Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

8 BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000
Richard Croucher
been ‘a considerable embarrassment to us’. A weapon had been handed to the Soviet
Union in the Cold War. 12 The episode confirmed Kenny, Gottfurcht and others in their
view that the role of Property Controllers in industrial relations was an obstruction
to Manpower Division’s work.
Luce wrote to Gottfurcht to refute his allegations, dealing with each in turn.He
began by taking up the employers’ association issue. The policy was a general one
for application to all German organisations.In a passage which apparently drew on
the ‘voluntaryism’ concept, Luce explained that it was policy not to prescribe what
associations should do but to ensure that ‘they should be permitted freely to exercise
that right (the right to association-RC) for any lawful purpose ‘(emphasis original RC).
The general point was ‘what we are out to achieve in Germany ... we want Germans
to realise a sense of responsibility for conducting their own affairs-within limits. By
and large we are feeling our way towards defining what those limits should be.’ Some
industries would be ‘socialised’, and in general employers and employees would be
encouraged to work on the basis of ‘joint consultation and agreement. The essence
of the idea is the voluntary principle’. Therefore it was not appropriate to specify the
form of organisation to be adopted by either side of industry. The second specific matter
concerned Works Councils and their relationship with unions, which Luce described
as ‘very difficult’. He assured Gottfurcht that ‘we have given the problem a great deal
of anxious thought’. He also stated unequivocally that ‘we never wanted the Works
Council law’. One of the earliest government instructions had provided for the election
of workers’ representatives ‘as a stopgap until the trade unions could take over the
job of organising representation in factories etc.’ (emphasis original-RC) Luce and
his colleagues had expected unions to insist on representation through their own
‘stewards or some similar arrangement, and that they would rely on their own strength
rather than on a law. The unions, however, insisted on a law.’ None of the four
occupying powers, he wrote, was prepared to frame the law in such a way as to give
unions absolute control of the Works Councils. ‘We took care to give unions an
opportunity to put their foot in the door, but from that point onwards, they had to rely
on the build-up of their membership inside the factories to gain control of the Works
Councils’. He felt that the problem with the unions’ proposals in relation to requiring
non-unionists to show 10% support for their nomination was that it would amount
to a restriction on workers’ democratic rights and would therefore operate in
contradiction to the purpose of the law. In response to the union argument that the
proposed requirement was designed to exclude ‘frivolous’ candidates and Communists
who were ‘vocal’ and might capture ‘irresponsible’ support, he made two replies.
Firstly, the requirement could be imposed on all candidates. Secondly, had the unions
not ‘Something to lose in this matter which is much more important than the occasional
success of a non-union candidate in a Works Council election. Are they not leaving
themselves open to some very barbed attacks from political opponents?’ He went on