The dispute over the health workers' pay claim has now lasted more than five months. The unity and determination [illegible] we decided to take a detailed look at how this has developed in one particular hospital. So we spoke to Norman Lockhart, a nurse at Glasgow Royal Infirmary who is a NUPE shop steward and secretary [illegible] Shop Stewards Committee.
What was the situation in the Royal Infirmary before this dispute began?
The situation began to change with last year's pay claim. Nurses' consciousness of how they were being used by the government slowly began to change with the demonstrations and other protests. Two or three years ago they wouldn't have entertained any idea of industrial action. This year we were at least discussing what strike action meant before the [illegible].
Even before last year's claim we'd also begun to get nurses organised in what we called the Nurses Action Group (NAG). The year before a few of us got together and called a protest demonstration which succeeded in getting out 600 people on a very wet day. There was no intention of going it alone. We saw NAG and the demonstration as a way of getting people involved inside the unions, or winning official support. NAG as such didn't last — I think it ended up as a campaign to [illegible] conditions in the nursing homes — but what it did was to bring a number of people together and give them confidence in fighting for action through the unions. So when this year's dispute started we did at least have some experience to fall back on.
How did the unions prepare for the claim?
The most significant thing is that for the first time all the different groups have been fighting together at the same time. Nearly all the settlement dates — whether for nurses, clerical workers, professional and technical grades, ancillaries, or engineers — fell together on 1 April. And that gave people a new confidence in their strength and ability to act together.
Previously settlement dates for different groups ran from November through to April or even later. The fact that it changed was partly accidental — some dates were pushed back because of scabby settlements like giving a little bit extra for 15 months. Partly it was something that unions like NUPE were aiming for anyway.
Management and the health service bureaucracy also quite liked the idea because they thought it would make life simpler for them despite the effect of greater union strength. Previously the whole brunt of the fight for living standards in the NHS fell on what settlement the ancillaries could achieve on their own. There wasn't any joint action before. The claims are still submitted separately through the separate Whitley Councils for each group.
Also this year, all the different staff sides met beforehand to agree a common claim — the central demand being for 12 per cent. The effect was the same as a single body putting in a claim for all healthworkers whatever [illegible]. In that sense the unions did prepare for the dispute. But they never thought about the forms of action that would be needed, or prepared any discussion about it. This proved to be really divisive. Some hospitals went into all-out action from the word go and then [illegible] only been able to build up slowly to such a perspective. We didn't get the leadership we needed.
So how have things changed since the start of the dispute?
Our first problem was to break down the isolation between different departments in the hospital. We tried to tackle this through mass meetings. The first was on 14 April, the day the TUC called for one-hour workplace meetings. Ours was organised by the NUPE stewards, and mostly attended by nurses. There was also a scattering of tradesmen and technicians. The meeting was chaired by the GMWU convenor, but not boycotted by the GMWU members under the influence of their full-timer.
Most of the ancillaries are in the GMWU, and the Royal is one of the main bases the union has in the health service in Glasgow. I think the full-timer feels that any body which brings the different unions together will undermine the GMWU's position.
Anyway, we got some names at that meeting and we decided to set up an action committee to lay the basis for establishing a proper joint shop stewards committee. We also sent a resolution from the meeting to the Joint Trade Union Committee (JTUC) — a coordinating body of union officials of the [illegible] — asking them to set up a joint shop stewards committee.
The JTUC agreed to set up a joint meeting of the different unions in the hospital. There were stewards from NUPE and ASTMS, some NALGO representatives (since their stewards seemed to be totally inactive) plus tradesmen's stewards from UCATT and the AUEW. We decided then to have an interim election of officers — myself from NUPE as the secretary, and someone from ASTMS as chairperson.
These were formalised at the next meeting, which was more representative because of more word-of-mouth contact. Most of the stewards were there and NALGO had replaced its old inactive stewards with two new ones. The GMWU was still boycotting the proceedings, but we decided that shouldn't stop us from going ahead and putting the whole thing on a formal basis with recognition by the JTUC.
Having the Joint Shop Stewards Committee (JSCC) has made a big difference in the dispute. It's really boosted the confidence of the individual stewards. Commitment has shot up as we've been able to start coordinating our members to take action for the claim. Recognition by the JTUC means recognition by the Greater Glasgow Health Board, so it's also meant we now get some facilities from management, despite the non-participation of the GMWU.
[illegible] GMWU there and is there any way you could [illegible] the largest [illegible] unions in the Royal and thus organise most of the key workers — the kitchen, portering, stores and domestic staff?
They've taken action during the dispute. They had an overtime ban for five weeks, and [illegible] the week of action. But they haven't supported the levy which is vital to maintaining a campaign of action which involves all staff in the hospital.
A lot of GMWU members have responded to the role of their union by coming to us saying they want to change unions. But aside from problems under the TUC Bridlington Agreement, that's not really a solution. They're still a minority of the GMWU workforce, so it wouldn't solve the problem of getting united representation and action of all unionised workers in the hospital. We have to try to force them in as a union.
It's obviously been difficult in the Royal just to get coordination between some of the different unions involved. Has there been much coordination between the different hospitals in the Glasgow area?
