[page 1]
~ HOW TO FIGHT
~ @ = Ico} ag a >
= S x > > cay S S > = S
[page 2]
Published by Cardinal Enterprises for Socialist Challenge.
P.O.Box 50, LONDON NI.
Typeset and pasted-up by Lithoprint (T.U.),329 Upper St., LONDON NI.
Printed by Spider Web Offset (T.U.), 14-16 Sussex Way. LONDON N7 ORS.
Jobs — and services — not bombs The decision of the National Union of Railwaymen and other unions to cast their block votes against unilateral nuclear disarmament, keeping it out of the next Labour Party election manifesto, was against the interests of all workers.
Socialists want State spending to satisfy social needs, and to provide jobs in the building of socially useful products. Nuclear weapons threaten the total destruction of humanity and fails to satisfy basic needs today.The choices before us can be seen by the amount of money spent on arms when we desperately need homes, hospitals and schools. i Spending on arms compared with social services Annual expenditure £ million £ million From Labour Research September LIO8t Defence budget, 1981-82 12,274 Hospital and community health services 9,892 of which: pay etc of personnel 4,942 Child benefit 3,385 defence research and development 1,676 Medical Research Council 99 upkeep of Polaris submarine 269 Services for disabled 97 airtorce equipment 1,689 Supplementary pensions 1,310 Programmes £ million £ million Trident nuclear missile systemt 5,500 British Rail electrification* 750* Sting Ray Torpedo programme 950 Thames flood barrier 750 Individual items £ million £ million One nuclear powered fleet submarine 175 Humber Bridge 80 One Type 22 frigate 120 Lothian’s rate support grant cut 47 One Tornado F2 aircraft 14:3 900 new houses 14:5 One Challenger Main battle tank 1:5 Improvements to 300 houses 1:5 £ £ One 81mm mortar 7,500 Stairlift for disabled person 1,500 One light support weapon 350 School books for 75 children for one year 340 8-tonne army vehicle 27,000 One meals-on-wheels van 4,000 * not yet sanctioned by the government tto be bought from the United States
Needless to say the Tories still have to agree to BR electrification!
[page 3]
HOW TO FIGHT ‘PRODUCTIVITY’
If there’s one thing most working people can agree on today, it’s that Margaret Thatcher's government has to go! Since her election she’s done everything in her power to put the British economy back on a more profitable footing — allin the interests of the bosses. Her monetarist policies have made 4 million people unemployed, according to TUC estimates. No public service — from education through health and transport — has escaped the Tory cuts.
Yet while the working class is left to suffer the untold consequent hardships, Thatcher’s 1981-82 budget calls for over £12,000 million in defence as well as further billions on a de luxe nuclear weapons system.
It’s not all smooth sailing for Thatcher however. It’s true she’ll have the courts to back up her government's anti-union laws or — in the case of Lord Denning’s ruling against reduced transport fares in London — to overturn policies adopted by Labour councils. And she also has the power of the media which campaigns daily against leaders like Tony Benn whose policies are gain- Ing support in the working class.
However, no matter what allies the Tories can rely on, they still have a mammoth job to do, for they are out to weaken one of the most strongly organised working classes in the world. To achieve its goals, the Tory government weaken this tremendous power of the British trade unions.
The stakes are high for working people today. And with union leaders like Sidney Weighell, few workers will have confidence in these bureaucrats to come up with the long-term set of fundamental policies needed to counter the Tory attacks, let alone to tackle the anarchy of capitalism. This pamphlet argues that a programme of action to defend jobs and conditions in the rail industry has never been more urgent.
It recognises that the policies which would put the interests of the workers first will involve a fight for a new leadership in the labour movement at every level. Denis Healey and others are frightened by any idea that workers shouldn’t pay for the economic crisis.
But we’re not going to throw out the Tories or even begin to tackle the fundamental re-structuring of the economy that’s needed without a fight for new leaders in the workers’ movement, drawn from the rank and file and commit-
[page 4]
ted to take the fight through to its end.
Back in August, when the rail unions’ leaders and the British Rail Board came to an agreement on pay and productivity, a threatened national rail strike, if backed by the other unions in the Triple Alliance — the steel workers and the miners — could have really threatened the life of this government. But many of our leaders refuse to use the independent strength of the working class. Instead they collaborate and connive with management and often do the dirty work for them.
