Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung Internet-Supplement ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$D:\Daten e\Widerstand in Berlin$




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
Richard Croucher BzG-Supplement No. 1/2000 9 ‘I would assure you that all our sympathies are with the trade unions in their desire to achieve control of the Works Councils. We did not interfere in the matter until we received complaints from the North Rhine province. We came to the conclusion that the unions were acting very ill advisedly, and that we ourselves could not justify allowing the rule to operate if, as was likely, we were challenged.’ Conceding that their communication to unions could have been better worded, Luce pointed out that if the employers had appealed to them, then they would have had to disown the unions’ own guidance. The employers would have had an opportunity to discredit the unions, something that was ‘quite clearly appreciated’ by the their Zonal Secretariat when they agreed to issue an explanatory circular. In respect of the final specific criticism regarding the officer (although not named directly by Luce, this was D. C. Lee) who had issued incorrect instructions in respect of the Works Council law, Luce himself adopted a questioning and even incredulous tone: ‘You would not seriously suggest that Military Government, as a whole, is to be judged by the actions of individual officers who may from time to time act unwisely, or choose an unhappy phrase when expressing themselves.’The officer had been compelled to retract his circular, which was disowned as Military Government policy. ‘Are you sure that we were ‘extremely reluctant’ to do that, and would you have had as (sic. Presumably ‘us’ was intended- RC) do something more to the unfortunate man?’ Finally, Luce responded to the general accusation of anti union bias: ‘Is there really evidence here of anti-trade union bias on the part of Military Government? Does the history of the past two years contain no evidence to the contrary? There are many who think us strongly biased in their favour!’ (emphases original-RC) 13 Gottfurcht’s reply opened in a most conciliatory way. Expressing gratitude for Luce’s detailed comments, he wrote that ‘Everyone who has to deal with contemporary political matters is subject to errors of judgement’ and that an open and frank exchange might correct at least some of them. He then explained that ‘I never thought to accuse Manpower Division of having any kind of anti-trade union bias. Quite the contrary might be the case as far as my reports, verbal and written, are concerned. As I repeatedly had the pleasure to discuss trade union matters with you I know only too well that the directives issued by your HQ favoured trade union development in a very positive sense.’ Although one or two officials had shown enmity to trade unionism, Luce’s speech to unions of October 1946 had been ‘warmly received and I joined them in gratefully acknowledging the wise and far-seeing decisions involved in that speech’. 14 He went on to offer a general caveat: ‘I may as well mention that a man who has to deal with complicated matters in a language which is not that of his origin, runs into the danger of being a bit clumsy, even more so when it is in writing; I, at least, sometimes feel guilty of such a tendency!’ Turning to the substantive issues, he began by agreeing fully with Luce’s statement “That trade unions are ‘by deliberate design of Military Government well ahead of any organisation that the employers can show’”.
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 7: 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?