Labor v. Labor

Pecked at by unfavorable opinion polls, the opposition Tories and even the once faithful unions, Britain's Prime Minister Harold Wilson has had nothing to crow about for a long time. Last week Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins gave him something. Reporting on the balance of payments for the first half of the year, he announced that for the first time since 1962 Britain's income had exceeded the outgo. Said Jenkins, who scarcely seemed able to believe it himself: "We have been paying our way."

The figures do not mean that Britain's economic crisis is over. Most of the modest $115 million surplus came from tourism and other "invisible" earnings; high costs and low productivity still result in an excess of imports over exports. Even so, the first tentative signs of success for his tough economic policy gave Wilson some sorely needed leverage to use against the Tories--and against the Labor Party's often uncooperative allies in the labor movement.

Mutual Feeling. The Labor Party normally marches alongside Britain's unions. The unions invented the party, and through the years they have bankrolled it, supported it at the polls and provided many of its leaders. Of course, there is always some strain when the party is in power and must place national responsibilities ahead of union interests. Since Wilson formed his government in 1964, Labor and labor have been at arm's length--if not sword's point. While the unions harped on the issues of workingmen's pay and pride, the party was attempting to defend the pound and rescue a faltering economy, among other ways by keeping wages in line. As a result, Labor has begun to regard labor as an occasionally dangerous liability. The feeling is mutual.

The split was painfully evident two weeks ago when Wilson turned up at the annual meeting in Portsmouth of the Trades Union Congress, which represents 155 unions and 8,875,381 workers. Sullen delegates voted a resolution condemning Wilson's plan to extend his vigorous wage-restraint law indefinitely. Then Wilson delivered a tough warning ("Every penny must be earned") that may have appealed to his nationwide TV audience but only enraged the union chiefs. "Well, the writing's on the wall, now," said T.U.C. Delegate Cyril Philips. "The Tories will go back into power next time because a lot of disillusioned people will abstain from voting."

Though the hostility between government and unions began to grow almost from the moment Wilson took office, there was no head-on clash until this spring, when Wilson vowed to end a damaging rash of wildcat strikes by imposing stiff fines on offending workers and unions. In June, Wilson was forced to back down under fierce opposition both within his party and among the unions. The showdown came when Victor Feather, the T.U.C.'s earthy new chief (see box), warned that labor might just let Labor go it alone at the polls next time. Wilson is expected to call an election in the fall of 1970, or in any case before the April 1971 deadline.

In exchange for Wilson's agreement to drop the proposed penalties, Feather gave his "solemn pledge" that the unions would do something themselves about the stoppages. Such strikes account for 95% of all work stoppages in Britain, and last year cost the country 4,500,000 man-days. Whether Feather will be able to redeem his pledge is uncertain. In August, 1,300 blast-furnacemen at a steel plant in Port Talbot, Wales, ignored his efforts to end a three-week walkout that hammered steel output to a 17-month low.

Nation of Stewards. Feather's problem is that, as far as labor goes, Britain has always been a nation of shop stewards. The rank and file flout their national leaders, who generally pay little attention to "the blue-collar blokes." Moreover, the T.U.C. is a loose conglomeration of strong individual unions. Since June, Feather has been jawboning his union chiefs on the virtues of labor discipline on the shop floor. His main argument: if the T.U.C.'s voluntary approach fails, Labor will be defeated at the polls, leaving the unions at the not-so-tender mercies of the Tories.

Feather is also moving to trim the power of the miners, steelworkers and other old-industry unions. He wants to cut strikes and industrial unrest by 40% over the next year, but the government, businessmen and the public appear doubtful that he can succeed. If Feather fails, Wilson could be hurt. The latest Gallup polls show that only 25% of the electorate think that the Labor Party can halt the stoppages; 31% think that the Conservatives would do a better job.

With some luck, Wilson may be able to buy back public confidence before he faces the voters again. The price may well be continued antagonism of the unions. But just as U.S. unions have a way of quarreling with the Democratic Party and then supporting it at the polls, British labor may well close ranks. "When it comes to the crunch," said a T.U.C. official, "we'll all stand together." Even if that forecast is correct, there is no indication where the rest of the country will stand.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.