This pamphlet explains how the recent pay settlement and understanding on productivity between the British Rail Board and the rail union leaderships have serious implications for thousands of railworkers’ jobs and conditions. In British Rail, the workforce has been reduced to 160,000 today from half a million in 1960. Peter Parker, chairperson of BRB has announced a further 38,000 jobs will have to go in return for electrification.
The story will not be unfamiliar to workers in other industries who have suffered from redundancies, increased productivity and a decline in real wages.
The lessons we draw in this pamphlet and the way we need to take the fight forward, apply to workers in all] industries. If the BRB and the Tories are allowed to proceed in their devastating plans in this sector, the effects will be felt throughout the British labour movement.
Fee FzAze_eAT Tez T Se STE TET THT TE THT TCM TUC.VTCC VTL The pay settlement in the rail industry means fewer jobs, an increased workload and a cut in pay. With inflation running at 12 per cent, you don’t have to be an economic genius to know that an 11 per cent pay increase is in fact a pay cut. With 3 per cent only payable from August 1981, it means 9 per cent in real terms. The understanding on productivity will result in massive job loss and dramatic changes in working conditions.
Railworkers are being forced to pay for British Rail’s crisis, a crisis they are not responsible for. The union leaderships have failed to lead the members against the government and management. What is needed, and what we are arguing for in this pamphlet, are policies that are in the interests of the workers.
What the understanding on productivity will mean to railworkers
(1) The open station concept Negotiations around the open station concept were due for completion by the end of October 1981. The NUR had already agreed to two pilot schemes on the Western Region and in Scotland 3 months before the pay talks started. When implemented it will result in the elimination of ticket collectors, the transfer of revenue protection duties to an already overburdened guard to the detriment of his/her safety responsibilities, and the closure of many small branch-line stations.
[page 5]
(2) One person operation Discussions on the staffing of passenger trains should have been concluded by 31 October 1981. If the BRB’s proposals are implemented they will drastically reduce jobs amongst train crews.
As the Board say in its document: ‘If we are to deserve further public confidence manifest in enhanced investment in new equipment, we must be able * to show our manning levels are the minimum necessary — with these features (new technology)... the former responsibilities of the guard for safety duties are either taken over by new equipment or can be encompassed by the driver ‘ with a revision of his(sic) traditional responsibilities. ’
The BRB document goes on to outline a detailed timetable for the introduction of one person operation on passenger trains with short journey times between stations, thus making it difficult for guards to fulfil revenue protection duties. (3) One person operation-freight trains Two pilot schemes on the staffing of freight trains should be ready by January 1982 which will involve the running of some freight services without guards. The BRB have produced a timetable which if implemented will amount to the loss of 2,500 jobs by 1986. The first depots to be affected include Stonebridge Park, Kings Cross, Doncaster, Crewe and Millerhill. (4) ‘Flexible’ rostering Discussions on rostering should also have been concluded by the end of October 1981. The object is to produce a more ‘flexible’ rostering system. This will probably mean split shifts, a reduction in train crew staffing, and possibly the end of the guaranteed day which was won after a national rail strike in 1919! For certain sectors it will probably mean the introduction of the continental rostering system of four 10 hour shifts with Sunday as part of the ordinary working week. In other words loss of jobs on the one hand and a speedup on the other. (5) The ‘Trainman’ concept Discussions will be concluded by January 1982. Areas to be covered are recruitment, training and promotion. This concept in effect merges the job of driver with that of guard thus making it easier to eliminate guards and drivers’ assistants jobs.
Of these five exercises only one is to be negotiated, that is the open station concept. All the others are to be ‘discussed’. It is no coincidence that these discussions will all be concluded by January 1982 — the date when the further 3 per cent is to be paid. We must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by the word ‘discussions’. The NUR agreed to the open station concept three months before the pay talks began, if only on two regions.
The general secretary of the NUR attended the pay negotiations with two | documents prepared on productivity.
