INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS A TRADES UNION VIEW OF BRITAIN’S STRIKES

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27734, 11 August 1955, Page 12

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS A TRADES UNION VIEW OF BRITAIN’S STRIKES

l»v

VICTOR FEATHER,

Assistant Secretary of the British Trades Union Congress]

(From the United Kingdom Information Service)

Much of the concern about recent strikes ih. Britain arises from the fact tbit we have been singularly free of stoppage* for the last 20 years. We have been averaging a loss of just over 2,000,000 days a year for the greater part* of that period, which works out at one day lost by strikes for each 10 years worked. With a background like that, therefore, there is bound to be some anxiety on the part of both industry and Government when, in four stoppages alone, and in the course of three months, more days were lost by strikes than were lost in the whole of last year. To make matters appear worse, the stoppages took place in the industries which have a direct and immediate public impact. First Time in 30 Tears The newspaper strike in March and April stopped the publication of the national newspapers—but not the provincial*—fdfr 24 days. It was the first time for 30 years that national newspapers had failed to appear. Yet the number of workers on strike was only 700—the maintenance men and the engineers in Fleet Street newspaper offices. But indirectly, it meant a loss v of 105,000 day*. In the Yorkshire coalfields, in late April, 1780 miner* came out on strike at one colliery in support of the coal fillers, /Who were dissatisfied with wages and’ allowances. The strike •spread, and involved another 77,000 Yorkshire miners. It cost the country 750,000-lost days and 1,000,000 tons of coal. When 82,000 train drivers, firemen, and cleaners came out on strike, that, too, was the first national stoppage on the railways for 30 years. The 500,000 railway workers in the other two unions continued to work: but the strike did not cease before 1,000,000 working days had been lost. The dock strike started on May 23. a week before the railway strike, and continued until July 4. Here again, the stoppage was incomplete. The 55,000 members of three dockers’ unions continued to work, wljile 20,000 member* in the other union'came out on strike at London, Hull, and Merseyside. This strike added another 650,000 lost days to the total. Out of 26,000,000 workers, therefore, the total qut on strike was 160,000 during, this particular perioefr That is more than a ripple; but it is certainly not a wave. A New Trend Is there a trend or a pattern discernible in these disputes? I believe so--but not the patterns of previous periods. The dock strike was for recognition of a small London union, which has sought to expand its membership and extend its influence into other ports at the expense of another union. The other two involved wages. The only common factor in these particular stoppages and others was that,, relatively small industrial groupings were responsible for initiating strike action, official in the case of newspapers, docks and railways, and unofficial in the Yorkshire mines. In the past, these smaller organisations have been prepared, generally speaking, to follow the larger unions in their industry, and to accept their leadership. But fulj employment has given some of the smaller union groupings a sense of greater independence and a knowledge that their weight m negotiations can be more fully exercised and more influential than formerly. a It is, in faet, not particularly surprising that these strikes should have taken place. What is surprising is that they or others have not taken place previously, and to a much greater extent. Now that they have taken place, I doubt whether there will be any general recurrerice of this type of strike. r The General Council of the Trades

Union Congress gave great assistance both to unions and to the Minister of Labour in getting a resumption of normal working in the official Stoppages; and this activity gained appreciative • comment from the Government and from the unions who took strike action. The Trades Union Congress naturally was concerned about the effect these stoppages might have on the livelihood of trade unionists in other industries and on the economy of the country generally. Changed Attitude to Differentials The other changed emphasis in wages negotiations, which has been evident for the last two or three years, has been in regard to differentials paid in respect of qualification, skill, and responsibility, although it has not been obviously expressed. Curiously enough, until recently, the question of differentials was more frequently mentioned by employers and economists. They have been saying that the differentials have narrowed to a point where employers fear that the remaining differential is insufficient to attract young men to train for skilled work or positions of responsibility. The determination of the trade union movement to raise the standard of the “under-dog” succeeded some years ago, and poverty no longer exist* in Britain, although there are hardship cases among older people and the sick. But the abolition of poverty and “sweating,” common in former generations, by the persistent work of the unions, nas narrowed wages differentials enormously. It is safe to say that there will be no endeavour on the part of the unions to restore the pre-war relativities; but there is a belief by .many that some corrective is necessary. That is reflecting itself in wages negotiations, and overall percentage increases are being sought by the, unions as distinct from the overall ’flat rate increases which had been the pattern throughout the war and post-war periods. Not a Sudden Development In that respect, the present position has not suddenly developed. It has been “building up” for some four or five years. Britain’s war-time needs gave opportunities to deal with the problem of the pre-war depressed classes. From 1939 to 1950, the war-time requirements and post-war industrial rehabilitation compelled .the acceptance and maintenance of strict controls and austere rationing. Whether a man was a managing director or a cleaner, his basic need for foodstuffs was equally met, and the controlled price of essential commodities was exactly the same for all. Opportunities for spending were limited. It seemed natural and just to offset increases in living costs, which applied equally to all, by equal flat rate wage increases* The stern austerity of the immediate post-war rehabilitation period “paid off.” It thus became possible to provide a wider, variety of goods and to accelerate individual choice in the standard of living. This more flexible economy, still built on the basis of full employment, naturally gives everybody a desire to take advantage of the great possibilities based on Britain’s increased productivity, allied with increased earnings. Virtually every workman in every industry more money today than ever before. These increased wages have been secured with an absolute minimum of fuss or dislocation £y negotiated agreements over the vastly greater part of industry. These have involved hundreds of different procedures, including direct settlements, arbitration, and conciliation; for the main thing" to remember about British industrial relationships is that there is very little which is doctrinaire about them. Every set of negotiations is conducted in its own setting, without undue regard for formal procedures br any quasi-legal process.