How to Fight Thetu. Bureaucracy

union movement are acting as the “’fifth column” of the government and employers. Just as it is necessary to plan a defence against these latest attacks it is necessary to campaign against the trade union bureaucracy.

Such a campaign will be successful only if it endeavours (i) to drive a wedge between the bureaucracy and the employers and (ii) to eliminate the independent and privileged position of the bureaucracy within the trade union movement itself are carried: out.

First prong of attack To advance the first prong of the attack a key tdemand should be for the withdrawal of trade union representatives from all government and employer sponsored committees and boards. Chief among these of course is the Employer-Labour Conference and the National Economic and Social Council. But the demand should go right down to the Joint Labour Committees in industry and the management-employee liaison committees in the factories.

It will also be necessary to keep a strict check On the type of person entering the trade union apparatus. Several years experience on the shopfloor or in the service of the labour movement should be an obligatory qualifiction for every paid official. All connections with the Jesuit inspired and employer sponsored ‘‘Workers College’ must be severed. Instead the trade unions themselves should provide their own educational facilities which would train and educate the leaders of the movement in accordance with working class standards. ;

In the context of a national wage agreement a very important demand, designed to prevent the bureaucracy leaning towards the employers for support, should be for the abolition of the ‘‘check off system’’. The check-off-system is an arrangement whereby the employers deduct union dues from the workers pay-packet and send it direct to the trade union headquarters. Although only 8% of companies operate this system 118,200 trade unionists are already covered by it and since the Employer Labour Conference took a decision to generalise the practice in January ‘73 it is bound to become more widespread. é The dangers of this system are obvious. It is when largely shop stewards go round to collect subs, especially in large concerns, that they see their members and hear their views. The check-off-system is designed to cut this contact between the Steward and his/her section to a minimum in order to weaken trade union effectiveness. When the Federated Union of Employers carried out a survey of these firms operating the system ii found that the chief advantages from the emplovers viewpoint were (ii) “it saved a considerable amcunt of time on the shop floor” (ii) “it avoided sauabbles concerning arrears and union membership”’ (iii) “helped improve our industrial relations’’. [from an F.U.E. survey] Also of course, in many unions large numbers of workers who are very alienated from the movement neglect to pay their dues. In a sense this is a passive (and let us hastily add, a futile) protest against the bureaucracy. |n some unions, such as the Workers Union of Ireland for example this is a great embarrassment as it shows how little the union bureaucrats are actually doing for the rank and file. The check-off-system lets the bureaucracy off the hook by covering up this annoying reminder of its treachery and collaboration.

The check-off-system is an assault by the employers and the trade union bureaucracy on the integrity of the trade union movement. It puts in the hands of the employers and important aspect of trade union activity. It is more particularly an attack on the prerogatives of the shop-stewards who in most cases substitute the -only real leadership the rank and file has.

Accordingly this system must be fought tooth and nail. As a counter-blast, it should be dtmanded that the system not only be dropped but that the shop-stewards be given time off at the expense of the employers to properly carry out their duties and responsibilities towards their members.

Second prong of attack The second prong of attack must aim at smashing. the bureaucracies grip on the trade union apparatus. It is essential to formulate a series of demands aimed at breaking up the exclusive and ossified nature of the bureaucratic elite. The Practice of appointing officers and officials from above must be stopped. In the early days of the trade union movement such appointments were necessary in order to organise in new areas. These days have long gone and the practice is no longer expedient or democratic. The bureaucracy hangs on to their prespgative so that it can perpetuate itself. Jo combat such usurpations of rank and Pm official and officer from below. of the trade unions is very low.

RMG TRADE UNION CAUCI ITGWU delegates at ICTU Special Conference. Liberty Hall, March 7.

file rights, the right of appointment should be abolished and replaced by the election of every One of the chief ways the bureaucracy tries to stabalise itself and create its own internal cohesion is by appointing officers and officials for a prolonged or indefinite period of time. This must be stopped. All officers and officials should be subject to the right of recall at any time. In practice this would mean that an offiger or official would have to stand for re-election at any time on the demand of one fifth of his/her section or branch etc. Conclusion It has been estimated that only 10% of the rank and file actively participate in trade union activity. This would give a figure of 50,000 activists which even at that seems a bit exaggerated. Based on an attendance at Branch AGM’‘s of the ITGWU it would appear that general participation is as low as 2.5%. Either way these figures make the effective point that general interest by members in the running This state of affairs is acquiest in, if not actively encouraged, by the officers and officials. They rely heavily on the apathy and disinterest of general members to enscounce themselves in privileged positions. They make no real effort to get mass involvement because they realise that this ~ Trade union militants and socialists should fight this by demanding a minimum quorum for all meetings. An absolute minimum attendance of 30% should be required for all meetings'and a plan of campaign should be initiated to get members involvement so that the quorum could At the present time even this quorum would probably penalise the activity of the trade union movement because participation is so low. The only way to increase participation is by turning the unions into real fighting instruments in the interest of the workers. That is what the bureaucrats fear most and that iswhy the demand for a minimum quorum will be a powerful weapon Within the trade union movement there is a growing attack by the bureaucracy on the shop-stewards. In many cases shop stewards are relegated to a secondary role or excludea from negotiations that directly affect their area of work. This is done under the pretext of centralised bargaining. But there is no reaon why centralised bargaining should not be carried out directly by tthe shop stewards in each industry. All arrangements and deals with the employers should be carried out by the shop stewards concerned. The trade union officials, instead of acting as negotiators should be present simply as advisors.

The above demands are by#0 means exnaustive. In addition they are necessarily presen‘ed ina ; schematic manner. In some unions sorne of the demands don't apply. For instance cne right of recall already exists in a few of the smaller unions. In other unions officials don’t get paid at all, while in a number of unions rank and file involvement is reasonably high etc. It is up to activists in each union to elaborate a comprehensive programme dealing with the specific problems of their union. One thing is certain however, the bureaucracy is a distinct and autonomous social layer working in the interests of capitalism and any programme for activity in the trade union movement must take this as its fundamental starting point.

Dr. T. K. Whitaker, the director of the Central Bank, went even further in interviews with the news media when he said that legislation would be needed to penalise any ‘‘maverick group of workers’ who opposed the plans of the NESC.

Despite the left-wing and radical platitudes of the trade union leaders, they have already declared their willingness to work through the N.E.S.C. At the Labour Party Conference in Galway the trade union delegates vociferously urged the creation of a ‘general economic plan” to be developed, through the NESC. Their4nain criticism was that the government was not acting quickly enough to do this.

The stage now seems set for a new major onslaught on workers living standards. In the fight to defend themselves workers must become aware that they will have to oppose their trade union “‘leaders’’ just as much as the employers.