Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$D:\Daten e\Widerstand in Berlin$




10 BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 Richard Croucher However, the fact was that unions had been ‘on trial’ as democratic organisations for the previous two years. Now that they were being allowed more freedom of operation, the employers, with a much worse democratic record, were being offered the same freedom. ‘Everyone who knows German employers of the past will doubt their desire to accept the democratic way of life; they will never deny their obligations but they will skillfully try to evade them.’ The weakness of employment meant that real power did not lie in the hands of unions and regulations were correspondingly more important. ‘You surely would not welcome a multitude of trade unions, why should a ‘divide et impera’ machinery on the employers’ side be encouraged?’ (emphases original- RC) On the Works Council question, he did not think the disagreement ‘of too great importance and I admit that some of your arguments are convincing’. He did not doubt that complaints had been received from the North Rhine employers as they would take every opportunity to undermine trade unionism, while even complaints ostensibly coming from workers ‘might well have been fabricated by the advocates of heavy industry’. With respect to Lee, Gottfurcht agreed that no further action should be taken against him. On the other hand, ‘I happened to be in Bielefeld when the incident occurred and I know the effect it had. It took quite a while to get a statement from Military Government clarifying the situation. You know how the employers jumped at their opportunity. Very speedy action, i.e. the sending out of a counter statement 24 hours after the first one was known, could have undone the harm caused. This, and only this, I meant when I spoke of ‘reluctance’” Regarding the Model Works Agreement, Gottfurcht wrote simply ‘I fully endorse what you say’. In other words, he agreed that union policy was poorly conceived and that it invited political criticism. His letter concluded ‘Please let me assure you once again that I am most thankful to you personally and to so many of the members of your division for all the kindness shown to me. You will, I am certain, believe me that any critical comments were desired to help forward a great cause to which you and I are equally devoted’. 15 What remained, then, of Gottfurcht’s initial criticisms after the exchange? The principal point was that relating to employers’ associations. On this issue, Gottfurcht mounted a defence of his initial position by reference to the comparatively poor democratic record of German employers. However, he did not explicitly insist that the legal regulation which he proposed remained valid. He maintained a small part of his criticism of the Military Government in practice when he referred to the slowness of their response to Lee’s damaging circular in the context of the employers’ speedy seizure of the opportunity presented. He also cast some doubt on the bona fides and authenticity of the complaints from North Rhine employers. Nevertheless, he did not choose to argue his case for requiring non unionists to obtain a 10% nomination.Despite Gottfurcht’s statement minimising the topic, it was arguably the most important issue of detail in the discussion because it related both to trade union efforts to control the Works Councils and to their wider political position. With the benefit of hindsight,
Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 11 we may see that the matter was relevant to setting the terms in which the later discussion on Mitbestimmung was held.Gottfurcht chose not to pursue it, and he appeared to accept Luce’s arguments here. Nor did he pursue the general issue of anti-union bias within the Military Government. In fact, he was notably conciliatory on this point, stressing that he had never intended to criticise Manpower Division. The implicit contrast between Manpower Division and other sections of the Military Government was significant. The difference between the attitude of different sections of the Military Government towards unions was in many ways of great importance. Lee was a Property Control Officer and in his circular had addressed his local subordinates. It was a frequent cause of complaint that officials outside of Manpower Division came from accountancy or legal backgrounds and had less understanding of trade union rights than those within the Division, many of whom were industrial relations specialists from the Ministry of Labour. Increasingly, as the British Element of the Control Commission reached the end of its operational period, the Manpower Division became less important in relation to other Divisions, to Gottfurcht’s dismay 16 . This is relevant to Dartmann’s criticisms of the Division. These have considerable force, and indeed we argue that Gottfurcht missed an opportunity to improve the Division’s practice.But they have also to be set in a wider context.Property Control Officers had wide powers over very many enterprises, including influence over the work of Betriebsraete. It was Manpower Division that had been seen to intervene to prevent Property Control officers from abusing these powers 17 . When challenged by Luce, Gottfurcht had largely climbed down, especially in those areas directly concerned with trade union matters. The reasons for his retreat may have been partly personal. He had only recently been officially confirmed as official liaison officer between the TUC and the German trade unions in the British zone and may have felt insecure in his position. Stripped of German nationality by the Nazi regime, he had recently chosen to apply for British nationality, which was granted in February 1948 16 . Aware of the close relations between the TUC and government he may have been wary of challenging a senior British official for fear of prejudicing his application. He may have felt an underlying loyalty to his adopted country and in particular, with his social democratic background, to the new Labour government. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that someone of such evidently strong beliefs would concede a case that he felt to be unfaithful to reality. It also seems improbable that someone who had been prepared to take the risk of clandestine activity after 1933 would neglect the interests of his comrades in the German unions for personal reasons. He may, though, have felt that loyalty to the German union cause itself meant that he could not afford to challenge Luce. He possibly saw it as important to support those who might be regarded as his allies in government. Further, unforeseeable, issues might have to be pursued with Luce. It is of course also possible that he accepted large parts of Luce’s arguments simply because he believed them on reflection to be accurate.
Page 1 and 2: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeit
Page 3 and 4: BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 3 The Tra
Page 5 and 6: Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No.
Page 9: Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No.
Page 17 and 18: Rezensionen - von der Verteidigung
Page 19 and 20: Rezensionen Hitlers Machtantritt be
Page 21 and 22: Rezensionen Heinz Niemann, einem au

Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?