Jacobins, the Berlin Wall and zero-hours contracts

One of the most thought-provoking pieces on the zero-hours contracts debate (see previous post) was from Ursula Huws, writing in Times Higher Education. She points out that, in much of the world and for much of human history, the precariousness that we associate with zero hours contracts was normal.

[T]he British public still clings to a rather romantic notion of work.

According to this notion, work involves performing some kind of meaningful activity for eight hours a day, five days a week under a permanent contract of employment, with a range of benefits attached. Anything falling short of that is seen as an exception.

Yet secure work of this type has never been the reality for most women or for many unskilled workers. In most parts of the world where capitalism has prevailed, a high degree of precariousness and impermanence has been the norm: dockers lining up each morning in the hope of being picked to unload a ship; day labourers on building sites; seasonal agricultural workers; employees in factories making goods ruled by volatile and unpredictable business cycles. Only in unusual circumstances have some of these groups managed to negotiate any degree of stability and employment protection for themselves.

Viewed through the long lens of history, though, there was one era during which things were more secure. The post-war period in the West enabled not just a few occupational groups but the majority of the working class to negotiate special deals for themselves. For two or three generations, workers had “never had it so good”.

Secure, well paid employment is a feature of a few advanced economies over a relatively short period of time. So how come workers in the western economies of the postwar world managed this?

It was partly because of the scale of the industries operating at the time. Although there were already large multinationals in the 1950s, most companies were still small enough to be seen as regional or national. This gave them a vested interest in negotiating long-term arrangements in their home base.

Another reason is technological. Many processes in the manufacturing industry involved specialist machinery and skills that only a few workers possessed, giving them significant bargaining power. In service industries there was little standardisation or automation, creating dependence on the knowledge of a growing army of bureaucrats and public and private service workers.

But all of this was reinforced by the ruling class’s fear or disorder and revolution.

The Cold War generated a real fear among governments and employers in Western democracies that unhappy workers might turn to communism. Many aspects of the post-war special deal, variously described by scholars as the “post-war Keynesian welfare state”, “Fordism”, “capitalism’s golden age” (or, in France, “les trente glorieuses”), can be satisfactorily explained only as an attempt to keep the workers happy and the trade unions moderate enough to want to buy into the capitalist system.

This stability began to unravel for private sector workers in 1980s Britain when the miners were defeated by the Thatcher government. But it was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 that the world entered a new phase of global capitalism in which the need for special deals between employers and employees evaporated.

Now I’m sure some of you will object to this line of argument. Workers’ rights and secure employment were aspects of a general progressive and egalitarian trend over the last 150 years. Trade union rights, employment laws and the beginnings of the welfare state pre-dated the Soviet threat.

True enough but the political consensus behind these measures came, at least in part, from fear of social disorder. The bloody violence of the French Revolution and the upheavals that followed it in the nineteenth century unnerved ruling elites across Europe. While radicals promoted welfare and workers rights for their own good, conservatives did so because they hoped to keep the masses from being drawn to revolutionary ideas. Throughout the nineteenth century, fear of revolution, as much as progressive idealism, was behind extensions of the franchise, factory acts and the ten-hour day. In Germany, the entire welfare state was created by a royal autocracy. The Kaisers wanted to bind the workers to the newly created German state and discourage them from doing another 1848. In the deliberations that led to much of Europe’s progressive legislation, Robespierre’s ghost was ever-present.

The Russian revolution, and the resulting heavily armed state with its anti-capitalist rhetoric,  only reinforced these fears. Keeping the workers from the grip of communism became a matter of national security.

The collapse of the Eastern Bloc, symbolised by the fall of the Berlin Wall, is, so far, the most significant event in my lifetime. It is, perhaps, difficult for younger folk to appreciate just how much geopolitics dominated political debate in the 1970s. Stopping the Russians was paramount and everything else took second place.

There were economic reasons for wanting to prevent industrial strife but there were security considerations too. For both Labour and the Conservatives, maintaining industrial peace was a high priority during this period. It was the Tories, not Labour, who introduced employment protection and unfair dismissal laws. Channeling disputes through the courts was one way of reducing worker militancy.

But when the Berlin Wall came down, a lot of things that had previously been unthinkable suddenly became thinkable. Once the fear of a Soviet-backed socialist Ireland had gone, the British establishment was more relaxed about the possibility of a united Ireland and Sinn Fein politicians in government. Remove the danger of a Russian satellite state in southern Africa and an ANC government can take power with America’s blessing. Now that the red menace was no longer 48 hours away from Calais, the need for Europe to hang together at all costs had gone and Britain’s withdrawal from the EU was no longer a security issue. Look at the timing of all these events. The Northern Ireland peace process, the end of apartheid and the rise of Conservative Euroscepticism can all be dated to the fall of the wall.

And perhaps, as Ursula Huws says, something similar happened with workers rights. Once the fear of violent revolution and communist takeover had gone, industrial unrest no longer carried the same level of threat.

