets and campaign for these policies.

This enthusiasm contrasted sharply with the views expressed by right-wing speakers who claimed that the working class no longer existed.

The first subject under debate was racialism, and the two resolutions discussed showed the deep divisions which exist in the Labour movement on this issue.

From Hendon North and East Leeds Young Socialists came a resolution condemning the "Tory immigration bill as a measure designed to increase racialist and anti-colour prejudice in an attempt to divide and divert the working class from the true source of the problems •.. the social and economic policies of the Tory government.' Opposed to this was a resolution from the Smethwick and Newcastle-upon-Tyne East YS branches which called for health checks for immigrants and government action to limit the number of people living in houses.

The first of the confusion of the conference iccurred when the anti-racialist resolution was of the Young Socialists held on Easter Saturday and youth of the Labour Party is still determined to fight for renunciation of nuclear weapons, British troops from overseas and movements throughout the world.

By V. Mendelson carried unanimously, and the second resolution scraped majority of seven votes.

The delegates quickly showed where they stood on the question of Labour Party policy. After a short discussion they overwhelmingly defeated a resolution expressing full approval for 'Signposts for the Sixties' and calling on the Labour movement to unite around this as Labour's policy.

The right-wing Labour Party leaders' fear of a powerful, leftwing Young Socialists movement was never more obvious than on the Sunday morning when they forced through agreement to debate in secret session a resolution condemning the Young Socialist paper 'Keep Left'® • Three times conference rejected this idea and it was only after considerable time had been used up that the rightwing succeeded in getting this on the agenda.

As a result many important resolutions on conscription, housing and land, health and welfare were not discussed.

But conference did debate three of the most important issues for the Labour movement; the role of the United Nations, the H-bomb and the pay pause.

The delegates carried a resolution from the Liverpool, West Derby branch which said: sessions against the to unite behind Mr. the Tories immigrati withdrawal fron the pursuit of This conference mourns the tragic murder of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo. It believes that the United Nations Organization, which arranged for his transfer to the province of Katanga, where he was murdered by the Tshombe mercenaries, must share a responsibility for this action. This is only one way the United Nations Organization is used in the interests of Imperialism?

The three points of view on defence current in the Labour movement were all expressed in resolutions which came before the conference.

The unilateralist view was that of the vast majority of delegates and showed that Young Socialists have taken Mr. Gaitskell's motto of 'Fight, fight and fight again' as their own.

The final debate of the conference was that on the government's pay pause. Moving the successful resolution condemning the government and the trade union leaders who collaborate with it, the delegate from Wembley North spoke of the pay pause as part of government strategy for a showdown with the working class similar to 1926. He urged that united action by trade unions was the only way to halt this attack. 'We will fight in the Young Socialist movement to the bitter end against the wage pause introduced by the Tory government.' Lett wing Gaitskell, on control • military peace by

Never, it was also the most political. Between 120,000 and 150,000 people rallied in Hyde Park and the march out. \HIS year's Aldermaston march was itself was over six miles long. After the leading banner entered the Park preceded by two Hiroshima survivors, Miss Matsubara and Hirosama Hanabusa—it was more than three hours before the tail banner arrived.

The huge Socialist Labour League banner proclaiming 'Trade Unionists Unite: Out with the H-Bomb, the Pay Pause, and the Tories' was prominent in a large trade union contingent - despite ponderous attempts by Mr. Richard Briginshaw to keep it This impressive section of the march included banners from NATSOPA, the London Typographical Association, North London District Committee AEU, Southall District Committee AEU, Edgware District Committee AEU, Fulham 34 F.E.(AEU), Wallasey 3rd AEU, several ETU banners (including the London Area Committee and the London Press branch), London District Sheetmetal workers, London District ASSET, Post Office Engineers, Park Royal Shop Stewards' Committee, EMI Joint Shop Stewards' Committee, the Boilermakers, Uxbridge ASW, a number of TGWU banners (including the London Cab Section and the Dundee Bus and Tram Section), the Association of Scientific Workers, Dalston Bus Depot ('More Buses, Less Bombs'), Dock Group Committee of 100, NUR Tube Workers, Trades Council banners from Newcastle District, Wembley, Walthamstow, Croydon and Southampton - and many more.

