last week.
This is made perfectly clear in the letter sent by AUEW general secretary to Norman Willis on 4 September - that is, the third day of congress which formed the basis of the 'deal'. It says: 'the executive council of the AUEW are bound by the decisions tional committee.
Contrary the impression by the media, it was the union's national committee which had decided back in May LILa the AUEW should reballot on this question, not the TUC general council. Had the TUC suspendOUR paper is needed.
Our paper is appreciated. Our paper is uniThis was the verdict of Socialist Action supporters in the engineering rail 'Industries who met over last weekend.
Engineering comrades pledged $240 there and to the paper's fighting fund.
workers donated £125.
Peter Heathfield, eneral secretary of the UM told our sellers at the Women against Pit Closures conference that ne took socials ¿culon becanse 'It had not opportunistically dropped the miners case like so many other left papers .
Our coverage in defencr of the NUM has been se cond to none.
Nowhere else is it possible to get the grouments and intormation on the struggle in ballot current ballot for presidential election would have been about affiliation to the TUC.
AUEW convenor, Colman Fasteners The AUEW membership, by our massiye yoic favour of the retention or tne Dollical fund and Party affiliation, stand on being part of the rail. Our informed coverage allowed us successful Socialist in North West Glasgow which were well rai workers and other class fighters in wake of the guards ballot defeat.
This record is what engineering CUIR rades expect Socialist Action to emulate in relawon to me now facing because of WUT&CIL because the course pursued by the engineering unions right wing leadership. They have requested a special fourpage supplement in the paper, aimed at clarifythe "money for ballots' issue the question of state intervention unions. Thirteen papers шеге Ін anions those who attended naAUEW * •Broad Left rally in Birmingham last weekend. broader movement. But TUC general council recoiled stand. Instead the AUEW TONI taking this will ballot in November.
The executive given a commitment to the TUC spelt Laird's letter to Willis, simply 'the ballot ... will contain that ALEW (EFC) as an attilate of the TUC acknowledges the authority of congress and accepts that under the direction the general council the consequential effect of a 'yes' vote will mean suspension the TUC":
The executive 2150 committed themselves ensure the ballot 'meets the joint spirit of our discussion'.
Ther bunote until will not known until Most important of all has been our coverage of South Africa and Central America. Successful sales have been held places not previously tried.
Last weekend, over 100 papers were sold in East London markets, over 20 in the centre of sales in other centres mainly to black people.
Yet weekly publication of our paper is not secure. Particularly durregular ing me sulumer.
financial contributions have been disrupted. This was the hasis for the appeal to our engineering and rail We ask every supporter to rush donations to the editorial We are not crying wolf Our weekly threatened if we do not get a major increase lomations rapidly.
helps.
Please send your tion to Socialist Action, PO Box 50, N1 2XP. TUC Congress 1985 ...
Engineers lead stated that they apply for further funding until it is But given the effective one-two they have got going Hammond the EETPU leaders, this is ment the f commitment. EETPU have applied for government cash and the cheque is in the post.
Moreover, the TUC leadership did not challenge the AUEW the political terrain of accepting cash ballots. Instead they concentrated exclusively the question of the authority or ine general council and congress itself But if AUEW and EETPU members are to be won to 'no' vote in the coming ballots, they be convinced that accepting state funding loi the unions compromises the union's independence.
The question of the independence from the state of the AUEW, indeed of the entire movement is the key one. But the TUC general coun cil has already compromis ed itselt on this issue of principle. leadership after union leadership have complied WILD Trade Union eats 1984 for in stance by stipulating that their members hold ballots before taking industrial With the notable ex ception of the NUM, this also goes for the left leaderships.
But there is deep position in the ranks to state intervention.
itself a wave of protest greeted ecutive council circular on the need for ballots before industrial action, such that Gavin Laird was forced to make a public retraction in the August issue of the union's journal.
this deep-felt sentiment that the campaign for a 'no' vote must appeal. Laird and Hammond have threatened to split the movement if they can win their members to a 'yes' vote.
The splitters can be defeated. The alternative would be a wnolesale climbdown by the TUC on its opposition to the cashballot-laws.
----- pull-quotes -----
is 1985... photo: JOHN CHAPMAN THERE WAS no compromise reached at Blackpool
Gavin Laird delivered a diplomatic speech in which he claimed there were no victors. But the settlement reached between the AUEW executive and the TUC general council over the acceptance of government cash for union ballots was entirely on the terms laid down by the engineering union leaders.
There should be no doubt about this. chen expellot and the
Socialist Action fighting fund