Sidney Weighell intended to submit them there and there, but was prevented from doing so by the ASLE&F delegation. The rail workers who support Socialist Challenge only came by these documents because they were distributed among the ASLE&F memberships. As yet they have not been made fully available among NUR members.
a
[page 6]
The two documents deal with the ‘trainman’ concept and rostering. Detailed plans for the operation of the ‘trainman’ concept are laid out including a graph outlining promotional structure. The document explains that. differences between the two major rail unions have stood in the way of this scheme in the past. and makes it clear that the setting up of the Rail Federation has opened the way for its introduction, No wonder the Tory press has welcomed the formation of the Federation if it is to be used to make the slashing of jobs that much easier!
CHRISTOPHER DAVIES (Report)
The NUR document which deals with the ‘trainman’ concept declares: ‘We wish to state firmly that as we move towards the Open Station Concept we see an increased level of staffing on passenger trains.’ In other words, guards will be encouraged to accept the Open Station concept which attacks a weaker section of the workforce, the ticket. collectors and platform staff, in return for the possibility of increased jobs on the trains. One set of workers is to be bought off at the expense of another.
At the same time the document also states: ‘We are prepared, however, without commitment, to examine the elimination of guards on fully-fitted freight trains in those areas where joint passenger/freight operations exist and are in Close proximity and as part. of the same exercise, explore any special difficulties which may arise at other freight-only depots.’ Guards jobs are going to go, come what may.
The Open Station concept should be opposed by a// sections of the railway workforce, otherwise we will find ourselves picked off sector by sector until that 38,000 figure will seem more and more realistic.
The second NUR document deals with hours. It proposes that a 35-hour
[page 7]
week be achieved by the inclusion of Sundays into the ordinary working week. Thus, it is claimed, more jobs will be created. The loss of earnings, which will result in changing from a 40 hour to a 35 hour week, taking into account a supposed average of 8 hours overtime, is to be compensated for by the elimination of the Irregular and Unsocial Hours Payment (IUP) and replaced by special shift payments. These will be as follows:
3 shift system (rotating over 24 hours)... 2.6.0... ee ee cee eens 30% 3 shift system (not rotating over 24 horus). ........ 0.2.06. c eee eee eee eee 20% Double day shift (6am to midnight). .......... 0.0.0... cece cc ee eee 15% The introduction of a 35 hour week with no loss of pay will produce more jobs and create more leisure time for railworkers. This has to be a 35 hour week which incorporates overtime payments into the basic rate of pay. The proposals outlined in the NUR document will not achieve that.
In effect they amount to a pay cut for most railworkers. First, the average amount of overtime worked is not 8 hours as claimed in the document but 144% hours, the figure quoted by the Low Pay Unit. The document's claim to compensate for overtime payments is therefore inaccurate. Second, the shift payment system would divide an already badly divided workforce because it would only affect certain groups of workers. At present the [UP payments, while being totally inadequate, at least are calculated on an hourly basis and they are awarded to all sections accordingly.
The shift payments would operate more rigidly in that not all sections ever get the opportunity to work the most highly paid shifts, that is the 3 shift system over 24 hours. Most platform staff work a double day shift and would be eligible for 15 per cent under these proposals. Most ticket collectors work the 3 shift system not rotating over 24 hours. They would only get 20 per cent.
These groups of workers would be further divided by the introduction of these proposals which amount. to nothing more than increased differentials. The NUR’s proposals, if implemented, would make railworkers pay for the 35 hour week, like Edwardes’ attempt with the BL workers.
Railworkers work an average 54% hour week -- according to a Low Pay Unit report -- including unsocial hours, the majority of Saturdays and one in three Sundays. Without this excessive overtime, railworkers would earn less than $75 a week. When 4,000 workers earn the minimum earnings level of £66.60 a week, overtime becomes a necessity. Living standards have fallen by 30 per cent since 1975 and as executive member John Cogger has pointed out, 3,000 NUR members have to apply to the state for subsidies in order to feed and clothe their dependents.
If we look at the NUR proposals alongside that of the BRB’s submissions and the outline of the pay settlement discussions, it is quite clear that productivity means fewer people doing more work for less pay. The workforce is worked harder and paid less. Those of us that have already been through an exercise — for example the withdrawal from Collected and Delivered parcels — know this only too well. Far from the claim that more jobs will be created, jobs will be lost. Contrary to the NUR’s claim that the rail industry will reduce the length of the dole queues it will inevitably mean that railworkers will be joining that queue.