Very little at the stewards level. The JTUC is [illegible] the body to handle it. Eventually the JTUC did call a stewards meeting at the beginning of August after resolutions from the Southern General and Royal Infirmary. But it was toothless and ineffective. There were about 180 stewards there out of perhaps 2,000 in the whole of the Glasgow NHS. The GMWU once more boycotted the proceedings; it held district meetings at [illegible]. For instance, we had a resolution from the Royal stewards committee calling on the TUC to organise all-out action. But it was disallowed. There was just information plus a recommendation from the JTUC on the week of action. Still, it was better than nothing. Stewards from the different hospitals felt less isolated. But now we need a practical working conference.
It would have to be a conference to organise escalation of the dispute to indefinite strike action, as well as planning closer future coordination, especially in opposition to the cuts. But it's really difficult to get something like that off the ground because there's so little contact between the different stewards committees.
The JTUC keeps a very tight rein on developments. It would oppose any decision-making stewards body on the grounds that it would undermine its own position and powers. But of course, the whole GMWU business has shown that the JTUC doesn't exert any powers over the constituent unions unless it suits it. In fact that's true of the coordinating bodies at all levels of the bureaucracy — the TUC, Scottish TUC, etc.
How about contact with and support from other workers outside the NHS?
We've generally had a good response at the rank-and-file level. For instance, we made a big collection at Cardowan colliery the day after their one-day strike in support of us in June. We've had big collections at the Wills tobacco plants, and a lot of support from the EIS (Scottish teachers union) at the College of Commerce; they've held collections for us, sent delegations to our picket lines, organised meetings, and so on. We've held collections at as many factories as possible; the people on long-term strike at the hospital have spent a lot of time phoning round the shop stewards committees. Sometimes they've organised meetings for us; or they'll put round collection sheets themselves, or they've let us stand at the gates collecting with often one or two of the stewards alongside us.
What about the question of industrial action in support of the healthworkers? What role has the TUC played in developing the action?
The big problem has been that the TUC sanctions solidarity action by other workers in theory, but in practice it does nothing at all to organise it. Indeed, in some ways it positively discourages it. What are other workers to think when they see the TUC failing to support Sean Geraghty and the Fleet Street electricians? So 22 September is a big step forward in this respect. But it still leaves unanswered the question of what happens next, especially in the NHS itself.
Initially the one-day actions were OK because they helped to build up confidence among health service workers who weren't sure that action of any kind was possible. But their continual repetition now means that many people are asking what they're achieving except the loss of another day's wages.
What's needed is all-out strike action in the health service with support from outside. The most popular understanding of what that means is an indefinite withdrawal of all services except accident and emergency cover.
There have in the past been threats of a total withdrawal of services by nurses in Australia, Canada, and Ireland. And they've had a dramatic effect on governments; midnight settlements and so on, so the threat has never had to be carried out.
But to withdraw accident and emergency cover without warning is not conceivable at the moment. You'd have to have an organised shutdown of the hospital. Of course some hospitals, such as the Gartnavel here, don't have accident and emergency and so they could be shut down more easily.
But the most important thing is that the call for indefinite action has to be a national one, otherwise it'll only mean further isolation for those hospitals involved.
Partial actions were important at the beginning — they allowed health workers to test their strength since they had little previous experience to go on. All-out action had to be argued then not as something immediate but as something to build up to. But today national action is vital. Anything else and you simply won't get out your support.
It's been estimated that indefinite action would involve 250,000 people out on strike. The point of all-out action would be to bring the dispute to a quick close. It's the position of NUPE conference, and it's what our shop stewards committee put in a resolution to the stewards conference called by the Glasgow JTUC in August, though they ruled it out of order.
There's an informal campaign by different stewards committees now to make it plain to the JTUC, STUC etc that they won't recommend any further escalation of the dispute unless it includes all-out national action. That's how serious it is now.
We don't know what the final outcome will be, but what lasting effects do you think the dispute will have inside the hospital?
Well, first of all we now have a Joint Shop Stewards Committee — that's a big step forward in workplace organisation. We're finding that lots of small issues, some of them quite longstanding, are now being brought to the union — there's more confidence now that something can be done. That's important because we already see further battles looming ahead.
They're now planning to impose £6m worth of cuts in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area. That will mean loss of jobs, closures of wards, units, and even small hospitals, and so on. Also they plan to close every single creche for NHS staff, and we'll be launching a big campaign round that.
There's also the issue of private practice. A private hospital is being set up at Clarkston, and there's a growing awareness of the threat it represents to the NHS. It's basically an extension of the present illegal private practices. We all know about the existing thefts by consultants. Things like their habit of 'borrowing' sterilised trays for use in their private clinics and then bringing back the dirties for re-sterilisation at the expense of the NHS. That's something we all feel more confidence about taking up now as a result of working together during this dispute.
Finally, we're hoping to develop the CND campaign in the hospital. We want to educate people in the fact that the government deliberately chooses to spend money on nuclear weapons rather than on health. We'll probably get the Joint Shop Stewards Committee to sponsor a film show, and then try to get a workplace group set up. I think that's also important because it'll encourage people in all the different unions to take up the campaign within their own union structures and press for action in support of CND.
I see the dispute as having started a process whereby people are beginning to think more deeply about what is going on in society generally as a result of their experience in the health service — and thinking about what's needed to change it.