Another significant feature of the demonstration was the shouting of political slogans. Repeated cries of 'Gaitskell— NO, Macmillan—NO, Tories— • H-TESTS (fro movement and disunite the common struggle against Toryism.

The crowds turn out for Aldermaston, the imperialists intensify their war preparations, but the leaders of the CND mark time.

The struggle against the H-bomb cannot be separated from the struggle for socialism. This means a struggle inside the trade unions and the Labour Party against the Right wing for a only the biggest NO' rang out from section after section of Young Socialists, Trade Unionists and Young Communists, culminating in a crescendo of 'Mac Must Go!' as the march neared Macmillan's residence at Admiralty House.

There is no doubt that the influence of the ' nonpoliticals' and pacifists is on the wane and that the consistent campaign of the Socialist Labour League to turn the anti-bomb campaign towards the Labour movement and against the Tories, has borne fruit.

Banner after banner proclaimed: 'Socialism not War', • Out with the Bomb, Out with the Bosses, 'End the Tory H-bomb', 'Down with the Tory H-bomb Government'® This was, above all, a demonstration of youth. Score upon score of Young Socialist banners and contingents were there, reinforced on the last day by many delegates from the Young Socialists' Conference, where a unilateralist resolution had been carried overwhelmingly.

This represents a big headache for the Right wing and shows clearly that the fight in the Labour Party is far from over, regardless of the cowardly retreat of the 'Left' leaders around 'Tribune' and Victory for Socialism.

The Communist Party leadership, too, must be concerned. Despite their attempts to focus the demonstration entirely on front page) policy of the nationalization of all the basic industries, for colonial independence and freedom and for the withdrawal of all British troops from overseas bases.

Once again thousands of people have demonstrated that they are ready to oppose nuclear suicide. If their hopes are to be realized then a revolutionary leadership will have to be built inside the Labour and trade union movement.

SOCIALIS

BREAK WITH the American tests and summit talks— and despite the frontDONNWITU INNO TO OL HBOMBS

page emphasis in 'Challenge' that the Communists were marching alongside 'Young Socialists, Young Liberals, Young Conservatives and Christians of all denominations' — contingent after contingent of YCL and Communist Party branches were shouting anti-Tory slogans.

These young Communists must soon begin to ask how their vigorous anti-Toryism fits in with the official Party demand to send Macmillan to the Summit. It certainly contrasts sharply with a recent statement of the YCL, that a Tory government can bring peace.

This was a massive and impressive demonstration. But it was guided into safe channels by the leadership and finished with a silent march to the American Embassy, a petition of protest against nuclear tests and a telegram to President Kennedy.

None of these can achieve anything. The potential anti-Tory strength revealed in this march is in marked contrast to such a tame, respectable' ending.

The Socialist Labour League has participated in the antiH-bomb campaign from the beginning. At first we had to fight hard against those people who wanted to keep out political banners and literature altogether. We campaigned— against strong opposition - for a turn to the trade unions and a demand for industrial action against the bomb. We fought for a turn towards the Labour Party, despite those who wanted to be 'non-political'.

Now we insist that the campaign against nuclear weapons must be a fight against imperialism, against Kennedy, against Macmillan and the Tory government, against the Right wing in the Labour Party.

All attempts to substitute appeals to these forces for a vigorous fight against them must be exposed and rejected. If this is done, the thousands of young people on the road from Aldermaston can link up with the trade union movement, bring down the Tory government and end the H-bomb menace. THE prospects of mass redundancy face the 11,000 workers now employed by Whitworth-Gloster Aircraft at Coventry. The possibility of complete closure of the aircraft division plants in and near the city by 1964 is not being ignored by some of the shop stewards.