[page 8]
ons tO auable ieee ied are many nts Vv eat from the = of the } pe learn settlemen' : wp.4©
For fighting rail unions We believe that it is necessary to form a broad based left wing movement committed to fighting for these sorts of policies inside the rail unions. Such a movement is not a new idea. In 1934 the Railway Vigilance movement was set up in response to the stagnation of rates of pay and working conditions that had been steadily worsening since the victory of the 1919 national rail strike which had established national conditions of service.
The Vigilance Movement was set up initially by a small group of engine cleaners but eventually spread to all grades of the railway industry. It based itself on fighting policies and published a weekly newspaper, The Vigilant, which campaigned for these policies. The movement met frequently to debate these policies and formulated resolutions for annual general meetings which were submitted to branches for adoption. The movement’s greatest strength was that it included all railworkers regardless of which union they belonged to.
The foundations for such a movement today could be laid by campaigning for the policies we have already outlined in opposition to the productivity exercises. Such a movement should support and defend the democratic gains made inside the Labour Party and campaign inside the rail unions for the continuation of that process . It would play a vital part in the forging of links at rank and file level between the unions of the Triple Alliance. A broad-based left wing movement founded on these policies would be able to unite all railworkers who wish to be members of fighting rail unions. That is why Socialist Challenge supporters are involved in building the recently formed Rail Broad Left which has produced its first newsheet,Left Lines.
[page 9]
For an integrated transport system
The substantial reductions of fares on London buses and tubes has been the Labour GLC’s most popular measure to date, whatever Lord Denning may rule. The next Labour government. should develop this policy at a national level. Transport is a basic and essential service that has to operate in the interests of working people. It is the life blood of any industrial society.
The inefficiencies and wastefulness of capitalism are highlighted by the present transport system which allows one section to compete against another, instead of utilising all the resources as fully as possible. An integrated transport system is needed that works for the benefit of people, not the profit of the capitalists. A Labour government would need to take special measures to develop such a system, in particular a massive programme of public investment in transport, with no strings attached. It would also need to nationalise the road haulage industry without compensation. Thatcher has sold off the freight traffic that once went by rail to her friends in the private road haulage sector.
Private firms are now legally entitled to operate passenger services while rail fares are deliberately raised, putting rail travel out of many people’s reach and making the private services look more attractive. All transport) workers — regardless of which sector they work in — have no interest in the privatisation of the transport. industry.
The next Labour government should also renationalise all the privatised sectors on rail with no compensation. When rail was nationalised in 1947 massive compensation payments were awarded to the private owners, and we're still paying for it today. But to commit the next Labour government to such radical policies means campaign now inside the unions. Unfortunately, the leaders of our rail unions, in particular the National Union of Railwaymen, has worked hand in glove with management instead of in the interests of its members.
The Railwaymen’s Charter, published by the NUR at the end of 1979, laid great stress ona ‘common approach’ between the British Rail Board (BRB) and the unions. This approach has continued with the union leaders making joint approaches with the BRB to the government in the hope of achieving increased investment in rail. The 1981] pay settlement and its understanding on productivity was another step along the same road. Speaking at the 1981 TUC conference in support of a resolution defending nationalised industry, Sidney Weighell explained that the Tory government was opposed to the public sector.
However, he went on to say: ‘These attacks are spearheaded by the Prime Minister against management and workforce — month after month the efforts of management and workforce are deliberately denigrated by a government which set out from the day it was elected to deprive these industries of investment and resources.’ We only need to look at Sir Peter Parker’s $12,000 pay rise to see just how much he is denigrated by the Tory government!
We have to make it clear to our union leaders, the membership and the public that. the BRB's strategy for the industry is the same as the Tories — destroying a vital and public service.
[page 10]
How the Tories are destroying a public service The fact that the NUR had already prepared two documents on productivity prior to the commencement of the pay negotiations indicates a commitment to productivity exercises at union leadership levels and a consequent. unwillingness to lead a struggle against the proposals. ASLE & F did oppose the presentation of the documents at that stage and published them among its own membership.
But, unfortunately, this does not mean that the ASLE & F leadership is prepared to lead such a struggle. The proposals on the ‘trainman’ concept rely on ASLE & F’s support. The documents were published by its leaders to try to foist the responsibility for productivity onto the NUR’s shoulders — thus avoiding its own responsibilities.
