The ploy of 'divide and rule' was not used only against the Indian people; in 1927, the Labour movement accused the Conservative Government of using it to smash the power of the Trade Unions; there is no doubt that the solidarity of the workers that had led, the year before,to the General Strike had struck their exploiters with a somewhat hysterical fear; they now pressed the panic button and introduced a Trades Disputes Bill that led the Trade Union movement to accuse them of 'Union bashing'. 'Sympathetic' or General Strikes were to be made illegal and picketing was to be severely regulated and the power of the group was to be diminished in favour, the Government claimed, of the power of the individual; but in practice this would mean diminished power for the Trade Unions and more power to the elbows of Management.
For those of us who have lived through the 1980's it is an all too familiar pattern.
It is generally said that patriotism is the love of one's country; I prefer to interpret it as love of one's nation. The nation consists of all the people in the land, the ruling class, the management class as well as the workers who actually produce the goods that pay for the ruling class and the management class to live and who provide them with the reason and the wherewithal to perform their lucrative functions. So the ruling and management classes spread the word that the General Strike put the nation in jeopardy and that therefore the people who organised it were unpatriotic; though the workers for whom the general strike was supposed to bring benefit were as much a part of the nation as the ruling and management classes. To put the lives and happiness of the productive workers in danger was not considered unpatriotic; but to put the profit and power of the rulers in peril was said to be unpatriotic. It is a popular belief even today. A pity.
When the 1927 Trade Disputes Bill was introduced, the Conservative Party published a pamphlet, "The Trade Dispute Bill Popularly Explained"; and a specially convened Trade Union Defence Committee published a tract called, "Union-Smashing By Law - What the Tory Government's Trade Union Bill Means." The Labour Movement realised that a national, authoratative, all-embracing campaign was needed to fight the Bill, particularly since the Government had such an overwhelming majority in the House that it needed more than Parliamentary opposition to defeat it. Propaganda against the Bill was carried on in one of the most well organised enterprises ever embarked upon by the combined forces of Labour. The introduction of the Bill was treated almost as a declaration of war against the working class.
When the Bill was first introduced, Saklatvala was on the boat returning from his Indian tour; but one of the first things he did immediately after his return was to publish a pamphlet entitled MAY DAY 1927. S.SAKLATVALA'S MESSAGE TO HIS CONSTITUENTS ON HIS RETURN FROM INDIA". This opened with the words, "I am glad to be back in my constituency of Battersea to take up my work in Parliament on behalf of the workers, and I will do all in my power to help in the struggle against the iniquitous Trade Union Bill." He went on to say, "...I have just returned from India and can testify to the terrible conditions under which workers, unprotected by a strong Trade Union or Labour movement, are compelled to live. A similar state of degradation is in store for the workers of Britain. ...In every district a strong Council of Action and a Workers' Defence Corps should be formed to prepare the whole Labour movement for an energetic campaign against the Bill, culminating in a real General Strike of all workers, ... In Parliament, all the Labour M.P.s must be asked by their respective constituencies to obstruct all Parliamentary procedure if the Bill is not withdrawn. It is no use fighting the Bill by pettifogging amendments. ... The necessary preliminary to all those effective measures which must be adopted if the Bill is to be fought, is the unity of the workers. ...Are British workers organised to safeguard their honour and freedom or are they to be split among themselves in spite against the Communist movement of Russia, China or Britain? ...I, therefore, beseech you all, men and women of Battersea, to help your committees to get over their personal squabbles and to let the working -class mass unite together as one family determined in its fight against capitalism and imperialism."