Lay off of the production workers is expected about the end of September this year, but the fact that it could start well before the summer holidays is now recognized by many of the more militant workers.

The redundancy of the design staff is due to start after the Easter holidays when draughtsmen will be dismissed, followed by a further 200 by the end of the year. It is known that the draughtsmen's leaders are looking for a united front with the production workers to resist these sackings, but the leaders of the production workers only seem to be luke-warm to this suggestion.

After talking to some of these leaders, it appears to me that they are not going to put up much of a fight to prevent the production workers from being laid off.

Many of the workers feel that a closure on this scale could not take place, but in fact it is quite in line with the Tories' and employers' plans for the future of the aircraft industry.

The present Tory policy is that the industry shall reduce by about 42 per cent. This means that about two workers out of every five now employed will lose their jobs.

Writing in the 'Daily Mail' recently a prominent Tory MP stated that the aircraft industry was carrying about 100,000, workers too many.

On top of this the government has indicated that if the manufacturers carry through their own contraction—or pruning of the industry's own uneconomic units as it is called - then the government will subsidise the remaining 58 per cent. In order to do this, many workers must go to the wall.

To combat the management's warning that the firm is carrying too much labour the leading stewards intend to lobby Parliament.

Not only do they fail to take into account the Tories' ~ and the employers' plans, they also ignore the fact that deputations from Portsmouth, Christchurch, Gloucester and more recently from Rolls Royce at Derby and Hillington, have already travelled this same fruitless path. No change will be received from an employers' government.

The more militant stewards fully realize that the only possible satisfactory answer to this whole problem is the nationalization of the aircraft industry, but as this is not possible until the return of a Labour government pledged to a socialist programme, something more must be done in the fight for the right to work.

Their immediate plan is to fight for an immediate ban on all overtime, a declaration to fight redundancy, for a policy of work-sharing and short-time without loss of pay to be instituted when and where necessary, a link-up with the Hawker-Siddeley Joint Shop Stewards for the purpose of fighting redundancy and to institute a policy of work-sharing within the group.

They also plan to organize a campaign with all sections of the aircraft industry facing contraction, particularly Rolls Royce, de Havillands and Gloster Aircraft.

The immediate problem within the factory is to prevent the sackings of the draughtsmen. The interests of both white collar and manual workers are now involved in stopping the first stage of the big lay-off.

U tion about trends in

Chese writings will prove absolutely invaluable in the process, now beginning, of developing Marxist theory to answer the revolutionary tasks of the working class in this and every other country,' writes Cliff Slaughter in the LABOUR RevIEw Spring issue. • is reviewing Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, Volume 38 of the new edition of Lenin's Collected Works. Slaughter examines in particular Lenin's comments on Hegel's Logic, and their relevance to the building of the Marxist movement today. e shows how, in examining the obscure concepts of the greatest of idealist philosophers, Lenin is able to rework these ideas in materialist terms and extract their essentially tionary content.

This issue of LABOUR REVIEW also contains 'Cuba: The First Stage' by F. Rodriguez, a thorough analysis of the Cuban Revolution and its place in the development of Latin American society. ere are also two important editorials: on France and on 'A Caricature of Marxism', as well as an eight-page book review supplement. le Spring LaBour REVIEW is essential reading for anybody interested in the theoretical armoury of the working-class movement.

From:

New Park Publications Ltd., I6A Clapham High St., S.W.4.

Price 2s. 6d. (post paid)

THE NEWSLETTER TT

P-TO-DATE informathe Cuban Revolution is hard to come by. It is, for example, difficult to obtain a reliable picture of the relations between the Castro leadership and the Popular Socialist ('Communist') Party.

In a much-publicised speech last December Castro declared himself a 'Marxist-Leninist' and the press put out reports that he had always been a 'Communist'.

When fuller versions of the speech became available it was evident that this was a distortion. Even Theodore Draper, a bitter critic of the Cuban Revolution, acknowledges as much. Writing for the sophisticated readers of 'Encounter', however, he still maintains the same inference as the vulgar press, namely, that he had for some time been an avowed Communist, in the sense of a follower of the Moscow line, and had now openly admitted the fact.