There can be no ‘common approach’ between the BRB and the unions. The BRB’s strategy is the same as the Tories’ and one which the union should have no truck with. The most profitable parts of BR are being sold into private industry with the full approval of Sir Peter Parker. He was quoted in the Times as saying, ‘Where we can disaggregate (sell off)... parts of the business to attract private capital — we want to do so.’
The Victoria-Gatwick Airport Rail Service is just the latest in a long line of assets to be put on the market, just at the stage where public investment. is starting to produce results. If the sale goes through, a new fleet of electric trains will be built at a cost of 86.5m; these trains will be operated by BR who will be paid a sum to do so by their private owners.
The profits of this service, built by millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, over the last few years, will therefore be securely in the hands of Thatcher’s private investors. The results of Thatcher’s policies and Parker’s collusion will be two rail systems — one made up of money-making routes in private hands and the other of loss-making public routes.
i i a a Ss Se The nationalised rail industry has always provided a cheap subsidised service for private industry. The hiving off of profitable sectors to private interest is therefore a logical next step.
British Transport Hotels, Sealink and freight services all are up for grabs. The 1981 Transport. Act enables (he British Rail Board to turn its subsidiaries into private companies and to sell shares in them subject to approval of the Ministry of Transport. It also allows the Ministry to instruct (he BRB to transfer any assets to a named subsidiary and then sell it.
Finally it sets up a company called the ‘Harbour Company’ consisting of all harbour installations controlled by Sealink and BR Hovercraft. This is a definate statement of intent that Sealink and Hovercraft will be sold off and that. plans to do this are already in an advanced stage.
The Tories have no interest in maintaining a public service, nor in protecting a source of revenue for the state. Long-term investment has been static for the last. five years at 330m.
BR has a lower level of investment per train kilometre than in any country in Europe.Some 98 per cent of diesel and 60 per cent of electrics in BR’s fleet of
[page 11]
10,000 are over 15 years old. Just (o replace Chem means an increase in investment of 30 per cent in the next ten years. This is not happening.
The entire fleet of shunting locomotives was built between 1948-56, and nothing has been added since. Replacement programmes are constantly being postponed, and locos withdrawn for ‘cannibalisation’.
In 1978-79 there were too few locos to cope with the programme numbers of trains resulting in widespread cancellations. The shortage of replacement rails means speed restrictions and 3,000 miles of track will have to be closed by | 1990 for safety reasons unless there is a radical change of policy.
Only 16 locos were built in 1979, the vear in which $10-15m of profitable freight traffic had to be turned away because of lack of rolling stock. In August 1980, BRB announced the closure of 54 freight yards by 1982. : The clectrification programme has been slowed down, and passenger fares | raised by 19 per cent since September 1980; some 40 passenger lines are
a
[page 12]
threatened with closure to save minute amounts, while investment in rolling stock and increased electrification, which would lead to a greater return on capital, remains at a standstill.
Both the Tories and the BRB have one aim in mind: the selling of f of all the profit-making sections of the rail industry to their friends in private ownership, and the deliberate and cold blooded running down of the ‘service’ that is left.
They will pursue this policy regardless of the effects it} will have on railworkers’ lives and indeed on the lives of the thousands of railway users. It is the destruction of a service in the name of profit.
British Rail is in trouble because of inadequate financial support from successive Labour and Tory governments. The level of fares and the amounts of money invested in BR annually are totally controlled by the Minister of Transport and the Treasury. In addition, an External Finance Limit. (EFL), made up of the total permitted amount of money to be raised from external sources, is determined periodically.
The EFL has been a major plank in the economic policies of successive governments. It isa means of controlling the total amount of money in circulation, the level of interest rates, the level of orders for the manufacture of engineering equipment and the overall level of government spending. The importance of the EFL is that it covers the whole of the public sector, including local authorities. It. is therefore a major way of pushing through cuts.
