THE question of the role of the trade unions in the control of industry, what it should be now and in the future, has been a burning question at many Trades Union Congresses. It is not a new question. Robert Owen advanced it long ago, and the Grand Consolidated Trade Union of the ’thirties was formed to achieve the transformation of capitalism into Socialism by means of productive co-operation. The early builders’ unions had distinctive ideas on the question too. “Down with the middlemen and the contractors,” they cried, “we, the workers, can make the contract so as to receive the full amount of pay for our work.” “A spirit of combination has grown up among the working-classes” says the Poor Man’s Guardian of 19th October, 1832, “of which there has been no example in former times. A grand national organization, which promises to embody the physical power of the country is silently, but rapidly, progressing, and the object of this is the sublimest that can be conceived, namely—to establish for the productive classes a complete dominion over the fruits of their own industry. Heretofore these classes have wasted their strength in fruitless squabbles with their employers or with one another. They have never sought any grand object, nor have they been united for those they sought, to obtain some paltry rise or prevent some paltry reduction in wages has been the general aim of their turnouts; and the best results of their combination, even when successful, were merely to secure their members against actual want in the day of sickness and of superannuation.
“ . . . But far different from the paltry objects of all former combinations is that now aimed at by the Congress of delegates. Their report shows that an entire change in society—a change amounting to a complete submission of the existing order of the world—is contemplated by the working-classes. They aspire to be at the top instead of at the bottom of society—or rather that there should be no bottom or top at all.”
James Morrison wrote in the Pioneer, 31st May, 1834, “The unions are of all the other means the only mode by which universal suffrage can safely be obtained. Because it is obtained by practice, by serving an apprenticeship. Here they start to manage their affairs on a small scale before they get management of larger affairs. The growing power and growing intelligence of Trade Unions, when properly managed, will draw into its vortex all the commercial interests of the country and, in so doing, it will become by its own self-acquired importance a most influential, we might almost say dictatorial, part of the body politic. When this happens, we have gained all that we want; we have gained universal suffrage, for if every member of the union be a constituent and the union itself becomes a vital member of the state, it instantly erects itself into a house of trades which must supply in place of the present House of Commons and direct the industrial affairs of the country, according to the will of the trades, which composed the association of industries. This is the ascendant scale by which we arrive at universal suffrage . . . with us, universal suffrage will begin in our lodges, extend to the general union, embrace the management of trade, and finally swallow up the political power.”
There was then no doubt in the minds of pioneers of Trade Unionism of a century ago as to the future role of the unions, either with regard to industry or the State. They recognized the slave condition of the workers in capitalism and had faith in the worker’s power and capacity to abolish the slavery and build a new society of free men-controlling industry in a classless society. That they were ahead of their time is not their fault. The issue was not so boldly stated again until the rise of the industrial unionists at the beginning of the twentieth century. Up to this time the various schools of Socialism were not too sure about the future of the unions. The most clear were Mr. and Mrs. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who wrote in an appendix to the History of Trade Unionism (1876) what was a generally held view in the ranks of socialists of the ’eighties. In the management of industry the Trade Unions were to have no part. This was the business of the State department or the trained business man, who knew what the consumers wanted. The Trade Unions, however, were to look after the suffering of the workers. They said, “If the democratic State is to obtain its fullest and fairest development, it is essential that the actual needs and desires of the human agents concerned should be the main consideration in determining the conditions of employment. Here then we find the special function of the Trade Unions in the administration of industry. The simplest member of the working-class organization knows at any rate where the shoe pinches. . . . Trade Unionism adds to the long list of functions thus delegated to professional experts the settlement of the conditions on which the citizen will agree to co-operate in the national service.”
These were the views of what were known as the State Socialists. It was written in 1897. By 1920 the same writers had modified their views considerably. After drawing attention to the views quoted above, they said:
“There is, in the first place, a genuine need for, and a real social advantage in giving recognition to, the contemporary transformation in the status of the manual working wage earners, on the one hand, and of the technicians on the other, as compared with that of the manager or ‘captain of industry’. This change of status, which is, perhaps, the most important feature of the industrial history of the past quarter of a century, will be most easily accorded its legitimate recognition in those industries in which the profit-making capitalist proprietor is dispensed with in favour of public ownership, whether national, municipal or co-operative. This is, incidentally, an important reason for what is called ‘nationalization’. It is a real social gain that the General Secretary of the Swiss Railwaymen’s Trade Union should sit as one of the five members of the supreme governing board of the Swiss Railway Administration. We ourselves look for the admission of nominees of the manual workers, as well as technicians, upon the executive boards and committees, of complete equality with the other members, in all publicly owned industries and services; not merely, or even mainly, for the sake of the advantages of the counsel and criticism that the new owners may bring from a new standpoint, but principally for the sake of both inspiring and satisfying the increasing sense of corporate self-consciousness and public spirit among all those employed in these enterprises.”
This is a considerable advance but it noticeably retains the old conception of the State and its democratization. It still gives us a picture of middle-class bureaucrats running State departments, tempered by the presence of the Trade Union representatives, refined, as it were, in the washing. One still has to ask the question, “What of the man on the job?”