Pointing to the economic dependence of Cuba on the Soviet bloc, the growing influence of old - line Stalinists in the government, 'forced industrialization' and the one-party regime, he claims that only terror and totalitarianism are left in the country. Mentioning last April's invasion in one line, this apologist of the State Department interprets the revolution through the psychology of Castro.

The result of Draper's pamphlet is rather to spoil his own case. He comes down heavily against those who had drawn a distinction between Castro and the Communist Parts. hot kiu assurance must have been shaken by later developments.

Although a number of hardened Stalinists received posts of responsibility, two of them, Escalante and Pompa, have since been sacked and strongly denounced by Castro into the bargain.

Some American papers have been suggesting that it may be EXTRA Y CON LA REVOLICION PATRIA MUC! MLIE 'For Cuba, for Fidel, for the Revolution"-and for the workers' state'? munist movement'. It is pretty obvious that Castro is not in the Communist movement in the same way that Gomulka or Gollan are 'in'.

If events are dealing harshly with the ready-made 'theories' of enemies of the Cuban Revolution like Draper, they are hardly kinder to those who claim that Cuba is a workers' state', without qualification.

Even Lenin, in his lifetime, admitted that the Soviet Union was a workers' state ' with bureaucratic deformations' . Such deformations, we are asked to believe, cannot be discerned in the Cuban set-up. The origins of the leadership, and its freedom from any real control from below, might have suggested some caution before affixing ready-made labels.

The theory of the Cuban 'workers' state' took a blow last August when the press of the Cuban Trotskyists was smashed and the plates of Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' destroyed. The POR (Revolutionary Workers' Dont), wu wuith they belonged, is affiliated to the Pabloite movement which insists that Cuba is a workers' state!

As far as can be seen, the attack on the POR was no accident. As virtually the only left-wing critics of the Castro leadership they had been under fire for some time, especially from Che Guevara, 'theorist' of the revolution.

In a television broadcast on April 30, 1961, for example, he semblance of workers' representation.

He claimed that there had been no mass pressure for such committees, but he also admitted that the committees had been a 'bureaucratic creation' At this stage the discussion remained one of how the revolution should be conducted. A few months later, however, came the closure of the press of Guevara's only critics. In explanation to a South American newsman in August he went out of his way to link the Trotskyists with the Americans in the base at Guantanamo.

It was because of this outrageous assertion that THe NEWSLETTER refused to participate in a Cuban Embassy reception early this year (see Gerry Healy's letter to the Cuban Ambassador in THE NEWST FTTED T- - us 1s0a, which contains the passages referred to in Guevara's statement).

Yet while in August Guevara justified this action, the following month, in a statement to an American visitor of left-wing sympathies, he tried to dismiss it as 'an error' 'It was', he 'an £ 6 6 f££FF£fffffzzz=zz z z FIDEL ASLE committed by a functionary of second rank. They smashed the plates. It should not have been done. However, we consider the Trotskyist party to be acting against the Revolution . . ? Not this time because of 'geographical proximity' to Guantanamo, but because they are supposed to have wished to organize a march on the American base there.

This volte face is interesting. For all but the naive it is obviously related to who Guevara was talking to at the time. For Chile, where the Yankees are unpopular, he hints that the Trotskyists are American agents; to the American liberal he passes them off as ultra-lefts who wish to embroil Cuba and the United States in war!

The latter would hardly have accepted the charge that the Trotskyists are American agents and could only be gratified to learn that the whole episode had onlv heen by a functionary of second all, rank' (those of first rank still do not err!).

We thus learn from these two statements that at least one of the top figures in the Cuban workers' state is an habitual liar. But we also learn that in this state, printing presses can be smashed on the orders of minor functionaries.

In fact this is difficult to credit. In the first place, it was generally believed that the suppression took place on orders of the Minister of Labour who, unless all ministers, except Castro, are 'functionaries of second rank, is accountable to the government as a whole.