For example, when the Greater London Council introduced the new cheaper fares system on London Transport they also suggested that they subsidise British Rail by $20m to halt the BR fare increase in winter 1981 in London. The Tories refused, threatening to decrease the EFL by the same amount! So fares would be forced up anyway! In 1980 BR exceeded their portion of the EFL by §76.9m. The total projected loss for 1981 is $140m. exceeding EFL by $70m. This means that BR is in a state of continuous debt, paying huge interest rates on bank loans with money which could be used for re-equipment. Britain has the lowest level of subsidy of any European railway network which, in marked contrast, are expanding or introducing major re-equipment programmes.
The 1980 Steel strike: the lessons for railworkers That a ‘common approach’ between unions and management is not in railworkers’ interests can be illustrated by the experience of our sisters and brothers in steel. Steel is another nationalised industry which suffers from the same disease as BR:chronic lack of investment, massive payments to the banks and the privatisation of the profitable sections.
During the 13 week steel strike — and afterwards — the leadership of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC) followed a policy of a ‘common approach’. That. policy led to thousands of jobs going down the road and whole communities ike Corby and Consett being destroyed.
In July 1980, when the strike was over, the ISTC produced a pamphlet entitled ‘New Deal For Steel’. Despite its attacks on management and government it endorsed the fundamental proposition of the British Steel Corporation
[page 13]
(BSC) that it should achieve the profit levels set by the Tories — at the expense of the workforce. The pamphlet included the BSC’s secret dossier which made it clear that management saw the cosy chats with the unions as nothing more than a smokescreen behind which they could continue with their vicious plans for closures.
td
Page after page of calculations had one aim in mind: how to make a targetted £155m. profit. This policy was pursued with a total disregard for steelworkers’ lives, using the weapon of unemployment to weaken the workers’ ability to resist and picking off the workforce section by section and plant by plant. Meetings with Bill Sirs and his colleagues on the ISTC executive were being used to ratify previously made BSC decisions.
Charlie Keeney was a steelworker at Corby and he said in Socialist Challenge at that time: ‘Corby could produce strip steel more cheaply than bringing it in, with only a small investment in new plant, much smaller than amount they intended to buy our jobs with. We tried to make the Corporation see this. It was at this point that it. finally dawned on us — they didn’t want to know, they'd never wanted to know. ‘The whole quest for viability has been a gigantic hoax at our expense. BSC’s plans had never changed. We had been fed this thread of hope in a cruel attempt to keep us quiet until they were ready to give us the chop.’
Charlie’s warning to other steel workers is just as relevant to us today, just substitute BRB for BSC:*Don’t fall for BSC lies, brothers and sisters, as we did at Corby, because unless you fight against it they will close you anyway — carry on the fight against closures. If you don’t fight from the start you'll soon find that the closures demanded are ever growing and the timetables for shutdown ever shorter.’
[page 14]
The rail union leaderships should lead the fight against productivity right from the beginning if we are to avoid the fate of Charlie Keeney and his sisters and brothers in steel. There is no question of us not having the strength or ability to win such a fight. We have many weapons at our command not least of which is the Triple Alliance between rail, coal and steelworkers.
The miners have already shown us the way; their speedy and effective strike action in February 1981 produced the ‘U-turn’ from Thatcher that thousands of meetings between Weighell, Buckton, BRB and the Transport Minister could never — and have never — produced. We need union leaderships that will learn from the lessons of our sisters and brothers in the unions of the Triple Alliance and abandon the ‘common approach’.
The working class is not responsible for the crisis of British industry, railworkers are not responsible for the crisis in rail; today’s crisis is the result of decisions taken by management and governments and determined by their overriding interest in making profits. We need union leaderships that understand this and that are prepared to defend their members interests independently of the requirements of management and government.
Socialist Challenge policies on pay Socialist Challenge a weekly newspaper written by militants in the industrial unions and in the Labour Party has a record of support for every kind of industrial action workers have taken in pursuance of a decent standard of living. We intend to maintain that record.
Capitalism’s economic crisis demands answers which go beyond mere militancy however. A socialist policy is one that can set common goals for all workers irrespective of age, race or sex or whether they are members of strong or weakly organised trade unions. In the face of inflation we reject all incomes policies which mean that. all prices can rise except the price of labour. Workers are not responsible for the crisis. It is a crisis of the bosses’ system.