The industrial unionists and syndicalists of the period prior to the War, and the shop stewards during the War, had given very definite answers to this question. The syndicalists, of course, advanced the idea of the workers in a particular industry owning and controlling it from top to bottom. The industrial unionists stood for the social ownership of the means of production and for all people becoming members of a working class. Industry was to be organized and controlled by the industrial unions. James Connolly put the then position as follows: “What the socialists realize is that under a socialist form of society the administration of affairs will be in the hands of representatives of the various industries of the nation; that the workers in the shops and factories will organize themselves into unions, each union compromising all the workers of a given industry in subordination to the needs of its allied trades and to the department of industry to which it belongs. That representatives of the various departments of industry will meet and form the industrial administration or national government of the country.”
This conception of the future of the unions is the modern counterpart to the “House of Trades”, of the revolutionary Trade Unionists of the Chartist period. It was carried forward into the shop steward movement of the War period and was expounded in a pamphlet called The Workers’ Committee by the present writer.
The Russian Revolution caused most of the revolutionaries to modify their views in the light of Soviet experience, but at the time the shop stewards advocated “control of the job” by the workers, collective contracts instead of individual contracts, power to remove foremen, powers to control the distribution of work, etc. They advanced the tactic of encroaching on the control in the workshop exercised by the employer as a means of creating a will to end his economic power through ownership.
An adaptation of the industrial unionist proposals was made by the guild socialists who advocated the social ownership of the means of production, the administration of certain political affairs by a citizens’ parliament and the administration of industry by industrial unions or guilds, organized in an industrial assembly, subordinate to Parliament in regard to general policy.
These views represented the theoretical views of the most advanced elements within the field of Trade Unionism and Socialism in this country during the immediate pre-War, War, and post-War years. In modified form they appeared in Trade Union conference resolutions. For example, the Trade Union railwaymen demanded before a Royal Commission in 1924 “a due measure of control and responsibility in the safe and efficient working of the railway system”. The Miners’ Federation in 1918 at their annual conference demanded “in the national interests to transfer the entire coal-mining industry from private ownership and control to state ownership, with joint control and administration by the workmen and the State”. Other unions followed the same line. Then came the slump in Trade Unionism—“workers’ control” receded and collaboration took its place. But with the dawn of the possibility of a Labour Government with a majority and a change in the form of industry, it reappeared once again and it was discussed at Trade Union conferences and at the Trades Union Congress. In 1931 the Transport and General Workers’ Union moved the following resolution at the Trades Union Congress:
“That this Congress calls upon the Government when introducing legislation providing for the transfer of any industry or service from private ownership to common ownership and for public control, to make provision ensuring that the workers, through their Trade Union representatives, shall have an adequate and direct share in the control and administration of such industry or service.”
At the Brighton Congress of the Trades Union Congress in 1933 there was a further debate on this question and the General Council in a report declared:
“(1) That as regards labour questions, including recruitments, dismissals, discipline, working conditions, etc., the Trade Unions should assume more responsibility in this sphere.
“(2) As regards technicians, commercial and financial matters, ultimate responsibilities should be in the hands of managers who satisfied proper standards including fitness to work successfully with large bodies of workers, and appointed solely because of the competence to fill the position.
“(3) That works councils be established for regular consultation on all internal matters not coming within the scope of the ordinary negotiating machinery.”
The General Workers’ Union, led by Mr. Dukes, carried the matter a stage farther with a demand that “Congress claims, as a statutory right, that fifty per cent of the representation on magagerial committees shall be accorded to workers’ nominees, and asserts the right of the Trade Unions to retain their present powers and functions relating to conditions of employment and pay”.
Here occurred an interesting interlude. Suddenly the socialist consciousness appeared to waken in the General Council and they wanted to know whether the new proposal related to socialized industries or privately owned industries. It was recognized at once that unless socialized industries were intended, the new proposal would mean nothing other than a rehash of the Whitley proposals.
At the Hastings Conference the amendment was redrafted in order to make it clear that the proposal related to the socialized industries only. It was then passed by the Congress and has become a declared aim of the Trade Unions and the Labour Party.
These resolutions are a decided advance on previous Congress and Party decisions. They represent the reaction of Trade Unionists to the attempt to twist Socialism from its real meaning to the “modern version” of government by public corporations. They were anxious to know where the “workers came in” in the proposed new schemes. This is the essence of the fight for “workers’ control”, which has taken place in the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party Conferences.
The form in which the issue has been clothed, however, is different from the content, in that the picture presented by the resolutions is that of the workers changing “bosses” and not that of a classless working community. There is a “sharing of responsibility” with some force over the workers which takes the form of a fifty-fifty arrangement of seats on the directorship and managerial committees of the corporations between the corporations and the Trade Unions’ nominees.
Although the passing of this resolution was a definite set-back and challenge to those who had held the views represented by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Lees-Smith, much remains to be done before the full implications of the demand for “workers’ control” is made clear in the Labour Movement.