In the second place, if it was an 'error, has the error been rectified in the only practical way: by repairing the press and allowing the papers and books of the Cuban Trotskyists to reappear?

If we look a little further into the matter, however, we shall notice that Guevara does not seem able to discuss the Trotskyists without referring to the 'technical committees'.

He was undoubtedly sensitive to their criticism of these organs. He also emphasizes that there were few Trotskyists. The conclusion must be that certain failures of the government to enlist the co-operation of the workers in the enterprises left the Trotskyists with a field in which they were building up some support.

The blow against their press, therefore, far from being an error, is more likely to have been a shrewd and successful attempt to get rid of a potentially dangerous rival who referred to Guevara and his friends, to their great annoyance, as 'timid petty bourgeois'.

What this adds up to is hardly strong recommendation of Castro's Cuba as a 'workers' state' without taint or blemish.

traversed before any such claim can be made.

Nothing will be gained by true friends of the Cuban Revolution if, in the meantime, they refrain from criticising the shortcomings, inconsistencies and mendacities of the present leadership.

To do otherwise, indeed, is to fall into the trap set by the Drapers and all the other enemies of that rev, slution.

possible to come to an understanding with Castro after all. Fortunately for Draper, he left himself a small escape route by saying that 'an inherent instability in Castro's make-up... makes it hazardous to predict his future career in the Comdevoted a long paragraph to the criticism by the Trotskyists of the 'auxiliary technical committees' set up in some enterprises. He credited them with the view that these committees had been intended to deceive the masses by conceding the A set of principles The wage pause policy of the Tory government has had a high measure of success. Wage rates have quite definitely been contained and average increases pegged at the 2f per cent level laid down by Selwyn Lloyd.

There is little doubt that this represents a victory for the employers, and that it has been achieved by the collaboration of the trade union leaders.

The TUC instead of giving a lead by organizing joint action of trade unionists against the pause, sends its delegates to the National Economic Development Council, whose role will assist the Tories in capitalist 'planning'.

Having tasted victory, the employers are now organizing to consolidate it. The British Employers' Confederation, which comprises the leaders of 53 employers' organizations, have agreed that wage agreements linked to the cost of living are inflationary, and that they should be abolished wherever possible.

Some two million workers in six major industries are affected by such agreements. They include the iron and steel industry, building and civil engineers, boot and shoe manufacture, hosiery and furniture.

Of course the employers had the green light for this policy from the government's recent White Paper on incomes which suggested that 'less weight' should be given in future negotiations to arguments based on the cost of living. The employers have simply gone the whole hog and are scrapping these agreements altogether.

The cost of living is of no concern to the employers. Profits must not be affected by any mawkish sentiment about maintaining basic living standards as reflected by the index.

Already some five million people are living on the fringe of poverty. Growing unemployment will increase that number and lessen workers' power to maintain their standard of living —or so think the employers.

The British Employers' Confederation, in carrying out its new policy, has evolved a 'set of principles' to guide its members. These are understood to include:

1) the practice of comparability of one industry with another is to cease.

2) no productivity no wage increase.

3) the elimination of so-called restrictive labour practices. If necessary these are to be 'negotiated away'.

The employers no doubt think that the time is propitious for all-out attacks on the workers and the Tory government are creating conditions to help them carry out these attacks.

For instance, it is estimated that as many as 150,000 railwaymen may lose their jobs over the next four years. In the coal industry new measures to make each region 'pay its way' may also cause sackings.

Sydney Greene, General Secretary of the NUR, referring to the proposed railway sackings, said that 'it was no good opposing the closures with strike action'.

First, a shelving of demands for reasonable wage increases, now an acceptance of redundancy in the industry. This is not leadership, and the rank and file of all the basic industries must clearly show that they are prepared to fight for their jobs and their living standards, and that they do not exist solely to make bigger profits for their employers.

