"The labour movement is on the march. It has already behind it a history of great achievement in a short space of time. It will make of the West Indies of the future a country where the common man may lead a cultured life in freedom and prosperity." That was written by the distinguished economist Sir Arthur Lewis many years ago, and probably embodies his own vision, perspective and hope for the movement which was then in its infancy. Sir Arthur was no starry-eyed visionary and he saw the need for education, as distinct from political indoctrination.
According to Sir Arthur: "There is also a great demand for literature on trade unionism, and any person or organisation desirous of helping the movement would probably serve it best by providing such literature, and by endowing club rooms where libraries may be kept and where workers may gather after work for social intercourse and for educational meetings." That sort of suggestion may sound today as rather tame and "reactionary" stuff for our ultra-militant, muscle-flexing, sabre-rattling "hotheads." However, the eminent economist also said much that can still be quite relevant to the current situation. For example, "The general aims of the movement are to raise the economic and cultural standards of the masses, and to secure for them conditions of freedom and equality."
He pointed out, however, that the attempt to raise the standard of living itself had two sides. First, the total income must be considerably increased, and in the second place it must be more equitably distributed. Suggested Sir Arthur, "It would be a mistake to ignore either of these two aspects." He might have added that "one does not kill the goose that lays the golden egg." Said Lewis, "...the passage of time...education in trade unionism, and experience will bring home to the workers the need for union discipline and the true nature of trade union functions." At the time of Lewis's comments, the use of the strike, public demonstrations and peaceful picketing, as weapons to further industrial ends, was probably just emerging.
Today, at the drop of a hat, the strike weapon (in fact the ominous threat of a general strike) can be invoked for industrial as well as political objectives. I'm not unaware of the possible blurred line between industrial and political motives and/or activities. In the real world, they undoubtedly impinge on each other. From Jamaica in the North to Guyana to the South, trade union leaders have risen through the ranks in their respective trade unions to even become Prime Ministers in their own countries. The fact that they started with a trade union base and their members and the public at large may have assumed that a "labour voice" in the Parliament would have been sympathetic to their general interests must have helped.
Now, don't get me wrong, a trade union has every right, perhaps even a duty, to robustly-and I may insist rationally-defend and protest to the best of its ability the legitimate interests of those it represents. However, I respectfully submit that it's the acme of arrogance to presume that some small clique of self-actuated and obviously politically motivated and demagogic ideologues can arrogate to themselves the sole determination of what is or is not the national interest as a whole and reserve the right to blackmail the larger community into submission by politically motivated industrial action, and rabble rousing. Dr Eric Williams dealt with union leaders on a personal basis and I was somewhat taken aback when I read (possibly in his Inward Hunger) that he boasted as one of his major achievements the "keeping of sugar and oil apart."
Some may have interpreted that as having an ethnic connotation but I believe that he was alluding to his success in frustrating trade union unity, which he saw as a challenge to his political dominance. As I recall, this trade union movement was split right down the middle with one group projecting itself as "progressive" and whose clarion call was "let the country own the commanding heights of the economy." Dr Williams was apparently so convinced that they would keep the industrial pot on the boil to destabilise his government that, considering CLR James as the moving spirit of that movement, he had him under virtual "house arrest" as he (Williams) rushed through the Industrial Stabilisation Act, which the so-called "progressive group" dubbed "In Slavery Again."
It's hardly a secret, if one takes their words seriously, that the hidden agenda of some of the more vociferous union leaders is to "delegitimise and destabilise" governments that they believe have not honoured their pre-election "political concordats" with them. Appeals that putting our fragile economy at risk in an international scenario where economic turbulence and uncertainty are the order of the day are rebuffed with the arrogant "so what?" Hold onto your seat and prepare for a bumpy ride. I expect that we would be reminded of Poland's Solidarity Movement, but is the situation analogous? There is an expressed view that state power can be captured in the streets, once the essential services are shut down.
The SOPO rantings of yesteryear should indicate there are those who are only too eager to turn the industrial area into an ideological battleground and "who ain't dead, badly wounded," including the national economy. That's hardly what Sir Arthur had in mind.
