Communists in Unions

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28478, 7 January 1958, Page 8

Communists in Unions

The Communist leaders of the Electrical Trades Union in Britain appear to have succeeded, temporarily at any rate, in thwarting a movement challenging their leadership. Because of the dubious tactics they used in doing so, they have brought the affairs of the union unfavourably to the notice of the nation. Some sort of inquiry is now inevitable; and if -the Trades Union Congress is unwilling to undertake it, the Government will not be averse to accepting the responsibility. It must, as Mr Macmillan told the House of Commons, be disastrous if a key union is controlled by persons whose whole political concepts incline them to disruption. The question might fairly be asked: how, in view of their meagre electoral support, do the Communists secure their strong grip on unions? The answer lies in inadequate union leadership and an apathetic membership. Because the Communists are diligent and' disciplined, when meetings are poorly attended and little interest is taken in ballots, they soon capture key posts. Then, as in the Electrical Trades Union, they .employ all manner of devices to entrench themselves while subordinating the union’s objectives to Communist policy. Had no unwelcome publicity been given to the last E.T.U. ballot, the leaders would not have been disturbed; but in the face of growing rank-and-file restiveness at the disappearance of normal democratic practices in the union, they went too far. Mr L. J. Cannon, who resigned from the Communist Party over Hungary, was a candidate for the inner executive of the union, which can deal with all business in the absence of the full executive provided its decisions are unanimous. They had been able to keep this unanimity, for all the “inner” members were Communists.

It was widely reported that Mr Cannon had beaten his Communist opponent for the post; but the leadership then began to discover “ irregulari- “ ties ” in the voting. The Mitcham branch of the union voted overwhelmingly for Mr Cannon; but the Communist secretary, Mr Haxell, claimed that only a third of the members were financial and entitled to vote. . When the branch contested this ruling Mr Haxell found that the Mitcham vote was, after all, in order. But five other branches, which also supported Mr Cannon, had their votes disqualified. Mr Cannon's majority disappeared and his opponent was declared elected though no final result of the ballot was given. After this brush with democratic procedure, the executive called a secret conference to change the rules. The conference first circumscribed the right of union branches to communicate with one another on electoral

matters; second, it ensured that the inner executive will remain Communist so long as there are two Communists on the full executive. Finally, shaken by the outcry by its members and by the public, the conference ipcreased penalties for divulging union affairs to the press. This meant that any member who sought the support of public opinion could be expelled; and since the union operates a closed shop, expulsion would mean unemployment That was the reason for the extraordinary precautions taken to conceal the identity of union members who spoke about the dispute on a television programme. This sort of procedure has no place in Britain. If the union leaders change the rules to suit themselves, the rank and file will want a change of leaders. There is no easy way for them to seek redress; but the T.U.C., as the supreme authority in the trade union field, is the appropriate organisation to intervene. If it does not, the Government may take notice of suggestions made in responsible quarters that legislation should be introduced to make unions publicly accountable for their actions. There is considerable statutory regulation of public companies and powers of supervision and investigation into their affairs. Similar public powers in respect of trade unions might be necessary. The “ Economist ” says this would not be a blow against trade unions any more than the Companies Acts are a blow against shareholders; it would be a blow on their behalf. The events in the E.T.U. show that legislation of this sort would protect the rights of members. But even if legislation were passed making ballots incorruptible .and rulebooks a model of democratic procedure, the Communists’ diligence might still gain for them control of big unions. Only equal diligence by the rank and file will ensure that union affairs remain in the hands of those who have their interests at heart.