We call therefore for an immediate 29 per cent increase on the basic rate for all railworkers to bring their earnings back to the level of buying-power they had in 1975, and the protection of these levels from inflation by linking them to the TUCrecognised Retail Price Index (not the Tory government's fraudulent ‘taxadjusted’ index). Every one per cent rise in the cost of living should be met immediately with a one per cent rise in basic wages.
The Minimum Earnings Level payment, which is a management device designed to keep down the wages of all railworkers, should be abolished, and replaced by a National Minimum Wage drawn up and enforced by the rail unions in conjunction with all the other organisations of the working class. It should be set at the minimum amount needed for a decent living standard, index-linked, and payable to apprentices and all young workers as well as the time-served.
Socialists are in general opposed to differentials which are used to foster divisions amongst workers. We favour a policy aiming at ending these divisions through the levelling up (not down) of the wages of all grades. This policy should go hand in hand with the ending of all notions of different status of jobs and who does them. We support, but would extend, the newly-adopted TUC policy of positive action. We believe quotas should be enforced by the unions if necessary to ensure the training and placement of women and blacks in the more skilled and highly-paid jobs in our industry.
[page 15]
Policies for fighting productivity We have already outlined management’s and government's policies for the rail industry. In order to effectively fight produciivity we need an independent strategy of our own — astrategy that would begin to find solutions that are in railworkers interests. Such a strategy would include the following policies: (a) Rail union backing for a massive programme of public investment with no strings attached. (b) An end to the selling off of the profitable sections of BR. The rail unions should lead the call for re-nationalisation without compensation of all privatised sectors. (c) The rail unions should lead the fight against all job losses and closures. (d) Railworkers’ wages should be immediately raised to the 1975 spending level.
We need union leaderships that are prepared to fight for these policies, using the example of the miners and taking industrial action to achieve them. This would include the mobilisation of the full strength of the Triple Alliance. We need union leaderships equal to the tasks ahead.
This is precisely what the debate inside the Labour Party is about. Willa future Labour government adopt a ‘common approach’ with the banks and the bosses or would it defend independent policies, formulated at conference in the interests of the working class? This is why the left wing inside the rail union supported Tony Benn in the deputy leadership battle — we need a Labour Party leadership that. is prepared to fight to implement such policies. That is why the debate inside the Labour Party concerns all railworkers, the vote for Healey was a vote against our own interests, a vote against an independent strategy based on the needs of working people.
The socialist view of the 35 hour week The Tories say work harder and you create new jobs. This is a lie. Unemployment isatacatastrophically high level because of world capitalist recession. This means that in general the capitalists are not able to sell what they produce at prices sufficient to guarantee their profits — so they produce less and seck to maintain profits by driving down labour costs through closures, sackings and lay-offs and through the fear of redundancy felt by those still in jobs.
If the boss can get each worker to increase the amount she or he produces with her or his labour, it follows the boss can do with fess workers. Every company in Britain which has announced redundancies has forced speed-ups on its remaining workers as well. Productieity schemes mean less jobs not more. The socialist alternative is to demand the sharing of all available work amongst all available workers, and for the cost to be born fully by the capitalist class by ensuring that work sharing would include full pay for all and no loss of earnings for a shorter working week.
Against those who would view the 35 hour week and overtime bans as a way of forcing down the general level of wages either through direct wage cuts or by got ting railworkers to do in normal time the work presently done in ‘overtime’, we advance the socialist policy of a 35 hour week with no loss of earnings and without the attachment of productivity strings.
We demand the consolidation of average overtime carnings into the basic rate as part of the move to a shorter working week in the rail industry. “Share the work, not the pay’ should be our banner.
[page 16]
&
ac
z _ Z. < ac 1} PETE SUBSCRIBE TO Socialist SOCIALIST CHALLENGE Challenge For new readers we are offering TEN ISSUES of Socialist Challenge for the incredibly low Price of £2 (real value £3.15!)
With 12 month subscriptions we are giving away a FREE COPY of The British Economic Disaster by Andrew Glyn and John Harrison, published by Pluto Press. (usual price £2.95).
Complete the form below and rush your order to: Socialist Challenge. PO Box 50, London N1. Cheques and POs payable to ‘Socialist Challenge’.
SPECIAL OFFER 12 months: £14 plus free copy of The British Economte Disaster 6 months -- £7 10 issues for £2 only.
Delete as appropriate Name...............000.5-
Address ........ eens :