By Martin Eady, vice-president of the Londor istrict Transport Council and NUi Reprinted from London Labour Briefing WITH the apparent failure of the Jay Bill to restore the legal position between the GLC and London Transport, it is time to draw a balance sheet of our Labour GLC's campaign to improve LT.
An inauspicious start was made in summer '81 with the wrangling over the underground pay deal.
The buses had settled for 6 er cent in April (under the LOnes! a ventaly underground got 11 per cent as a result of the set tlement on British Rail.
The productivity ings were avoided by virtue of the increased patronage Teduction of October a8l. brought fares Still, we almost went on strike against our GLC.
Now, we have pay negotia ions again. LT 's offer of 5 per cent plus a massive productivity package which might bring a little Socialist Challenge 11 June 1982 page 14 more money, has been rejected and once more we But this time the cheap fares policy out awed and cutbacks in jobs and services are the order of the day.
Now, the policy of the Trade mo senes or clear. Their campaign against the Law Lords and the cuts is linked to the pay They do not believe that LT workers will into action on 'political' issue such as the Law Lord's decision which explains their extraordinary delays in starting the campaign.
Also, they adhere to the traditional labourist division is hbour politics their "department' preserve of the politicians.
believe they are wrong in this, but it is the reality we have to face, so people look to the LabourILL TO lead. Do they get one? No!
The GLC leaders had all their discussions with those same union bureaucrats. When they failed to act (as it was obvious they would) the GLC should nave gone over uneir neads organise campaign the shoo stewards and the mass of the workers.
This, and this alone, could have forced the to line up behind them in a campaign aned Tory gover meal Westminster.
While it and necessary to sponsor and support the Jay Bill in parliament, we all know should know) parliament never does anything for the workers without them forcing it by extra-parliamentary action in this case, industrial action.
Instead of leading and building GLC built dangerous illusions in parliamentarism by concentrating •VIl MPs and very little else political ends is difficult impossible build.
With the Labour GLC leading we would have had a good chance. With them bureaucrats were our own problem and refusing to link up with the rank-and. Tile CHIC ed themseles ad mis.
LECHISC VO credibility to leaders.
What now? The unions are organising and continuing a campaign of leatlets and possibly industrial