Michael McGahey romised asso. CaLe the cheers Only one whole hotly afterdeterof the national asked French Kent, one of the hand "justice" we we found the in the against the we ye already in contact The end of Helen Arthur's speech was drowned by apolause when she called for support for the railworkers. 'In a week or two's time,' she said, *we might have a national rail Those people are looking to And it's going to make a difference them; a difference to prepared to take on the Rail Board and the government in the same way the miners did.
Gwen McLeod, who is chair Notts WAPC began the afternoon session supporting the *right demand "They've made a mistake,' she said of the national with the local ASLEF to offer any support that we their fight - through the network of contacts and experience we've built up over the last 18 months.
we re looking now lo the next conference, which Dosilve decisions on the future • of the We'll contacting the pits in South Yorkshire strengthen area coordination and help any groups that have wound up to get restarted.
We want every pit represented the next conference, with delegates are maller related to NUM members. historic movement of that can go for. ward.' Strong feelings expressed against wives being allowed to join WAPC. But the issue still remains to be thoroughly discussel Take the woman whe went to Risley jail for three weeks, for example for breaking her bail cond tions and returning to the work. Does she, by he own merit membership of the WAP( movement? The answer of course should be a resounding 'yes' The draft proposals fo the aims and structure of the new national WAPC organisation are still to be finalised. In the light of the demand for a decision-making the undertaking of the chair that a conference of area representatives will be convened to vote on all proposals - - is unlikely to satisfy the dominant feeling within the groups for pit-based group-based representation One thing that wasn' controversial though was the basis which the movement itself continue The 75-25 per LU GASLS. cent formula for representation between the mining communities other was unanimousy troops was unanimously red So too was a clear understanding WAPC's main aim, as the suggests, remains the fight alongside their in the NUM to pro. tect their jobs and communities against the continued i from the Tory government.
plan to split 6 Socialist Action 30 August 1985 THIS YEAR'S TUC congress will be dominated by the rail strikes, by the aftermath of the miners' strike, by the continuing fight in the coalfields, by the TUC's attitude to the law, by the general council's move to the right and by the threat of a split with the AUEW and EETPU.
But behind all this lies a more fundamental development: the long-term drive of Thatcher and the employers to split the labour movement itself. All the particular struggles fall into place within that overall framework.
JOHN ROSS looks beyond some of the immediate issues at the basic goals of the Thatcher government's attack on the trade union movement.
When Thatcher came to office in 1979 she DTOUCIL with her tne sophisticated worked union policy of any British government this century.
Contrary to some forms of alarmism on the left, for example by Marxism Today, the goal of Thatcher was not to open up the way for essentially eliminating the trade union movement. No British government today has the relation of forces to achieve that. Instead Thacher's goal was radically to change the nature of the trade union movement a goal completely interlinked with the drive to reorganise British economy and politics.
At the economic level, Margaret Thatcher has sought to bring about not only a shiit or income away tom labour and toward capital, but also a dramatic redistribution of income within the working class itself.
Popular myths aside, the period of Thatcherism has not seen an unrelieved assault on the working class with a simple universal increase in hardship. On the contrary the period since 1979 has been major prosperity significant sections of workers, made possible by the North Sea Oil revenues.
This is seen, for example in the video and home computer booms and the continuing affluence in the South and South East.
Using more precise measures, average real take-home pay increase by more than 10per percent between 197 and 1985. But this average is deeply misleading. The chief effect of the period since 1979, and the policies purmost to decrease youth wages. Differentials with 'adult' workers have increased sharply.
These divisions are not just increasing between industries, specific industries as famous example is the impact of the incentive scheme in the mining industry where miners in the productive Nottingham coal field have been able to secure far higher pay than those in the British 'peripheral' coalfields. This was one of he key factors underlying the divisions of the NUM during the strike.
The trend of development is clear. Thatcher has sharply increased the income of high management, the salary component of the capitalists' income, and substantial sections of the 'middle' class. But she has also increased the wages of important layers of skilled and other highly-paid workers.
These moves by Thatcher though aren't just about wages and differentials. They are part of an attempt. to restructure the entire labour market along Japanese and American lines.
One of the great advantage that US and Japanese capitalisms have compared to their rivals, including Britain, is greater control by employers over the labour market. Japan was once famous in Britain for the "job-for-life' contracts given to workers. The impression was that this applied to the entire working class. What is not so generally realised is that it applied to a small secsystematised into the US labour system through 'two-tier' workers receive higher wage rates, health protection, employment protec but within tion and so on; new workers however well. The most are employed at a lower rate, have For no security of employment etc. In short a division is created even between employees in the same factory or job, privileges than others.
labour market, nevertheless the direcmarginal and nent thinking and polic description of the process involved.
Employment what it calls a "dual labour market"
employed by subcontractors.
contracts. Existing fewer or no 'fringe benefits', have little with some enjoying relatively far more While Thatcher's plans have not progressed to anything like the level of the Japanese or US organisation of the tion in which British capitalism is trying to go is perfectly clear. Restructuring le working class into relatively secu igher-paid layers and into far mo insecure sections lies behind much of recent Tory governA report in he Financial Times of 21 August: worth quoting at length. It gives a clear 'Companies are reorganising their workers in novel ways to increase the flexibility of their labour force, according to a report commissioned by the Department, published soon. The report... shows how companies are moving towards a core of a secure workers separated from a periphery of workers on temporary contracts, working part-time or unions tions. other. opaque) distinction between employment and unemployment"?
This economic policy, although it can never be carried through in its Por cted undertying arry actions underlying Тогу attitude towards the unions. It involves a policy not of attempting to eliminate the trade - the relation of forces does not exist for that - but of confining them to these more privileged and secure groups of workers, then doing deals with the more right wing trade unions that will exist among these sec This was spelt out in two of the most important documents the Tor Party drew up in opposition: the draft proposals on the anti-union laws, and the infamous Ridley report which pre planned miners. The two complemented eact the confrontation WILT In several respects, the draft trade union proposals were a word-for-word copy of the policies adopted by right wing in the AUEW and EETPU