UCW conference THE UCW annual conference proved to be very lively. The chair of conference summed up the position by saying that the EC had taken pasting over the week.
The postal group of the EC was censured by conover the working week campaign, after delegates pointed to the breach of conference mandates missed opportunities.
However despite being censured.
nearly every major he remans firme remains firmly in control having been elected before conference by the membership.
alternative to the solid Kinnockite block that dominates the EC has beer developed, but the sponse of delegates at conference indicates that this is now clearly on the agenda.
Alan Tuffin, general secretary, wne nas been closely personally identified in the TUe and Labout with support for *share-ownership schemes received an almighty snub when conference voted this policy down Similarly, Tony Clarke deputy general secretary and member of industrial action on number of issues, in each case large margins against the advice of the However, the EC did successfully defeat the proposal to hold a ballot of the membership on the Labour Party leadership. The EC, which has already nominated Kin nock Halot sley, sal by 100,000 Hattersley, defeated to 60,000 on a card vote.
A proposal to endorse 'compulsory arbitration' deals was also endorsed bv conference, atter luttin had been forced to withdraw explicit reference to 'no-strike deals.
Conference reaffirmed an urgent necessiv for all communications workers, supported by both left and right. These discussions are now being extended to SOGAT and other media and communications unions.
On international questions the conference initiated an important discussion on Palesune Kesor tions supporting Palestinian sent-determination and Palestinian state were defeated after Tony Clarke equated them with antisemitism but the minority support for the Palestinians marked another step forward for the left.
The Broad Left had a that the split itself.
In the last two years the EETPU leadership has conducted an exercise in brinkmanship in its relations with the TUC. However dispute over single union deals and encroachment by the EETPU on areas of recruitment of other unions there is little space for bluft.
In the confrontation with the AEU over the acceptance of government money for ballots, despite the union's breach of the united front against Thatcher's interference in the unions, it was never seriousposed Inal TUC would split over this issue.
The dispute with the EETPU over Wapping was tar more senous Howeve he immense unpopularity or tne EETPU's actions forced a limited retreat by the union leadership.
However Wapping did force the TUC to stand up to the EETPU leadership and posed the necessity of a future split, which had clearly embarked on course ot controntallor with the rest of the trade The current issues of dispute on single union and no-strike deals involve matters of central trade union principle, however what has provoked the crisi in the rUC is unfortunatel le principles involved b le brea and butter of other TUC affiliated unions - their membership and ability to recruit.
Flashlight, the organiCEDe EETPU, has correctly pointed out that the dispute is not about single-union such, but about the attack by the EETPU on other unions. THE potential split of the EETPU from the TUC would be the first significant split in the TUC since it was founded over 100 years ago. However the issues involved in the dispute with the EETPU leadership are so important that if they are not faced up to this would inflict far more damage on the trade union movement The core of the matter is the Bridlington regard the direct poaching of other unions' members but in new sites.
The EETPU leadership's current policies are a systematic development of those it has been pursuing since the end of the 1960s, when the current EETPU leadership took control following the ballot rigging scandal which destroyed the union's old CP leadership.
Its main membership base was in the electrica contracting industry. policies today, of outrigh and frontal attack on other unions, developed out of the policy it pursued in the electrical contracting industry throughout the 70s. Eric Hammond PU. The quid pro quo was that the EETPU introduced more on site full-time officials to 'police' the larger sites; in 1979 it introduced the infamous private health in 1983 it inaccueil prentice rates cent; and most recently has accepted self-employed working at the employers insistence.
Again this has had a further impact on membership forcing the union to look tor orner areas recruitment. The introducnon or new iconology i the print industry similarly cut into some of the most industrially powerful sec the EETPU'S LOIS membership.
Wapping presents the Secondly however order to maintain its own LAC EETPU leadership is increasingly entering into direct com. petition with other unions in areas not traditionally organised by the EETPU By offering the most tavourable dea employers, regardless of the employees IULCICSES EETPU leadership has attempied to cut out oiner unions.
For example the EETPU directly interfered in the rail unions normal sphere ot intluence in negotiate a single-union, no-strike deal Docklands Light Railway. The current blow-up is over the Hammond's attempt to cut out the TGWU at Orion in South Wales TUC has thrown down gauntlet. If the TUC ba off this time in order the EETPU TUC will allow membership war to b out between TUC affili unions, with competitio offer the most favorable deal, the driving down membership levels ac industry For the sake of the f ciples involved the must not back off. unions, including the R A number and the ABU, have alre given the cold shoulde the Hammond's proposa establish a new trade ur Centre likely to work closely au serre caucis! side the TUC is the U
----- pull-quotes -----
prentice rates by 3u pp- per