It was on May 5th, 1927, that he launched his initial and forthright parliamentary attack against the Bill when he addressed the House thus: "To borrow the phraseology of Lord Birkenhead, I look upon this Bill as a downright act of treason against Parliamentary Government. ... I have said previously that it is legislation of this sort which completely destroys what we call the majesty of the law. Every British citizen would be a contemptible creature if, after the passing of this Bill, he held any British law in respect or reverence, and the Tory Government will find out its mistake." Of course we are now long past the events of 1927; but that there is less and less regard for the law in this country is an undoubted and sad fact - there is little stigma attached to the breaking of many laws and even a prison sentence no longer automatically invokes social condemnation for certain transgressions; indeed, people of public renown and repute drink and drive, break motoring laws, cheat on their income and other taxes and frequently find it something to boast about. Somewhere along the line the law has put itself in a position where it is no longer believed always to be in the right. So perhaps Father was right in suggesting that anti-trade union, anti-working class laws, would ultimately corrodethe average citizen's respect for the law in general.
The Bill then being debated sought, among other things, to prevent trade unions from collecting funds from its members to donate to any political party, against the will of the individual member of the union. Saklatvala pointed out that a clause of conscience already existed in trade union law and any member could, as a matter of conscience, opt out of paying the political levy. He went farther; he contended that the Prime Minister had already come to an agreement that a clause in the Bill restricting the payment of a political levy would not be included in the final Bill "I challenge him," he declared, "Has he not already made a pledge that the Bill will not be put on the Statute Book unless he is permitted to withdraw the political levy clause as a last moment peace-offering to the Labour Party. He knows quite well that he is wasting the time of the House in making it discuss the political levy. ...It would be worth seeing if they put it in after the dissentions in their own ranks."
"Then," he continued, "we come to the question of lock-outs. Of course, lock-outs will not be needed after this Bill. The working man is a serf. He is a slave. He is not going to propose terms. He is going to be dictated to. He cannot strike; he cannot defend himself; he cannot take any counter-action in his own defence. So the Bill itself is devised as a perpetual lock-out in the hands of the master-class. ..."
One of the clauses in the Bill was to make it illegal for any individual to be punished or intimidated for not participating in a strike or other action organised by the union - "Intimidation means to cause a person to fear injury to himself ... 'injury' includes not only physical injury, but the fear of boycott, exposure to hatred, ridicule or contempt." Saklatvala was scornful of this clause. He scoffed, "With regard to persecutions, ... I must tell the Government that if ever they put this Bill into operation and a series of actions are brought into the courts of law on the grounds that this man said that, and that man said this, and so on, they would not in reality be punishing those who dared to pour contempt and ridicule upon one another, but would be causing the whole world to pour contempt and ridicule upon Great Britain. What a sight it would be for the nations of the world! Men and women going up to the magistrate and saying, 'He made faces at me', 'He did not speak to me', 'He walked out of the assembly'. What nonsense to come from the Tory Party! We heard last Monday morning of a Minister in the present Government going to Hyde Park last Sunday. We saw a report in the Daily Mirror - that patriotic organ - that when the national anthem was sung, some people did not like to join in. Some did not remove their hats, but their neighbours promptly forced them to remove them. Could those people be put in prison? I do not know how far the members opposite were guilty, but after some visionary event in my own life, I read in the newspapers that the Tory Members walked out of the House when the Member for Battersea rose to speak. Were THEY to be clapped in gaol? The whole point is so ridiculous, childish and nonsensical that the man who framed such a law ought to be turned out and his name scratched off as a lawyer of merit."
One of the most important clauses in the Bill declared General Strikes or sympathetic strikes to be illegal. Saklatvala contended that it was the right of every worker to withdraw his labour to draw attention to his grievances and no one could make any strike, general or otherwise, illegal. He claimed the whole law to be merely farcical.
"The Prime Minister confessed yesterday that it was the events of last year that compelled him to change his mind..." (and to introduce the Bill) "...but he did not explain which event. Was it the event of our Foreign Secretary meeting his great Italian Master (he was referring to Mussolini) on a river yacht for secret conversations? Was it the event of the Foreign Secretary suddenly being introduced as an Honorary Member of the Italian Fascisti? Which event of last year has made this Bill possible?
