Limits Imposed on the Power of UK Unions in 1970

[Tony Jones]

According to episode 3 of the History of Modern Britain on the BBC last night, in 1969 Barbara Castle produced a white paper which outlined a proposed act to curb the power of British Unions. However, despite support from the PM (Harold Wilson), and pleading from both him and Barbara Castle this was never passed into law. According to the programme this was quite a close run thing.

So, what if this white paper had become law, perhaps in 1970? That is, with limts on Union power imposed more than ten years before Mararet Thatcher did so in OTL (if with less extreme limits), and with the limits imposed by a Labour government? It would have forced unions to call a ballot before a strike was held, and an Industrial Board would have been established to enforce settlements in industrial disputes. Its implementation might have stopped the decline of the Labour party in the 1970s and the economic troubles, union disputes and strike action of that decade, which could have led to a very different UK by the present day.

What do people reckon?

 

[Shimbo]

You are refering I think to 'In Place of Strife'? It was a sort of prototype for the Thatcherite anti-union legislation.

Here's a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife

You can probably argue it both ways:

Maybe Britain needed to go through a period of turmoil to clear the decks for its more recent service-based economic resurgence.

Alternatively, maybe it would have saved more of Britain's manufacturing industry.

 

[Tony Jones]

Yes, that's the white paper. The 'white paper' link in my post goes to it.

I don't really know enough about the period to be able to judge how it might have gone, as you say it could have gone either way. But it is an interesting question!

 

[Kit]

Yes, I saw the programme as well and it made me think.

By kneecapping the unions in 1970, before the economic turmoil of the decade was made significantly worse by the industrial actions, then it would have had both political and economic effects.

The economic effects would have been significant, but not as revolutionary as the 80s (because the 80s were a time of international boom whereas the 70s were a decade of managing economic problems). By improving industrial relations British manufacturing would have been in a much stronger position. Infrastructure investment in new plant (which Britain desperately needed in the 70s) would have happened much more extensively, improving our balance of trade and our growth. Increased labour flexibility would have helped as well.

Politically, there would have been no crises like the 3 hour week, and no Michael Foot left-wing seizure of the Labour party. Things would have been far more politically stable with no implosion of Labour for 17 years and no Thatcher trampolling over the post-war consensus.

However, what the 1970 action would not have done is solve Britain's other economic weaknesses (low levels of entrepreneurship, poor management, poor training and education, low R&D, high taxes etc). Basically the other half of the Thatcher revolution.

However, with a more stable political field, it is likely that those things would have been dealt with gradually, starting in the 1970s rather than the 1980s, and we would have been better off.

 

[Tony Jones]

I can imagine Labour are still going to lose the 1970 general election, just for different reasons than OTL, due to their anti-Union actions. So the Conservatives under Edward Heath are likely to come to power as they did in OTL, but with a different set of problems to deal with. Whether that would allow them to steer events to a much different outcome to OTL I don't know.

I can imagine that if the changes here would let them implement their fairly radical monetarist and free-market oriented policies as solutions to the country's unemployment and inflation problems that might help the UK, and prolong the life of the 1970s Conservtive government. On the other hand it could force more trouble and more confrontation with the Unions than in OTL, and so shorten that governments life...

 

[birdy]

i'm wondering whether having a more succesful manufacturing economy might lead to us in the 2000's actually being in the same kind of economic straits as Germany France and Japan or not, i dont actually know much about their economic problems though so i wonder what your opinions are.

 

[Shimbo]

i'm wondering whether having a more succesful manufacturing economy might lead to us in the 2000's actually being in the same kind of economic straits as Germany France and Japan or not, i dont actually know much about their economic problems though so i wonder what your opinions are.

Well given that Germany is the world's 3rd richest country and has just retaken the position of worlds biggest exporter I'm not sure their economic problems are too bad...

To be honest I think the idea that Europe has dire economic problems is somewhat exagerated. These are some of the richest (Britain, Germany, France) or fastest growing (Ireland) countries in the world. Also, overall the EU's GDP is bigger than the USA's and there is huge room for growth due to the accession of the Eastern European countries.

