DOCKERS 3
In earlier reports I have attempted to put together some thoughts on the
dockers dispute
[note it is NOT a strike but a lock out- something that 9 weeks into it the
SWP still
had not realised] and to draw out some of the implications for any future
movement. The dispute is now in its 12th week as I write [19 December] and
there are some
signs that a deal may be in the offing. More about that later, for now I am
more
concerned to give a more 'in depth' analysis to what I wrote earlier, so as
to draw
out more clearly what I and others believe is fundamentally new about this
dispute. To do
this we have to go back a little to 1989 when the last dock strike was
'settled'.
Many readers who are older will remember that in the past dockers, like
some other
groups of workers, were in a position to exert great sectional strength.
This was
often combined with some quite reactionary attitudes - a contradiction
which in London
at least, since I was there at the time, the Communist Party as it then
was, was quite
happy to live with. Who remembers Jack Dash now ? Or 'Red Robbo' in the car
industry
? The point is that after 1989, that kind of macho sectionalism was
destroyed. If
anyone is in any doubt perhaps the following story will help. From early on
in the present
dispute the dockers have been holding open mass meetings to gather support.
This
is a sea change in itself but as dockers got up in front of their mates and
perfect
strangers to tell their story, inevitably they concentrated on the
character of industrial
relations post 1989.
With the dispute over, the dockers went back to work as a body. There were
supposed
to be no recriminations, no victimisations. Officially this was the time of
new more
'realistic' labour relations on the dock. The port prospered - with huge
injections
of public money, new traffic came, old traffic was won back, presumably
from the former
non registered ports, so their reward for breaking the dispute was short
lived. However
the dockers knew that this truce could only be temporary. Very soon the
crack down
came. And it came in the form of an all out attempt to break and humiliate
the men.
Dockers were put to work on their hands and knees to scrub toilets and
other shitty
jobs of which there are no shortage on a dock. This was the dockers
'victory'. One
man described in vivid and moving detail how he was moved to tears to see
his mate on
his hands and knees. He went on to describe how they hugged one another in
their
mutual despair and out of this found a new strength for each other.
No one can begin to understand this dispute unless they appreciate this
change in
the attitude of the dockers. In the past disputes or strikes would be run
by a small
group of stewards - the 'rank and file' would be told to go home, dig the
garden
or paper the back bedroom, while the leaders got on with the job of
'running' the dispute
- which usually involved shuttling between national union officials and the
personnel
office until the inevitable compromise deal was struck. When a hairy arsed
docker
stands in front of perfect strangers and is visibly moved to tears in
describing his experiences,
you know that something quite profound is going on.
Another aspect of the previously sectional nature of the dock is the degree
to which
jobs were passed on from father to son. The dockers have received some
criticism
for this - one of the conditions for settling the previous dispute in 1989
was that
sons of dockers should be first in line when new dockers were being hired.
This was criticised
in a leaflet put out by a Trotskyist grouping called the ICP, which went on
to argue
for getting rid of the existing stewards, and especially the chair, Jimmy
Nolan.
Now Mr Nolan makes no secret of the fact that he is an unrepentant
Stalinist - even
a 'tankie'. And while the criticism of the ICP may be formally correct in
much of
what it says, it actually ignores the fact that on Merseyside at least [and
I suspect
in other areas of the country] it is well accepted that jobs should be
passed on from father
to son. This is understood almost as part of the post Second World War
consensus
- just as the National Health Service and Education are understood as a
'right'.
We ought perhaps to research exactly what the full implications are of the
break up of this
consensus and the end of 'welfarism' that many of us talk about.
Tactically at least, the fact that the new dockers are in many cases
related to the
earlier 'Devlin' generation was supposed to make it easier to solidify a
younger
generation into a common struggle to improve conditions. For its part the
Mersey
Docks and Harbour Company [MDHC] had set up various front organisations so
that they could 'offer'
worse terms and conditions to new workers. In the event, Torside, a firm
fronted
by an ex-docker with his redundancy money, used the MDHC to negotiate less
than full
rates and reduced pension rights. For the time being the stewards accepted
this deal.
So we had all the ingredients for a renewed confrontation.
That to some extent this present conflict has been 'organised' by the MDHC,
there
can be no doubt. It is this fact alone which illustrates starkly the
changed background
to this dispute.
The firm charged with recruiting scab labour, Drake International, operates
security
and bailiff services and has a trained dock labour force in Southampton
some of whom
have been hired to train the scabs. Information about this firm is needed
by the
dockers.
