JANUS
Page 73
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WRITES
. . uncomfortably like a satirical ;rody of trade union doublethink'
HIEF among the impressions left by the Trades Union Congress last week is the paradox of an apparent love for planning in general linked with an guised dislike of wage restraint. This confusion was :ed in the main resolutions and may have had some nee on the subsequent discussions. The same desire ve one's cake and eat it too was shown in the unaniacceptance of a resolution asking the Government fer making decisions on transport until a thorough y of the industry had been completed, followed by ually unanimous resolution calling for public owner road transport.
union leaders cannot have been unaware of the n logic. They even made one or two attempts to Mr. Frank Cousins, for example, denied strongly aggestion that the T.U.C. was doing and had done eg about a plan for transport. Everyone should know his was not so, he said. The transport unions had clear to the Government their readiness and willingat the time of the Beeching report to consider ation. Perhaps this argument sounded convincing it was delivered. In cold print it reads uncomfortably satirical parody of trade union doublethink.
wever contradictory the T.U.C. proposals for transmay be, they were hardly unexpected. Everyone d know, as Mr. Cousins might say, that the unions e the Beeching plan and are in favour of the onalization of road transport. Resolutions along the lines as those approved at Brighton are down for ision at the Labour party conference, which is to Id at Scarborough from September 30 to October 4. support will come from the trade union represens, many of whom, to judge from the amendments have tabled, are eager to go probably much farther the party leaders, to renationalize road haulage, to te restrictions on the C-licence holder and to pay no ensatiort.
D. INFLUENCE he deliberations of the T.U.C. affected only the unions .elves, comment from outside would be less frequent )ossibly milder. An organization or an individual if he pleases, express the wildest of opinions prothey cause no harm to other people. The influence e T.U.C. within the Labour party can hardly be iered negligible, however, and that party may be upon to form a Government within the next 12 es. Moreover, apart from the merits or demerits of .U.C. proposals, they are bound to have an adverse on some interests. There is every reason, therefore, :his effect, as well as the proposals, should be subject tical consideration.
serious argument can be made against the contenhat there should be an inquiry, or perhaps a series 4uiries, into certain aspects of transport. It follows hat the results should be used as the basis of a plan led to make the best use of the transport facilities ,ble, to modify them where necessary and in so doing o lose sight of what is loosely called the public interest. If the closure of a railway line is likely to cause hardship to the users, then it should be kept open. If changes are likely to bring hardship to the providers of transport, whether employers or workers, then this is another valid reason for not making the change, or in the last resort for the payment of compensation.
Up to this point there would be no disagreement among 'the employers' associations, the British Railways Board, the trade unions and the political parties. Nor would anything other than strong protests be expected from any interests likely to be adversely affected. Mr. Sidney Greene, general secretary, National Union of Railwaymen, made an extremely effective speech when moving the resolution on transport at the T.U.C. He questioned the quality of the expertise behind the Beeching plan and suggested that the railways could still play an important and increasing part in Britain's economy.
SOME GOOD POINTS Clearly Mr. Greene, while making some good points, was upholding the interests of his members. Mr. Cousins also had some cogent things to say, but it is less easy to see how these would necessarily be for the benefit of the members of the union he represented—although admittedly he was speaking on this occasion for the general council of the T.U.C. He criticized the Government for separating 13ritish Road Services from an integrated transport system. Whether or not he is right, one may suspect that 13.R.S. staff on the whole prefer their independence and do not much fancy the role of playing second fiddle to the railways.
The views of railwaymen in general on state ownership may have little relevance at the present time when the railways have in any event to rely upon the state for subsidy and must therefore expect the state to call the tune. With road transport the situation is different. B.R.S. and the independent hauliers are solvent concerns, and the people who make them up should be entitled to some opinion about their ownership.
So far as one can tell, the opinions are mixed, and correspond roughly to the present position. Most of the employees of B.R.S. find some advantage in working for a nationalized organization; most of the workers under free enterprise prefer things that way and do not hesitate to say so. Some of them have left B.R.S. either because the rewards on the other side are greater or because they feel the atmosphere is more congenial. This may have nothing to do with the way in which they vote, but there should be some way or other in which it can be taken into account in the balance of forces.
Instead there is the ultimate paradox that trade unions which ought to be reflecting the opinions and interests of all road haulage workers are pursuing policies, such as integration and C-licence restriction, which could be harmful to a large number of their own members. If all the workers realize this, and are prepared to accept the disadvantages in order to promote what they are persuaded is the general good, then there is no more to be said. But it is doubtful if, in fact, this realization exists.