Japan is also growing again after a long stagnation and even after that lost decade is still the world's second richest country.

 

[birdy]

Well given that Germany is the world's 3rd richest country and has just retaken the position of worlds biggest exporter I'm not sure their economic problems are too bad...

To be honest I think the idea that Europe has dire economic problems is somewhat exagerated. These are some of the richest (Britain, Germany, France) or fastest growing (Ireland) countries in the world. Also, overall the EU's GDP is bigger than the USA's and there is huge room for growth due to the accession of the Eastern European countries.

Japan is also growing again after a long stagnation and even after that lost decade is still the world's second richest country.

i was vaguely aware of Germany starting to recover, ditto for Japan. The output for the Germans/French seems to have still been good (to a layman) but they have/had high unemployment rates and stagnating economic growth the last few years. least that what it looked like.

 

[Shimbo]

i was vaguely aware of Germany starting to recover, ditto for Japan. The output for the Germans/French seems to have still been good (to a layman) but they have/had high unemployment rates and stagnating economic growth the last few years. least that what it looked like.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, as you rightly say France does have high unemployment. What I'm saying is just that ideas that float around, particularly in right-wing circles, that Europe is in some kind of terminal economic slump are far from the truth.

For example, the shake out from implementing the single market and the Euro were both expected to cut growth for several years as less efficient firms felt the effects of greater cross-border competition, over time they have gone to the wall and the more efficient companies have prospered, raising growth.

Germany in particular has had two big external shocks, absorption of E. Germany and interest rates within the Euro not being ideal, that were always going to hit them. IMO they have now got through those problems and we will see solid German growth over the next few years.

I also think there is a very good chance of Irish style booms in the East European states, which will boost growth. Movement of East Europeans to Britain and Ireland has greatly improved their economies and will do the same for the other big economies as they are forced to open to inter-EU migration.

 

[birdy]

I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, as you rightly say France does have high unemployment. What I'm saying is just that ideas that float around, particularly in right-wing circles, that Europe is in some kind of terminal economic slump are far from the truth.

For example, the shake out from implementing the single market and the Euro were both expected to cut growth for several years as less efficient firms felt the effects of greater cross-border competition, over time they have gone to the wall and the more efficient companies have prospered, raising growth.

Germany in particular has had two big external shocks, absorption of E. Germany and interest rates within the Euro not being ideal, that were always going to hit them. IMO they have now got through those problems and we will see solid German growth over the next few years.

I also think there is a very good chance of Irish style booms in the East European states, which will boost growth. Movement of East Europeans to Britain and Ireland has greatly improved their economies and will do the same for the other big economies as they are forced to open to inter-EU migration.

well that cleared things up

 

[ljofa]

Germany in particular has had two big external shocks, absorption of E. Germany and interest rates within the Euro not being ideal, that were always going to hit them. IMO they have now got through those problems and we will see solid German growth over the next few years.

Plus Germany has had one big internal shock - the loss of all those NATO troops from their soil who no longer have their families with them and are no longer pumping money into the economy. Long term German economic planning never saw their removal which was, for the most part, completed over 5 years and coupled with the external shocks, really screwed the Bundesbank.

 

[SteveW]

I'm under the impression that Callaghan wanted to tame the unions because they were destroying his premiership (and the economy), but he decided that he should leave it to a Tory government to do instead- and still be able therefore to have the unions onside.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I suspect that the power of the Unions was exagerated.

I think that for Labour to get 'In place of strife' though' its best chance would be to offer and sell it as a balanced deal. For instance balancing legal enfocement of collective agreements with a right to Union recognition of most employees wanted it.

I strongly doubt that Wilson would lose and electgion in 1970 or 1971 if the proposals had been carried.

 

[SteveW]

He might still have lost it. The more left-wing voters in Wales and Scotland might have switched to Plaid or the SNP. It might just have evened out, still in Heath's favour. But I do get what you're getting at.