The 1990s are not the 1970s
Many of the more astute dockers had thought that over time, as they had
done in the
past, they could steadily improve all dockers terms and conditions. This is
after
all the kind of class struggle they were used to - it had served them well
in the
past. It also makes a nonsense of the ICP's relentless criticism of
Stalinist 'betrayal' of
the dockers. Jimmy Nolan who is the oldest of the stewards and a survivor
of the
struggles of the 70s, is only able to have any influence precisely because
he gives
voice to the dockers own view of themselves and their struggle.
So when a dispute erupted at Torside and these workers put an illegal
picket on the
gate, the MDHC knew perfectly well that no docker would cross it and likely
scab
on his son. MDHC already had the dismissal letters typed for 500 dockers
and the
offer of new worse, individual
contracts, some of which were hand delivered in taxies to dockers homes.
[Now where
did they learn that trick ?]
We come therefore to the second new aspect of this dispute - the drive
towards casualisation
.
In the past in the 1960s and 70s, firms could offer increases in wages and
improvements
in conditions secure in the knowledge that if the 'productivity'
improvements negotiated,
failed to materialise, [as they often didn't - due to workers resistance]
then inflation would soon let them increase prices and avoid any losses.
This planned
use of inflation to defuse the class struggle relied on each nation state
being able
to independently manage its monetary and fiscal policy without outside
interference.
In the 90s two things have happened to upset this.
- Increases in global competition - via GATT and the rise of the so called
'tiger
economies' of the Far East. Costs, principally wage costs are being
equalised throughout
the world.
- The inability of each nation state to absorb the rising costs of welfare
- as a
result the old social democratic welfare state is steadily being unwound.
We can see the results of this on society as we write, in France, Italy and
Belgium.
We have only indicated the broadest themes here, this does not pretend to
be an
analysis of these trends. For our purpose we are interested in what effects
this
is having on struggles such as the dockers.
The MDHC has been propped up in the past at considerable cost to state
funds. It is
time that this investment paid off in the form of quicker turn round for ships, cargo
and vehicles. Shipowners and operators are quick to make international
comparisons
of labour costs, something which dockers need to take into account. A major
obstacle
to the employers reducing costs is the existing organisation and outlook of
dock
workers. We are no longer therefore talking of the old kind of struggle -
casualisation
is the means whereby the dock company, shipowners and transport firms can
drive down costs.
If this means 12 hour shifts, annual hours contracts, constant 'call outs',
no premium
for weekend or night work - then so be it. Casualisation is therefore the
issue which binds these workers together - hence their demand for
reinstatement on their old
terms.
It also of course explains why the dock company will almost certainly not
give in.
We are not talking of the old style casualisation of the notorious 'pen' of
the 50s,
but a modern 'social' form. With each worker isolated in his own home at
the end
of a telephone line.
This is very basic and goes to the heart of what we might call workers
collectivity.
When unions first came about in this country, they were no more than
conspiracies
to try and blunt or frustrate the effects of competition, worker against
worker.
Our rulers, realising that attempting to prevent 'combination' might easily
provoke a revolutionary
alternative, allowed this new institution to grow, gave it legal immunity,
and eventually
granted unions a place in the management of the system. Today so far as
this dispute is concerned, the union involved, the T & G, seems to have
been at a loss
to know what to do. Plainly it cannot risk 'sequestration' by endorsing
illegal 'secondary
action' - but it cannot be seen to simply abandon a section of workers,
[although no doubt some national officials would love to do exactly that].
Now it looks as
though Bill Morris is moving to do some kind of deal. Very likely he will
attempt
to negotiate a generous severance payment for those dockers, perhaps a
majority,
who would like to retire early with a decent lump sum. It should be noted
that these older men,
some with only a year or to go risk the prospect of losing everything -
lump sum,
pension and so on as a consequence of this dispute.
The price will be the acceptance of new, individual contracts by the
younger workers.
We shall see if the dockers can remain united in their opposition to this
kind of
deal.
We have talked at great length about the background to this dispute and
only mentioned
the dockers themselves in passing. This is perhaps unfair. There is much
that is
positive to report. First of all we should stress that this is an all
inclusive dispute. Although 'run' by the existing shop stewards, perhaps 20
in number and we have had
our criticism of the stewards movement in the past; criticisms which we
still stand
by, it would be utterly counter-productive to go into them now. There is no
doubt
that the existing stewards enjoy the confidence and overwhelming support of
the mass of
dockers locked out - for in a real sense they represent them. The stewards
conception
of struggle, their hopes and fears are exactly the same as those of the
dockers themselves. Open meetings are held weekly - and they are genuinely
open, anyone may attend
although not vote. There is a huge amount of self activity, this is not a
dispute
that can be fought in the old way. Over 1000 meetings have been addressed
around
the country and abroad. Delegations appealing for practical solidarity have
gone to North America,
Australia and Europe. Benefits and other forms of activity have been
organised. All
this has so far been done not by relying on union officials or the like but
by the
dockers and their families and supporters. In the process many workers have
been transformed,
but they can tell their own story now.
