The “closed shop” and redundancy¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter delivers a sharp polemic against an editorial position that links the demand for a “closed shop” with the slogan of “nons first” in the context of redundancy. The core argument is that this combination is not only contradictory but politically disastrous. The editorial’s reasoning runs as follows: faced with actual sackings, the union should demand that dismissals occur on the basis of the closed shop, meaning that non-union members (“nons”) are the first to leave. The implicit threat is that “nons” must join the union or be sacked. The chapter’s author accepts that this might frighten a few into joining, producing a 100 percent union shop. But this does not resolve the underlying problem: someone must still go. The editorial’s own example of the docks, where a closed shop already exists, reveals the logical endpoint: dismissals would then proceed “on the basis of established membership”. That is, the newest union members—those just frightened into joining—would be the first out the door, with the full authority of the shop stewards’ committee behind the decision.
The chapter identifies this as a farcical attempt to fight a political issue—redundancy, which is a product of capitalist crisis—with trade union methods of struggle. The closed shop is a trade union tactic, not a socialist strategy. The author warns that if the newer members refused to leave on this basis, the union would face a split, and the shop stewards might find themselves leading a strike to force one group of workers out of the factory. This is not militancy but adventurism.
The chapter draws on the AEU rule book to clarify the term “closed shop”: it is a formal agreement with the employer that the shop is worked exclusively by union members. This is distinct from a shop where 100 percent organisation exists informally. Achieving a closed shop requires a struggle with the employers, who have historically resisted it. The author insists that the fight for a closed shop demands thorough education and preparation of the workers, plus favourable circumstances. To inject the slogan artificially into a redundancy situation is reckless.
The polemic is directed at comrades who have raised the closed shop as a militant formula to lean on, but who have confused a trade union demand with a political programme. The chapter argues that the correct attitude towards “nons” is not coercion but education and organisation. The editorial’s position, if implemented, would pit worker against worker and hand the employers a divided workforce.