• leaders last Friday was due to discuss the possibility of a national dock strike involving all 70,000 registered dock workers. The conference was called to discuss the employers' rejection of the dockers' pay and hours claim. As we go to press there is a very strong likelihood of the conference calling for strike action.

A month ago the unions showed their determination to have a show-down with the employers by giving four weeks' notice of their intention to terminate the industry's negotiating procedure.

The notice expired on Thursday, but the employers have not shown any signs of accepting the claim, which was made last autumn.

The convening of the delegate conference shows that the unions, urged on by angry rank-and-file dockers, are in no mood for any further delays in pressing the claim. said that dockers are 100 per cent in favour of a national strike. They have waited a long time for a reasonable answer from the employers, he said.

The unions are claiming a substantial increase in the basic rate of £l 12s. 10d. per day and a reduction in the working week from 44 to 40 hours.

The employers' refusal is consistent with the general attitude prevailing under present government policies. They are further perturbed by the prosp ects of having to shell out eve 1 more money in the move towards decasualization on the docks.

As the 'Financial Times' said on Tuesday: 'About three-quarters of the present dock labour force is employed on a daily basis with twice-daily visits to the hiring "pens" for those men without work. A number of the leading employers believe it should be possible to reduce the number of men employed casually in the major ports to about 20 per cent.

'A move in this direction, however, will cost money, and it is money which the majority of employers might oppose spending if forced to grant a heneral pay increase beforeUnion leaders have refused to negotiate on attendance money and weekly guarantees if they prejudice the main claim.

If the delegate conference decides on strike action, dock workers must seek to link up their struggle with the claims of all other sections of the Labour movement, especially with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.

United action on this scale would face the Tories and the employers with the very real possibility of a major breakthrough in the pay pause.

A MAJOR slump with massive redundancies faces the aircraft industry unless there is government planning, says a policy statement 'All Systems Go?' produced by the executive of This Paper is your Paper is Weapon Subscription Department, The Newsletter, 186a Clapham High Street, London, S. W.A. 12 issues, or £l 8s. per year Name Address Registered at the G.P.O. as a newspaper Printer Bout Prese (TU). S.W.4 Published by The Newsletter, ' WA Statement the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians.

Mr. Clive Jenkins, General Secretary of ASSET, referred at a press conference to the impending closures of aircraft factories in Gloucester and Christchurch, to redundancies in Scotland and the position in Northern Ireland.

' Great companies have been merged and factories which looked so safe and productive are closing down one by one,' says the statement. Thousands of workers will have to move to other industries, where their special skills will be wasted.

The government and, in particular, the Minister of Aviation, Mr. Thorneycroft, are to blame for this 'distressing and disgraceful state of affairs, says ASSET.

HE Transport and scheme for a closed shop on the Merseyside docks came into effect on Tuesday. The Birkenhead office of the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers-the 'Blue' Union — reported that their members were being refused jobs in favour of TGWU members.

The NASD is not recognised by the TGWU on Merseyside. The closed shop scheme was the brain-child of the TGWU's docks officer, Mr. P. J. O'Hare, who sought an agreement with the Port of Liverpool Employers' Association after the recent strike over non-union labour, that only members of the Transport Union would be employed.

'Blue' Union members fall into the category of 'nonunionists' as far as Mr. O'Hare is concerned.

The employers were happy to agree to Mr. O'Hare's suggestion, recognising his splitting tactics as a most useful weapon in their drive to force unemployment and lower wages and conditions on Merseyside. to rejoin or sigiven three weeks TGWU, but the plans had to be delayed for over a week due to the unwillingness of many dockers to take part in this shameless attack on the NASD.

'Blue' Union speakers have continually stressed at recent meetings that they will fight DE CORRESPONDENT alongside the TGWU for 100 per cent trade unionism on Merseyside, but that dockers should be free to join either the 'Blue' or the 'White' The NASD's General Secretary issued a circular to this effect and called upon his members not to work with non-unionists.

