[page 12]
On June 14th the women day cleaners at Lancaster University began a series of one-hour token strikes and pickets of the University Administration building. Their action was sup ported by a student demonstration and an occupation of the Administration building. Strike action was taken after a long battle with the university management for a very basic demand-the right to free adequate transport to the University. which is situated three miles out of Lancaster at the top of a long steep hill. It is of course common practice in out-of-theway factories, colleges and universities to provide this service, but although there is an adequate service for students, a similar service had not been put on for the university workers in the vacations. Although students can claim fares from the education authorities, the workers have to pay the high fares, which in the case of the cleaners takes 10%-20% of their very low wages.
CLEANERS IN THE UNION The Lancaster Socialist Woman Group, collecting information for a pamphlet about women at work, began to talk to the cleaners about their work conditions and it was clear that the inadequate transport was a very general complaint. The cleaners were not in a union and had made their complaints individually, not as a group. This meant that they were intimidated by the management who could afford to ignore this and other complaints. It also meant that they were afraid to raise grievances for fear of victimisation. The Socialist Woman Group arranged a meeting for the cleaners with May Hobbs, a leading militant night cleaner in London. She discussed their demands with them and the importance of making these demands more effectively in an organised way through the union. She also explained from her experience with the T&GWU in London that rank and file members must not rely on their union officials to get their demands met but must themselves constantly push for their demands through these officials. The Socialist Woman Group and the cleaners arranged weekly lunch-hour meetings to discuss their grievances. Audrey Wise, a leading militant in USDAW, the shopworkers' union, also came to speak with them. In March, 22 out of the 35 women cleaners joined the T&GWU and one of them, Mrs. Lancaster, became their shop steward. The union put their demands to management. The cleaners from the beginning have been very active in the union (nearly all the unionised cleaners attend the weekly branch meeting). A union official attempted to put in a lesser claim (for better, but not free, transport facilities) but the cleaners were firm in their demands. The university prevaricated and used the officials' demand which he had already retracted to confuse the issue. They continued with their policy of referring the matter back to a series of committees. The cleaners decided to take strike action until they had a guarantee of free transport in order to push the university into a decision before the students left for the vacation, when there would be no transport and they would be in a weaker position without active student support. The cleaners had a large amount of student support, The Socialist Woman Group kept the students and people in the town informed by a series of leaflets and letters to the local press. When the cleaners went on strike the group mobilised student demonstrations to support the picket and proposed a motion which was carried almost unanimously by the Students Union that the students should occupy the university administration building, thus effectively bringing the work of the university to a standstill until the cleaners' demands were met.
EFFECTS OF THE STRIKE AND THE STUDENT SOLIDARITY ACTION After one day of strike action the administration put on a minibus up and down the university hill. The cleaners were not impressed by this as it did nothing to solve the problem of the cost of public transport. On the second day the administration offered the T&GWU negotiating rights at the university -something they had been fighting for for a long time. On the third day when the students occupied the administration building, the management who previously refused to meet the cleaners offered to see them. Negotiations took place on the fifth day and the cleaners accepted an offer of a £1.20 increase for transport costs as well as the use of minibus. This was seen as a great victory for the cleaners in winning a demand which had been ignored for years.
The reactionary nature of the university was also effectively exposed to both university workers and students. The administration, which described itself as a "model employer" and had previously shown a fairly liberal face to the students, showed that it would not extend this liberality to the university workers. The university does not give the cleaners such basic rights as sick pay, holiday pay and cover money and all sections of the workers are badly paid and complain about their conditions. In the paternalistic bodies which the university sets up to discuss pay and conditions, workers have been told when they make complaints that if they don't like the conditions they can leave a very real threat in a high unemployment area. Any decisions made in this body can in any case be reversed by the management committee to which they referred. In fact at the moment this management committee has decided to change the decision of the union negotiations so that the wage rise is smaller and becomes a rise towards equal pay and not for transport costs. In this way the management is attempting to avoid responsibility for transport for any section of workers and to give a rise which the cleaners would have got anyway with the Equal Pay Act. They are blatantly going back on the decision of the negotia. tions, and although the union officials are wavering, the cleaners will only accept this if they can claim separately for transport costs. The administration also attempted, after the students had left and when the shop steward was away on holiday, to sack a cleaner who was involved in the strike, but this was withdrawn after the other cleaners, including men night cleaners, with students and members of the Socialist Woman Group and May Hobbs, demanded that she be reinstated. The university has exploited the fact that the cleaners are weakened now that the students are away to reverse decisions made earlier and to victimise this cleaner. It is important that Lancaster students come back next term