"In such a debate as this it does not behove one to take up much time. I have only got to say this to the Government. We in the Communist movement do not believe in relief being sought by the working classes by a mere promise that the Bill shall be repealed, though we are heart and soul with those who desire that it shall be repealed, and we will work towards that end. .... We say that the working classes cannot get their rights so long as the capitalist class is in power. The capitalist class believe in giving knock-out blows of the most unscrupulous character every time they can find a chance, and the policy of the working class must be to give them open, deliberate, knock-out blows, one after another. ... This Bill will enlighten the proletariat and quicken them up, and then you will see the unity between the Communists and the Trade Unionists ... You may take our word for it that settled Government in this country and so-called law and order by a gang of conspirators and forgers is impossible. We challenge you to go ahead with this measure, and you will see where you fall down."
When the Debate was resumed on the following day, Saklatvala again took up the fight. He said, "It has been made amply clear that the present series of Amendments before the Committee are making the original Bill a little worse than it was before. ....I suggest seriously to the Government that if the want 'peace in our time, O Lord', they should scrap this Bill and accept all the eleven amendments which stand in my name.
These eleven Amendments had been published as an article in the Sunday Worker on 13th May 1927. (See Appendix 1 to this chapter).
The Sunday Worker had claimed: - "The Bill is designed to abolish strikes of all descriptions, to do away with picketing, however peaceful, to cripple the political Labour Movement by destroying the effectiveness of the political levy, and to divorce civil servants from Trade Union activity. Harry Pollitt called for a 24-hour General Strike of protest to be called as from midnight on 1st May. The Communist Party invited the I.L.P. to a joint attack against the Bill and against the war being waged in China but the I.L.P. did not respond to the suggestion. Mass rallies were held up and down the country to combat the threatened legislation. Saklatvala addressed a huge convocation of workers on Wormwood Scrubs on May 29th and the usual meetings were held in Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square.
Of course, Ramsay MacDonald had been right when he said it would be impossible to defeat the passing of the Bill in the House and it was finally passed at the end of July. The voice of the people had rung out loud and clear but it had no effect on those in power.
(Strange, is it not, that members of even democratically elected Governments seem all too often to be stricken with deafness - what a pity they cannot at the same time be struck dumb.
Saklatvala's view of the Bill was expressed with his usual quiet humour when he was making a report of his year's work In Parliament and in India. He had tried, he said, time and time again to get the T.U.C. General Council to help in organising Indian Trade Unions, (in fact, he had approached them first in 1911) but all they did was to advise him to take what concessions the Government would give, and so in time build up the Indian movement to the level of the British Trade Unions - and when they had said this, he added, we had the spectacle of the British Government bringing the T.U.C. down to that of the Indian unions.
COMMUNIST REPLY TO SCAB BILL
Saklatvala's Amendments Which Turn Its Edge Against Capitalism
"A very forcible and marked contrast with the sham amendments to the Trade Union Bill put forward by the Labour Party leaders is shown by the following Amendments which stand in the name of Comrade Saklatvala:-
CLAUSE 1 to read:- 'It is hereby declared that any strike having any object calculated to improve the wages, working conditions, or social conditions of the trade unionists, either directly or indirectly, is legal even though the strike involves the entire membership of the trade union movement.
'It shall be legal for any body of workers to stop work to assist another body of workers even though they themselves are not in dispute with their own employers over any question of wages or conditions of labour. Any provision in previous Acts declaring such action to be a breach of contract shall be repealed.
For the purposes of the above, a trade dispute is any withdrawal of labour of any extent whatever which, in the view of the trade union movement, is calculated to improve the wages, working conditions, or social conditions of its members, either directly or indirectly.
It shall also be legal for a strike to be directed against a Government which is supporting the employers in their attitude towards the Trade Union Movement on any industrial or political question affecting the interests of trade unionists.'
