Seniority on the job¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter tackles the question of seniority, a principle whereby the last worker hired is the first to be sacked. The author immediately establishes that this rule, far from being a bureaucratic imposition, was forged through “bitter strike struggles” to curb the arbitrary power of foremen and bosses, particularly protecting active trade unionists from victimisation. The core argument is that seniority, while imperfect, is a concrete, class-struggle-won agreement that must be defended and extended, not rejected in favour of empty radicalism.
The chapter draws on the example of the docks, cited in the Industrial Bulletin, where the closed shop and seniority operated pre-war. Here, the newest workers were also the newest union members. The author critiques the dockers’ “craft outlook” for excluding wartime labourers from full union membership, creating a split rather than an industrial, class-wide organisation. The mistake was refusing to draw these “dilutees” into the union and instead treating them as a probationary, second-class section. The author’s party, the PB, opposed this, arguing for sharing out available work and welding the bonds of organisation tighter.
A key polemic is directed at critics who claim the seniority rule undermines unity by deciding who is sacked, thereby “taking responsibility” for sackings. They counterpose the slogan “no sackings”. The author dismisses this as an “evasion” and a “burking of the issue”, comparing it to IRA members who refused to “recognise” a court but still received a 20-year sentence. The class struggle, the chapter insists, requires facing concrete reality, not substituting phrases for tactical answers. The author argues that the seniority agreement does not discriminate on the basis of union membership; it protects older workers at the expense of youth in “stable” trades, but young workers accept it, understanding its future protection.
The chapter’s historical context is the century of trade union struggles that fashioned this rule. The theoretical context is the Marxist distinction between a craft outlook—which defends a narrow, privileged section—and an industrial, class outlook—which seeks to unite all workers. The author’s answer to the concrete problem of “who is to go?” is not to deny sackings but to fight for the seniority agreement to apply to dilutees as well, so that a craft worker hired last would go before a dilutee. This, they argue, unites the workers and provides a concrete answer, whereas the critics’ phrase-mongering splits them, forcing craft workers to protect themselves at the expense of dilutees.