“at considerable personal sacrifice”, has accepted the job of incomes commissioner, at a mere £15,000 a year. This fact gives point to Peter Shore’s ill-fated measure to control the emoluments of top management, upon which we commented recently. It is entirely likely that Mr. Jones is in fact taking a severe pay-cut in order to qualify to administer similar medicine to the rest of us. Doctor Beeching, who made similar headlines a little while ago, was by no means the top earner at ICI when he stepped down to draw his pittance as the executioner of British Railways. In the Commons, Peter Shore made the point that the top twenty thousand incomes were quite different from ordinary wages and salaries, in that their recipients, unlike the rest of us, could estimate their own worth. The case for disclosure is overwhelming, if “incomes policy” really is to mean something other than a wage freeze. Mr. Jones has unwittingly underlined it. The government’s rejection of such measures, and now, the nature of its appointments, should be taken as a serious warning by the unions. Trouble is:in store down Mr. Brown’s road.
When the union executive confer on this matter, there are some other matters they should consider. The new commission is to review prices and incomes. But wages are the subject of public negotiations, and these can be influenced quite easily before final settlement is made. Prices, on the other hand, are not negotiable, and so the new commission will be examining accomplished facts when it looks at increases in price-levels. The least the unions can demand is that all price-increases should be subjected to control, which means that permission for them must be granted before they become effective.
Even if this is done, the unions will be gravely disadvantaged until the accounts of every firm are publicly accessible to the workpeople. Planners cannot plan, and workers cannot control, an economy whose vital data are shrouded in mystery.
|
March 24, 1965 — THE WEEK Bosses draw up Denby Balance-sheet
CCORDING to Harold Wincott in The Financial Times this week, Britain has a lot to learn from the example of William Denby and Sons. This is the Baildon dye firm which made trade union history by sacking all their Union workers as a reprisal for the walk-out of a few of their mates. That was in October 1963, and since then the firm has ‘ignored’ a sixteen-month-old strike by engaging new labour, and exercising their “right of selection.” There have been’ several incidents between these newcomers and the regular workers. The Union, the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers has spent £90,000 in benefits since the strike began, and not having the support of the T.U.C., they had to back down. Now along comes The Financial Times with a tidy moral from the whole affair. This is that our British economy ought to copy the tactics of this firm. For production, profits and wages have gone up in the last quarter of the year, as a direct result of breaking the power of the Trades Union on the shop floor. The Financial Times comments: “But knowing what we do know — or, more _ accurately, suspecting what we do suspect — about the widespread misuse of our manpower resources, about the manner in which restrictive practices encourage work-spreading and hold back productivity, about our poor showing in the international league tables, he would be a bold man who said William Denby was an isolated case, or that a great many other British undertakings could not achieve a similar increase in productivity and profitability. “If that happened, of course, this country’s prospects would be revolutionised. . There would be no more stop-go, no talk of devaluation, our balance of payments problem would be solved, we wouldn’t have to bicker about overseas investment, we should have all the manpower we wanted to modernise our economic and social structure, the national revenue would soar, and so on. We would, in fine, stop being the sick man of Europe and take our rightful place among the industrial nations of the world.” Now we have the panacea for the productive malaise which is holding up increase in productivity. And not only of a better economy, of a
by Paul Routledge new life, which is rhapsodically: “One question remains in contemplating the possibility of that truly wonderful prospect. Do we, as a nation, have to go through the bitter experiences everyone associated with William Denby had to go through to learn the way to a new life?” Bearing in mind the way this Labour Government is talking in terms of curbing restrictive practices on both sides of industry, it is interesting to see the off-guard comments of industrialists about ~- the Trade Union oligarchy: “T believe further that many of our responsible trade union leaders have felt that too often their position has been undermined by management’s readiness to concede the demands of irresponsible elements among the workers.” So they are to play their part by suppressing the “irresponsible” element. This in addition to drastic action such as this firm’s refusal to take back rro workers; “The trouble makers were not coming back” said the chairman, Mr. Philip Wright. These men are of course still unemployed, and with such a slur on their record it will be a long time before many of them get a job, as the lesson of Ford’s victim sackings has shown. Maximum publicity is given to the increased production figures. No mention is made of how these figures are arrived at. Certainly William Denby and Sons will have found solid support from local industrialists; they are in the contracting industry. No doubt many frustrated chairmen have been itching to have a similar showdown with their Trade Union men; it certainly makes the casual observer wonder if the whole conflict was not staged. But production has gone up, on the figures published at least. The lyrical chairman remarks: “The restrictive practices have been swept away. The shop steward’s eagle eye no longer spies to ensure that not one piece too many is produced or not even ten minutes’ overtime is worked.” _ih other words, the workers are enjoying a quick financial boom, but they have sold their collective interest to get it. Where does one read about the mess of pottage?
announced
Exhibition Stewards
Hold the line
N February 25th, aproximately
3,000 workers in this industry,
employed on the erection of exihi-
bitions in the Olympia and Earl’s
Court Halls, downed tools to attend
a meeting in Ravenscourt Park,
called by the Exhibition Stewards
Co-ordinating Committee. The meet-
ing endorsed the demands set down
in the leaflets previously circulated
throughout the industry, namely:—
(1)10/- and 9/6 per hour for
craftsmen and labourers, res-
pectively.
(2) 3 weeks’ holiday with full pay.
(3) A severance pay scheme.
(4) An adequate sickness pay scheme.
On March 4th, despite appalling
weather conditions and the early
publication of the hourly rates (some
three weeks earlier than last year),
by the National Joint Council — no
doubt an attempt to buy off the mem-
bership, a crowd of 600 to 700 met
at Hammersmith Town Hall. The
meeting expressed disgust at the
minor increase of 6d. on the hourly
rate (at present 8/- and 7/3) and
called on the NJC to re-convene
immediately.
A resolution was passed called for
the ending of overtime, to come into
effect on 26th March, when the Ideal
Homes Exhibition is due for dis-
mantling. The members agreed to a
levy and pledged their support for
the stewards’ committee. The meet-
ing noted that a large engineering
show was to be held in April and
was no doubt considered as an im-
portant shop window by the employ-
ers concerned.
Workers in the industry are often
employed in the building lindustry
for part of the year and one of the
stewards committee members sits on
the Joint Sites Committee. Building
workers will, therefore, be interested
in the fate of our demands.
Peter Finch (TGWU)