CLAUSE 2 to read:- 'No person refusing to take part in any strike declared by his union shall be entitled to claim exemption from the penalties imposed on him by his trade union if such penalties are a part of the registered rules of the union.'
CLAUSE 3 to read:- 'It is hereby declared that it is lawful for one or two persons to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. The number of people so attending shall not be limited, and the duty of the police shall be confined to preventing any action of violence against individuals such as are punishable by ordinary law.'
CLAUSE 4 to read:- 'It shall not be lawful to require any member of a trade union to make any contribution to the political fund of a union unless before the date upon which the contribution is levied a ballot has been taken of the members of the union and a majority of the members participating in the ballot have declared in favour of creating a political fund. In the event of the majority of the members participating in the ballot declaring in favour of the creation of the political fund, this majority decision shall be binding on all members of the union until reversed by another ballot. A ballot on the question of creating or maintaining a political fund shall be taken every three years. Provided that no conference of the Labour Party or any other body to which the union is affiliated or the governing body of the union itself shall have power to refuse to levy any member in respect of political contributions or to refuse any member so levied the right to run for the parliamentary panel of the union or as delegate to any body to which the union is affiliated for political purposes.'
CLAUE 5 to read:- 'Amongst the regulations as to the conditions of service in H.M.'s civil establishments there shall be included regulations compelling every employee of the concern to be a member of the appropriate trade union catering for the grade of labour, whether mental or manual, to which he belongs. Employees in H.M.'s civil establishments shall be granted the same rights as workers in private employment, viz., the right to strike in unison with workers in private employment, if necessary, to maintain or improve the wages, working conditions, or social conditions generally. Unions catering for workers employed in H.M.'s civil establishments shall be free to unite or federate for any industrial or political purpose with unions of workers in private employment. It shall be lawful for any soldiers, sailors, airmen, or other ranks of the military, naval and air forces to continue membership of the trade unions of which they were members in civil life; or to enter such trade unions as may cater for their occupations; and it shall be lawful for organisers or other members of political organisations or Trade Unions to conduct any propaganda, verbal and in writing, amongst soldiers, sailors, airmen, or other ranks of the forces enumerated, intended or calculated to procure their entry into Trade Unions.'
CLAUSE 6 to read:- 'It shall not be lawful for any local or other public authority to employ any person for more than a week who is not a member of or who has not made application to become a member of a registered trade union.'
CLAUSE 7 to read:- 'Without prejudice to the right of any person having a sufficient interest in the relief sought to sue or apply for an injunction to restrain any application of the funds of a trade union in contravention of the provisions of this Act. No person not a member of the union against whom the injunction is being sought shall have powers to apply for an injunction.'
The following additional amendments have also been sent in by Comrade Saklatvala:-
TO CLAUSE 1:- 'If any employer of labour shall combine with other employers for the purpose of reducing the wages, lengthening the hours of labour, worsening the working conditions or lowering the social status of their employees by lock-out or otherwise, they shall be liable,individually and collectively, on summary conviction to the confiscation and nationalisation of their factories, shops or otherundertakings without compensation.'
TO CLAUSE 2:- 'An employer or group of employers recruiting, or attempting to recruit, by propaganda or otherwise, voluntary or paid labour during an industrial dispute in which he is or they are engaged; or forming, or attempting to form, or to procure the formation of a trade union embracing only his or their employers, and precluded by its rules from striking, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10,000 or 5 years imprisonment with the penalty for a second offence of nationalisation of their property without compensation.'
TO CLAUSE 3:- 'It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of employers to draw up or cause to be drawn up, or to circulate in any shape or form, lists or names of workers whom they do not desire to be employed; or to dismiss from their employment any worker who is a member of a factory, works, shop, depot, or similar committee, elected by the employees of such employer or association of employers for the defense of their economic, political or social interests; the penalty for contravention of this regulation being a fine of not less than £10,000 or 5 years imprisonment, and nationalisation of their property without compensation for a second offence.' "