ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive


International Socialism, Summer 1968

 

Thurso Berwick

ETU

 

From The Notebook, International Socialism (1st series), No.33, Summer 1968, pp.5-6.
Transcribed & marked up Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.

 

Thurso Berwick writes: At the time of writing, preparations are going ahead for the ETU presidential election which will take place later this year. The candidate receiving most branch nominations so far appears to be Fred Morphew, secretary of Dartford, Kent, branch. A contracting militant, well-known in ETU circles, Morphew, who has the support of the unofficial Communist-controlled London Action Committee and large sections of the contracting and supply industry memberships, has previously stood as a candidate for full-time positions in the union. He did fairly well in the September 1966 and December 1966 ballots for the positions of national officer, coming third and fourth preference in a field of nine and ten candidates respectively and picking up more than 4,700 votes on both occasions. Hanging over his head at the moment however are charges in connection with the recent demonstrations against the iniquitous grading agreement and the establishment of the Joint Industry Board for the electrical contracting industry. The charges, brought by the executive council, are similar to those which they have already used as grounds for expelling seven Left-wing militants in key industries, and removing from office and suspending sine die a number of others, as part of the current witch-hunt which they began six months ago. In view of Morphew’s nomination for the presidential candidature, the executive have postponed the hearing of the case because, they claim, disciplinary action taken by them against Morphew at this stage might be misconstrued by union members and attract the wrong kind of publicity. Of course this does not preclude the possibility that if, in the election, Morphew does receive an overall majority, he could still be prevented from taking office (in the ETU, the successful candidate in any election has to be declared elected for the specified term of office by a majority vote of the executive council); manipulation of the ballot in the event of the wrong candidate being returned means the executive have only to declare their intention to postpone taking a decision on the results of the election, pending a hearing of the charges against Morphew. If they did and they found the charges proven (would they be likely to find them not proven?) then Morphew would be automatically prevented from holding office or expelled, and the executive would have the choice of either declaring the election null-and-void, or declaring elected the candidate having an overall majority over the remaining candidates. Presumably if Morphew were the candidate returned by voters, the runner-up would almost certainly be Cannon who could retain the presidency by the simple expediency of Morphew’s disqualification. Even if Cannon does worse in the voting than take second place, and this is extremely unlikely, the nullification of the ballot would give the executive time to further discredit the Left and woo the support of the press in a new campaign. All this is speculation of course but the movements of the executive council are usually predictable and clearly the CP have rather put all their eggs in one basket in relying upon a candidate who is so readily assailable.

We hope Fred is successful; he is a nice guy; but whether Cannon is ousted in September or not no progressive changes in union policy will occur. Already steps are being taken by the executive which will further gag the rank and file (i.e. if the ETU/PTU merger goes through, rules revision conferences will take place only every six years) and ensure the continuance of reactionary policies which can only lead to an increase in the corporate nature of the union as an extension of the machinery of the State. Under union rules, the president has little power. Cannon only wields power by virtue of his association with the government, the TUC and the various bodies of which he is a member – a member only because he happens to be a right-winger. A left-wing president would not have this backing and the rest of the executive could make his life a misery.

If the ETU is ever to represent the hopes and aspirations of the rank and file, a completely new union structure will be required. This will not be achieved by the creation of front organisations for the CP, the passing of resolutions in the vacuity of conferences, official or otherwise, or in people playing vague spasmodic leadership roles. It will only be achieved by working patiently in the fragments, building one brick on top of another, as links are established between militants in branches, jobs and sites, and by creating strong unofficial shop stewards’ committees on an area basis. Also, unless these links are built on a clearly stated political programme they are destined to failure. Only when militant trades unionists become conscious that an industrial fight or a tenants’ fight is a political fight, that every dispute however trivial brings its protagonists into a direct confrontation which goes to the very roots of the organisation of our society, will the climate be created in which the original objects of the union can begin to be realised. In the stated objects of the ETU is the clause ‘... especially by supporting policies which will ultimately give the workers ownership and control of industry.’ Before the sparks can think in terms of controlling their own industry they will have to work towards securing control of their own union.

 
Top of page


ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive

Last updated on 18.6.2008