At the same time the aim of the Trade Unions and the Labour Movement must be distinguished from policy. The aim of the whole movement is Socialism. The resolution on “workers’ control of industry” has entered into the aims but the daily conduct and practice of the unions are based on other considerations.
There are now, therefore, four principal lines of thought in the working-class movement on this question of “worker’s control of industry”. The main trend of the Labour Movement stands for the democratization of the capitalist state with the unions taking a greater share of responsibility for the running of industry by means of representation on its governing bodies and effecting a greater check than hitherto on conditions of labour. There is thus to be no sharp break with existing position. In short, the Trade Unions are to play a conciliatory role with regard to administration, whilst increasing responsibilities are to be undertaken in relation to modifying conditions of labour.
The logic of this view in relation to Trade Union and Labour policy, in a period when the capitalist State is shown to be rapidly evolving towards the Corporate State of Fascism, is that of rendering positive assistance to this evolution.
The second line of thought is that of the guild socialists who stand for a break with the existing order, by separating politics from industry and giving to the Trade Unions, reorganized as Industrial Unions or Guilds co-ordinated in a House of Industry or Parliament of Industry, the full responsibility for the administration of industry on a socialist basis. By these changes the workers are to be given an entirely new status, namely that of cooperators in a self-governing industry. The principle of organization according to the functions to be performed, is to govern all departments of social, industrial, and political activity.
The third view is that of the revolutionary Trade Unionists, who come nearer to the views expounded by Connolly. These hold the view that the “control of industry” turns upon the question of ownership. Unless there is social ownership there can be no “workers’ control” of industry or of any other department of social activity. The question of ownership will be solved by revolutionary means, which will do away with Parliament and establish a soviet or workers’ council form of government based upon an industrial or “work” franchise. The Trade Unions will in this process be transformed into industrial unions. The factory will be the unit of the unions. The factory will be the unit also of the workers’ council, though the latter draws in other representatives and delegates from the various departments of social activity. Whilst the council is a wider institution embracing all who work and has a political authority not possessed by the labour unions, there is such a similarity in structure and interlocking of activity and responsibility in administration that the role of the unions corresponds neither to that visualized by the industrial unionist or the guild socialists.
In the first place the industrial unionist had no conception of the soviet or workers’ council kind of State. They visualized an industrialized society administered by a parliament or congress of industrial unions. On the other hand the Guild State with its Consumers’ Parliament and Industrial Parliament encouraged a form of dual state, but both adhered to the functional principle in the structure of the State and the relationship of all institutions.
In both cases there are close similarities as well as sharp differences, due largely to the differences of outlook as to how the change from one social system to the other would come about. The industrial unionist conceived the change coming through the continuous growth of industrial unionism until, with the great majority of the working class organized “at the point of production”, i.e. in factory, mill and mine, dockland and railway depots, etc., they could at some decisive moment assume control of industry and do away with the “political State”.
The guild socialists held the view that the change can come through a socialist majority in Parliament making the bold division of labour and relegating the whole administration of economic affairs and industry to duly transformed unions that have become industrial unions or guilds.
The communist dismisses both these theories and affirms that the change over from one system to the other will come through civil war—the dictatorship of the capitalist and the institutions through which it finds expression will be overcome by the dictatorship of the proletariat expressed through the democratic soviets or workers’ councils. Whilst the communists propagate the transformation of the Trade Unions into industrial unions and hold the view that the economic struggle of the Trade Unions in the present system merges into the general political struggle, culminating in civil war, they maintain that the unions will not be so transformed before the social revolution. Hence in the present period they can only be a contributory factor, a powerful means of developing direct mass action in the form of strikes, demonstrations, etc., from which when the revolutionary situation arrives the workers’ councils—the new political authority—will arise.
There is the fourth view which visualizes the socialist conquest of political power through a parliamentary labour majority, and the use of that power to establish the social ownership of the means of production and “workers’ control of industry”. The Trade Unions are to be transformed into industrial unions and become instruments of industrial administration. This view I propose to develop in succeeding chapters.
All these views, of course, contrast with those held by capitalist parties and groups, whether Liberal, Tory, or Fascist. The Liberal and the Tory, standing for the preservation of the existing system, however it be modified in form, at no point go beyond consultation with the Trade Unions in terms of the master and his servants. The Whitley Council system constitutes the most radical of the schemes to which these custodians of the old world have advanced. But as this system rules out the whole question of the control of industry by the workers, there is little point in dwelling on their views.
The Fascist point of view on the Trade Unions has been so amply demonstrated in the history of Germany and Italy that it is easy to find a starting point in any study of their views. First the existing Trade Unions are not to be transformed into industrial unions in order to assume larger functions. Fascism come to power destroys the Trade Unions. With the ground cleared it is then proposed to work the functional principle on the basis of the preservation of private property and production for profit. This is to be done by the creation of industrial corporations composed of state, employers’, and workers’ representatives. The function of the workers’ representatives is to be that of expressing grievances concerning conditions of employment and co-operating to the maximum in making the industry profitable—the function of a helot with a squeal.
Next: VIII. The Future of the Trade Unions and the State