Chapter 50 Section 2 Glenwick Incident

Say the wind is coming, say the rain is coming.The so-called "Glenwick Affair" erupted and flooded the political scene.This is a clear example of gross abuse of union power.Not surprisingly, this has been as damaging politically for us as for Labor.The trade unions hold an unabashed hostility towards us, and Labor is their friend and sometimes their patron. Glenwick was a medium-sized photoengraving and printing firm in north-west London run by George Ward, a dynamic Indian-British man, employing a large number of immigrant workers. In the summer of 1976, a labor dispute occurred here, and as a result, some workers left their jobs to strike and were fired.The matter escalated and developed into a contest between the factory and the union of professional, administrative, secretarial, and computer operators (professionals for short).The latter signed an employment contract with the dismissed worker and demanded "recognition".That would give the union the right to negotiate on behalf of workers working at the plant.It then called for the rehiring of the laid-off workers.

Glenwick argued in court that it was perfectly legal to fire workers, even under the Labor government's new union legislation, which had actually been drawn up by the union itself.Under current law, no dismissed worker may be rehired unless all dismissed workers are repatriated.In several previous cases, this practice has only played the role of sowing discord.Glenwick also defended that the representation of the Professionals in other companies indicated that it intended to implement a "closed factory" system at the plant that would not allow the employment of non-union members.In the end, secret polls conducted by the International Market Opinion Institute and Gallup showed that the majority of Glenwick workers, more than 80 percent, did not want to join the U.P. or any other union.

A left-wing coalition emerged to support the Professionals Union and punish Glenwick.It represented every aspect of the socialist world: the local Brant union, councils, union leaders, "flying pickets", the Socialist Workers Party, Labor leaders, among them cabinet ministers Shelley Williams, Fred Marley, Sports Minister Dennis Howell.Weeks before the pickets turned violent, Howell dusted off the dungarees he wore and briefly joined the Glenwick pickets.Some people called this picket team "Left Wing Racetrack". The National Society for Freedom saw the George Ward case as part of its campaign against individual liberty violations by wayward unions.The organization was formed in December 1975, shortly after the Army of Northern Ireland killed one of its future stars, Ross McWhorter.I've known McWatt (and his twin Norris) since Orpington's campaign days.The chairman of the organization is Belle Dreyer-Dudley.He's a fighting hero and a councilman.When I was an undergraduate at Oxford, he gave a lecture attacking the Yalta agreement.The group rose to fame for its support of three railroad workers who had been fired for refusing to join the union.It took the case to the European Court of Human Rights and won.It also played a prominent role (and ultimately failed) in opposing the British Post Office's boycott of mail deliveries to South Africa.I am as supportive as I can of the National Society for Liberty, even though some of my colleagues dismiss it and openly criticize its activities.Without the National Society for Liberty, Glenwick would certainly have failed.When the Postal Union illegally boycotted the mail sent from Glenwick, NSL volunteers smuggled it across the picket lines and distributed it across Britain, discreetly dropping it into thousands of mailboxes.In these mailings were developed negatives, on which the factory's business depended.

The large-scale deployment of picket lines began in late June 1977, and has continued for a long time since then. The scenes of mass fighting were horrific, and both police officers and picketers were injured.At times, thousands of demonstrators crowded the narrow streets around the factory in Glenwick, a suburb of northwest London, blocking vehicles provided by the factory to pick up and drop off employees.So I had my parliamentary private secretary, Adam Butler, and Jim Pryor's No. 2, Barney Highhow, join the factory employees on the morning bus through a hail of hurls and invective.Adam reported to me about the fear and courage of his fellow passengers.

The government has been strangely silent during this period.The shadow cabinet organized several private inquiries to press government ministers to take a stand on the violence.We issued a statement asking the Prime Minister to make it clear that the government supports the police in their role.When I wrote John Gullit, one of the directors of the National Society for Liberty, "We feel that the insane violence portrayed on television, and in some quarters the barbaric accusations made, are sufficient to induce a large portion of the public to choose the right side, compared to few Hours of debate are more useful."

While the spectacle outside the factory seemed to symbolize that unions were completely immune to civil law, they were in fact violating criminal laws that prohibit violence and intimidation.No matter how many new laws one wishes to enact, the first duty of the authorities is to uphold existing laws.And the violence at Glenwick is part of a broader challenge by the far left to the rule of law; no one knows how far that challenge will go.Attorney General Sam Hirkin's attitude toward union violations was, at best, ambiguous, judging by his January 1977 handling of the NFL case.At that time, the postal union refused to pass on the phone calls, letters and telegrams to Fufei.He has since coined a term to refer to some picketing as "legitimate intimidation."The term encapsulates a change in the Labor government's attitude towards the law and personal liberties.