Chris Dillow asked an interesting question last week:

Social change requires not just intellectual arguments but some agents to drive it through; Marx thought these agents would be workers, whereas Thatcher ensured they were (some?) capitalists. This poses the question: who, now, are the powerful agents who might push for freedom?

Radical intellectuals may have made the arguments for the progressive measures of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries but behind them was the muscle of organised labour and the threat of revolutionary violence. Social change happened because a well-organised working class saw it as being in their own interests. You can win all the intellectual arguments you like but those with power rarely give it up without fight.

I have heard it said that environmentalism and the green movement bring a greater challenge to global capitalism than the socialism and trade unionism of the old left. That may be so but it is an intellectual challenge. Where is the muscle? Where are the masses who appreciate the intellectual argument but who also see the green movement’s challenge to capitalism as being in their own material interest? Anti-fracking protestors will only ever be a local nuisance. There are no longer any Soviet tanks, mass pickets or angry Jacobins to strike fear into the hearts of the powerful.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Jacobins, the Berlin Wall and zero-hours contracts

  1. Pingback: Jacobins, the Berlin Wall and zero-hours contracts - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. ianclive says:

    As you quote, Rick, “You can win all the intellectual arguments you like but those with power rarely give it up without fight”. There is so much evidence of this today. A fair society should not be based on the bargaining power of one sector but on a society focused on all the people and providing certain basic rights and expectations. Until that is reality, regression will continue in order to safeguard the domination of those who feel entitled to power at the expense of others. It is the pattern of history, but at some point there should be progress and some movement towards enlightenment.
    Great article, Rick

    Ian

  3. The gains of organised labour during the post-WW2 era are easily explained as the product of improved bargaining power due to relative labour shortages. You don’t need to assume the indulgence of a state fearful of Soviet expansion (the law of parsimony applies here).

    We remember the Cold War propaganda and the cultural dominance of MAD, but historians have long recognised that the USSR had no intention of invading the West and that NATO knew this full well. The idea that an existential threat drove wider policy is dubious, to say the least.

    To suggest that the end of Apartheid was somehow allowed only once the USSR imploded is to deny the particpants agency. It also rather overlooks the revolutions in Angola and Mozambique, which certainly didn’t have America’s blessing. The coincidence of the fall of the Berlin Wall is not correlation.

    Re “Once the fear of a Soviet-backed socialist Ireland had gone, the British establishment was more relaxed about the possibility of a united Ireland and Sinn Fein politicians in government”. The prospect of a socialist united Ireland died with James Connolly in 1916. The UK government has long been comfortable with the idea of a united Ireland, and has no issue with SF (who aren’t radical socialists – those are in the IRSP), it’s the Unionists who object. The Good Friday Agreement was triggered not by the fall of the Wall, but by the failure of the PIRA military strategy and the exhaustion of the participants.

  4. John Dowdle says:

    A most interesting article, with a relatively persuasive line of argument. I agree to some extent with both of the two previous posters. I would add to what they say by pointing to trends in the developing world with respect to growing labour shortages, just like Europe experienced in the wake of the Second World War. Then, it became necessary to import labour but today work is out-sourced to parts of the world where labour is abundant and cheap.
    In places like China, there have been reports of labour militancy to which factory owners have succumbed to in the form of higher wages and conditions.
    Given time, there will be a global shortage of labour and this will then lead to a rise in global activism, with increasingly higher wages and conditions overall and an end to zero hours contracts, as employers find it increasingly necessary to tie-in reliable and dependable labour to them.

  5. Annabel says:

    If it were just aboutt he power of two relative groups this might well happen. However, this will profoundly disadvantage the bosses as well since our modern consumerism depends on people being able to obtain credit for larger purchases.

    People on zero hours contracts are not able to get serious amounts of credit – hence the rise of the payday loan companies (successor to the pawn brokers who funded the working class previously). Payday loan companies are not going to fund cars or major purchases and the effects of this on those who make or distribute larger items is going to be interesting.

    Either we find new ways to finance cars, houses etc, or the number of people on zero hours contracts has a natural economic limit (all other issues aside) as they will not be able to do all the buying they otherwise might do.

    Furthermore people on zero hours contract have to save a high proportion of their money (if they are earning enough) to cover the zero weeks. They will also find it difficult to engage in pension plans (which usually involve monthly payments) at a high enough contribution level if they have to ‘hold back’ in this way. Will they be more likely to opt out of the new pension schemes in order to provide themselves with short terms savings to cover the rent in the zero hours weeks.

    This may increase the number of people retiring on state pension only (as percentage of reitrees) since the new zero hours contract workers who have historically been salaried and saved for their own retirement.

    Given the percentage of the social security budget that is represented by funding the elderly via pensions, social security, etc, it may not be a good idea to be increasing the ranks of those who will need more money from the state in 20 or 30 years time.

    From what I am hearing in my daily round this practise is making formerly monthly salaried professionals very cross indeed. If the middle classes and the working classes ally with each other it can cause major social unrest. In my lifetime the middle classes have looked down on the working classes for their ‘inability to save’ and provide for the future. When subject to the same pressures there may be more understanding and more commonality of outlook – with interesting political consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s