Tribunals No Answer

Scan page 5

*AY WHERE asure: Radiographers march for more pay in 1974 - majority Blac December 29th was 1975 hailed by the social rats demor as "freedom day' the for women of Britain. was This the day the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act - five years after it was passed in Parliament became law.

Both of course, as with all reforms, are a gain for the working class, but a very hollow gain as they are conceded at the time when the massive attacks by the Labour government on behalf of capitalism on the social, health and education services hit both at workers jobs and living standards.

Women are disproportionately hit both by the cutbacks in jobs (over 70% of teachers are women, and an even larger percentage ol hospital and school auxiliary workers), and by their traditional role in the family of caring ior the sick and the children which means that the burden of responsibilities shed by the social services falls on them in the home.

These reforms come also at the time when the Commons Select Committee on abortion has been reconvened to do its job of severely limiting women's access to abortion facilities.

So while the capitalist state has the Labour government and the collaboration of the trade union leaders to police the working class in holding down its material conditions, it feels it safe to give into the pressures from the labour movement and liberal and petty bourgeois forces of the womens movement, and concede these legal reforms for women's rights.

The principle of equal pay has been a part of the programme of the Labour Party for decades but it wasn't until the boom of the 1960s with the increasing strength and confidence in the working class, and the growth of the womens liberation movement, and . their consequent pressure on liberal sections of the bourgeoisie to grant reforms, that Barbara Castle finally acted on the issue.

The moves by the working class in the late 60s were characterised by the Fords Dagenham strike, and there were moves in many other industries (British Leyland Cowley Assembly Plant won an equal pay agreement in 1970.)

Barbara Castle introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1970 - but under conditions whereby employers had 5 years to "make preparations" And make preparations they certainly did!

The Act provides that where a man and a woman are doing the same, or similar work, or work graded the same on a job evaluation scheme, then they should receive equal pay rates. Or where there is a collective agreement for rates with different conditions for men and women then the women's rates have to be raised to at least that of the lowest male rate.

Now the years of manoeuvring began. The Act gave carte blanche to employers to introduce job evaluation schemes on the pretext of 'preparing for equal pay' but in reality using them as a preparation for speed up and redundancy and an opportunity to make up their own categories of skills. (Thus men and women working side by side filling paint cans are classified as mess paint fillers of light paint according to sex - and paid accordingly!)

In some cases the lowest male rates in collective agreements were dropped. The role of the trade union bureaucrats here is of course ite crucia one. These manoeurres sonle tare = 33 vitost 4LL"" satortes i: :garag: stretches in some cases down to convenor and shop steward levels.

Their attitude is based on their acceptance of management's logic that raising women's wages will be a threat to the jobs of the male workers, and therefore the issue is seen by them as a threat to their basic support.

Hence the refusal to struggle for womens wages and conditions and their inability to bring women into active trade union membership -in some cases actually abandoning factories where women have fought for the beginnings of trade union organisation are directly connected.

We cannot accept their arguments that women are too concerned about their homes to bother about unions without leadership which appreciates the problems involved for women workers whò are also housewiyes and mothers, ante struggles for their wages and conditions, women will see advantage trade union membership.

The massive turnout on the TUC Women's Year demonstration in May last year clearly showed how women workers will act when leadership is given.

So now 5 years later the Act is law and women have won equal pay - or have they? The present hourly rate of pay on average is 66% that of the male average rate! This is mainly due to the concentration of women workers in the public services and 1n traditionally paid industries such as clothing and light enginerring.

Again the role of the trade union leaders here is vital. Last year we saw the spectacle of the employer hiring a special train to take the workers of his mill, which he was closing down Parliament to lobby and call for import controls - led by their trade union leaders and the local 'left' MPs.

These leaders unquestioningly accept the argument the employer that "cannot afford" decent wages and conditions, because "competition" from cheap labour abroad.

The Sex Discrimination Act legislates against employers treating a woman (or a man) differently "simply because she is a woman" (or he a man). It deals also with sex discrimination in education, and discrimination against married people.

However vast areas are left out -social security and pensions for example. And again the concession is made at this time when the vast cutbacks in education and socia] services serve very effectively in preventing mothers from getting jobs.

This act has been described the "most complicated piece of legislation this century" - which adequately describes the numerous loopholes it contains. There are also ominous signs, as in the case of the Newcastle headmaster who says that he will now cane girls as well as boys in the spirit of equality, that the law is being used to equalise oppression rather than rights.

Farm Hear NOCL S GisTLt S As communists of course we fight for the fullest democracy in bourgeois society to break down barriers and divisions within the working class, and bring out more clearly the class and social conflicts between workers and capitalists. We know that while we fight to force concessions, even the fullest political equality under capitalism cannot emancipate working class women. For this we need to remove the woman's social subordination within the family.

FAMILY

This task requires a fight against capitalism, to which the family is integral. It is this which the union bureaucrats and Labour 'lefts' cannot undertake, given their reformist commitment to defend capitalism.

The bureaucracy's abject failure to fight for women's interests in the unions stems from their acceptance the main root of women's oppression - the family - and the bourgeois notion that their place is in the home' , and that in times of high unemployment they should be the 'first out' of a job.

There are moves being made to remove the protective legislation which prevents employers forcing women workers to do night shift work or extra long working weeks, on the bogus argument that a woman must have the 'right' to choose her own hours of work, and that now men and women are "equal" they should have "equal" conditions.

These are dangerous arguments and must be seen as playing directly into the employers' hands. The aim THI FOR THE of hospital staff are women workers.

concede equal pay employ women.

The only weapon the working class has against these employers is that of united action.

Those elements within the womens movement who are planning to tram advocates to function as advisers for women taking their cases to these tribunals are on a very dangerous path, and they play directly into the hands of the trade union officials who suggest this way in order to head off a struggle.

The Communist Party joins these elements by boosting the credibility of the reformist NCCL organisation, which is advocating this plan, by printing uncritically NCCL statements in their womens journal Link (Winter issue).

These tribunals are a diversion away from the trade union movement, and must be recognised as such. Those left groups like IMG which simply turn to flaws in the Act or query whether it will be implemented have refused to confront the need fight these tribunals.

CONTROL

The gains of these Acts will only be felt by women workers if the workers' movement itself fights to control their implementation. The tribunals must be boycotted and no illusions placed in the functioning of the Equal Opportunities Commission. RAISE Instead, in Trade Un branches, sub-committees should elected, composed of both men : women workers, to take up fight on the special problems fac women workers, as part of overall fight against the employ On such committees we i fight for these problems to be si as linked completely to transitional demands - equal 1 for equal work, for instance, m be linked with the fight for sliding scale of wages to defend living standards of all worki The only way equal opportun can be established in practice not by pleading to a tribunal, l through the fight for worki control of manning levels, hir and firing, as part of which tr union sub-committees demand information of applicants to make sure no discrimination is exercised by employer.

At the same time won workers must be sought to pla! full and leading role in the strugs of the working class agains the 1 laws and the public spending cr In these struggles they will lear 1 political lessons necessary for : building of new working cl * The recent principled acti by the pro-abortion members this committee in resigning a therefore drawing attention to 1 extremely reactionary nature of 1 majority, is to be supported, as the demonstration called for 3rd in London demanding f abortion rights.