At the same time, the left showed a new kind of brazenness: before the 1970s, transport unions banned certain "sweeping organizations" from joining the Labor Party.Removing the ban is an important milestone in the extremes of the Labor Party, which the left has long sought to lift.The left-wing hardcore Labor party sees less need to conceal their ties to communist organisations.The warm fraternity between trade union leaders and socialist politicians and with the Soviet bloc was undisguised.Both the trade union council and the Labor Party leadership received high-ranking visitors from the Soviet Union.Trotskyist groups such as the Militant Leaning Party came to control Labor constituencies.One can almost feel concretely that, regardless of what the IMF or Prime Minister Jim Callaghan may think, the far-left platform represents the future of the Labor Party, and the question now is whether the means to that end will be violent or peaceful.In this atmosphere, the scene at Glenwick presages that perhaps a revolution is about to begin—and not just on the left itself.

However, Glenwick symbolized not only an attack on the law and the development of the far left, but also a "closed factory" where non-unionists were not allowed to hire.The National Society for Freedom defended Glenwick and was fiercely opposed to "closed factories".And the Professionals Federation apparently hopes to eventually force Glenwick employees into a "closed factory".More broadly, the "closed factory" would represent a stronghold of union power from which to launch an assault on liberty. On the whole, however, the issue at Glenwick was not limited to "closed factories"; it was about the power of trade unions.I am appalled by what is happening in Glenwick, but I do not think that we can stop taking the cautious line of trade union reform in order to launch a drastic attack on 'closed factories', the time has not yet come for this Mature (I identify with Jim Pryor).We must consider broader issues, including unions' impunity under civil law, violence and intimidation.Unions escaped criminal justice at the time because they operated under the cover of legal picketing.We cannot effectively make the practice of "closed factories" illegal until we have begun to effectively address some of these problems, and in opposing some elements of the Labor government's Trade Union and Labor Relations Act, we formed the Pry The U.S. line, extending protections and increasing compensation for workers affected by "closed factories" who lose their jobs, rather than discussing matters or attempting to ban the practice (it is widely Understand that no matter what we do, the above practice will actually continue; and some employers actually prefer the "closed factory" approach, so that they can rely on the union to keep the workers in check, and they can live easier).That's where we were and where we were, and we didn't take it easy.

Jim Pryor had it easier than me.I guess for him it's a practical question rather than a moral one: the important thing is to be realistic and admit that the law cannot tame unions.Any reform will require their cooperation.Keith Yosef took a very different attitude. He believes that collective extortion is a violation of human rights, and he firmly opposes it.The two very different views of Jim and Keith were publicly reflected in the Scarman Report on the Glenwick Dispute, bringing the issue all into the open.Earlier I wrote about the problems this incident caused when I visited the United States.At the time I thought Keith was too harsh in his criticism of Lord Scarman, even though the Scarman Report was nothing more than a judicial document and had no legal force.Also, Jim is the spokesperson for this issue, not Keith.Either I fired Jim, I moved him (I needed Jim, neither was possible), or I had to accommodate his thinking.

That's exactly what I do.In retrospect Jim and I were wrong and Keith was right.The whole incident shows that we are very careful not to change the legislation on industrial relations, which, while it may be reasonable under normal circumstances, appears weak and unhelpful in a crisis situation.I partly sided with Jim because the climate was not yet ripe for tough policy.In the shadow cabinet, most of my colleagues do not yet agree with me.But it won't be long before this thorny issue needs to be dealt with.After thinking it all over, I returned to the idea of ​​holding a referendum.I came back from Africa knowing that when I was interviewed by Brian Walden on TV, I would be pressed about what the Conservative government would do in the face of a full-on union confrontation.That interview was his debut as a show host, hosting the show "Weekend of the World".I have to prepare a convincing oral answer, and no matter how much discussion there is on this issue in the shadow cabinet, there is no hope of consensus.So I argued on the show that while this confrontation might not happen, if there was such an emergency, it might call for a referendum.The proposal was well received by the press and openly supported by both wings of the party.This was all the more important at a time when there were rumors of party splits and conflicts (and Jim's anticipation, perhaps salutarily, that there might be trouble at the Conservative party conference over "closed factories").I set up a party committee headed by Nick Edwards to report on the referendum and its role.Of course, while the proposal for a referendum buys us a very important moment, it is not in itself an answer to the question of union power.Assuming we win the referendum, which shows that the general public supports government measures against militants, there is still a need for measures to weaken union power.But so far we have not seriously considered what to do.