On Tuesday, 2,500 dockers of the registered 11,800 reported for new engagements under the O'Hare-employers' scheme. Of these, 1,730 accepted engagements; the other 700 declined and were given attendance stamps to qualify them for fall-back pay.

'Blue' Union members were refused jobs, but those given ships before Easter were allowed to carry on working.

The Merseyside organiser of the NASD, Mr. W. Johnson, told a meeting of 200 members of both unions that the TGWU's attempt to impose a closed shop for that union would lead to 'industrial racism'.

He said that the atmosphere on the docks following the introduction of the scheme was normal but uneasy.

The meeting decided with only one vote against that they would refuse to show their union cards if told to do so by the employers, unless an undertaking was given that NASD members would be employed alongside TGWU.

This important decision underlines the determination of dockers of both unions to fight the disis seriously weakening the unny of the Merseyside workers in their struggle for better wages and conditions and against the grim threat of mass unemployment. • On Tuesday a spokesman for the employers said that results so far had not been unsatisfactory.

Newsletter Reporter FACED by the threat of an official strike by 5,250 workers at railway docks due to begin on Sunday night, the British Transport Commission agreed to the demand for a two hours' reduction in the working week.

The executive of the National Union of Railwaymen has been pressing this claim for more than a year. The reduction from 44 to 42 hours will bring railway dock workers in line with general railwaymen. The present hours agreement for main line workers has been the basis of the NUR claim for its dock members.

WORK TO RULE AT AIRPORT A WORK TO RULE campaign is to start from May 1 at London Airport. Workers involved are members of the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians (ASSET).

Five thousand airport supervisors and technical staff will be involved. BEA have offered a The BTC has trodden very carefully on this issue for f ear of stepping on the many col ns of the private employers who are at present in dispute with dock workers.

The Commission gave way, however, at joint talks on Tuesday, when the NUR spokesmen pointed out that in the past railway dock workers' claims had always been considered in the light of existing conditions on the general railways.

Having achieved the cut in hours, however, the NUR leaders immediately showed where their true allegiance lies by undertaking to co-operate with the employers to see that the reduction does not interfere with efficiency.

per cent wage increase, which the union has rejected. LONDON BUSMEN ACCEPT PAY OFFER A DELEGATE conference of members of the TGWU has agreed to accept the offer of a 6s. 6d. a week wage increase for drivers and conductors on central and country services offered by the London Transport Executive. Party to declare itself now, not on September 10 (the probable date of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference).

He said Labour should tell the government that it will contest its right to decide the terms under which Britain would join the Common Market.

So far, so good. Unfortunately Frank Cousins did not enlighten the conference further, except to say that he is for full employment.

The 80,000 unemployed in Scotland are for the same thing, so are the workers at the Rolls Royce and North British Loco factories. What they want to know is how are they to get it.

The best the Scottish TUC could produce in the way of a programme was a call for the direction of industry to Scotland.

This may sound a fair solution but it fails to take into account the plans of the Tory government.

Under Tory rule any plans for the direction of industry will aim to use the 80,000 unemployed to depress wages. To spread the idea that unemployment can be solved by pulling factories out of ¿urope and into Scotland is the most cruel deception.

The conference had attracted an impressive array of leaders: Byrne of the ETU, Frank Cousins, Greene of the NUR, Moffat of the NUM. But the Scottish TUC failed in its most important task— to produce a plan to defeat the Tories.

Gaitskell From Our Scottish Correspondent SPEAKING at the annual conference of the Scottish Trades Union Congress held at Aberdeen last week, Frank Cousins dissociated himself from those who expressed anti-German sentiments in discussing Britain's entry into the European Economic Market. He was not, he said, anti-European in the sense that many of the other contributors to the debate clearly were.

The conference debated a composite resolution drawn up from the nine put forward by unions and trades councils. None of these resolutions, Crusio coonso off the fence' including the composite one, put forward a policy which would provide the basis for action by a Labour government.

This defect in the policy of Labour was pointed to by Frank Cousins. He urged the Labour