What lessons have been learned ?
First of all the obvious one, workers have to rely on themselves alone.
Although local
Labour politicians and other arseholes have expressed support, this has had no practical
effect on the dock company.
Secondly, the stewards had initially thought that they could mobilise local
'workers'
organisations - shop stewards, combine committees etc. to have a day of
action, possibly
a local general strike. Despite many invitations, delegates from such
bodies have been conspicuous by their absence. Although collections and
levies have been organised,
it is clear that the existing 'rank and file' type organisation of labour
are a spent
force, tied and bound by their relationship to the trade unions. This may
seem a
surprising conclusion and one that many dockers may not accept - but the
facts are
inescapable.
Thirdly - to their credit, the dockers realised that their union was not
going to
be of much use to them except for the use of its local facilities to meet,
use telephones
etc. Instead of bemoaning this fact, they simply accepted it as a necessary
reality
and got on with the job of promoting their struggle internationally. Their
delegations
have had much success with financial support, but more important, promises
of blacking
and other forms of secondary action, which is at present illegal in this
country.
ACL were obliged to divert boats to continental ports to be unloaded as
East Coast
American dockers threatened to black the boat if it discharged in
Liverpool. Other
similar promises have been made by Australian and Canadian dockers.
As I write this, a boat loaded by scab labour [the first] in Liverpool is
at present
on her way across the Atlantic to unload in Baltimore. It may be that the
shipowners
feel they can get away with it there. If they do it will certainly be a
setback.
But the dockers are absolutely correct in their international strategy, and
plainly must
continue on that front.To that end they are organising an international
conference
of dock and port workers in Liverpool in February. This is a tremendous
step - so
long as it avoids being taken over by the unions, this may well be able to
begin to work
out a way forward for workers in these industries and others.
Well - I intended to write this as a balance sheet, so there has to be some
words
of criticism, so here goes. Tactically the dockers have been sound - for
instance
they have learned the lessons of the early struggles and have avoided the
siren calls
of the Left for 'mass pickets', violent confrontation and so on. It is not
that the stewards
and the dockers themselves object to having a go at scabs or trying to
close up the
dock. But the forces of the state - police and so on are very well prepared
for such
tactics. They have had the chance to practice in Northern Ireland, and in
the riots
of Toxteth, St Pauls, Brixton and so on. They are the ones with body armour
and the
tear gas. It would be the height of folly to throw oneself against such
forces and
hope to win.
Strategically, I feel the dockers have neglected an opportunity to take up
and generalise
the very issue at the heart of their dispute - casualisation. Millions of
workers
across Europe and North America are today faced with the prospect of job
insecurity
or temporary contracts. They are already the the victims of the wholesale
changes
in the economy that have taken place since the 80s - here was a dispute
that is very
much concerned with those issues. It may even be that this will form the
basis of
the discussions at the international conference that the dockers will be
holding in February.
If that is the case then it is still not too late to take this issue up.
In addition the dockers have allowed a view of themselves and their
struggle to get
around that is totally at variance with what they actually are doing. Much
of their
propaganda is based on the notion of demonstrating what good, hardworking
and loyal
employees they are. Whether they are or not is not the point - the MDHC
wants them on
its terms, so it is not a 'bad employer' as one of the dockers leaflets
says - merely
an employer doing what all employers do. Moreover if they really thought about it,
if they were so anxious to be 'good workers' and to show how 'competitive'
they are compared
with other ports - how can they in all conscience ask fellow workers to
support them,
if they are actually competing for their jobs ? I leave that particular
contradiction to be resolved in the dispute itself. We are all as one
steward said 'on a steep
learning curve' - if we get ourselves a bit more together perhaps we can
flatten
it together.
Lastly, although I am responsible for what appears here and in the earlier
reports
I wrote on this dispute, I have benefited from numerous discussions with
others and
from attending the open meetings of the dockers. None of the dockers have
ever said
to me, what group are you in or what party do you belong to. It is almost
certain that
readers of this article will not be able to restrain their curiosity and if
you have
got this far you will almost certainly have formed some impression. You
will have
found some telling clue from the text perhaps. No ? Well let me put you out
of your misery
- I don't belong to any tendency, party or grouping. Make of that what you
will.
DG
19 December 1995
If you have any comments or suggestions for improvements, want more copies
of this
or whatever - you can write to
Dave Graham at PO Box 37, Liverpool, L36 9FZ
If you can be of any use in the dockers struggle either with international
contacts,
research or you just want to make a donation they can be contacted at:
Jimmy Davies
Liverpool Dock Stewards Committee
Transport House
Islington
Liverpool
L3 8EQ
Back to the Docks Dispute Home Page