",..a comparison of the cost of the two sets of proposals shows an addition to the wage bill of 38% to satisfy the trade union proposals and 10% to satisfy the employers' proposals. The gap between these two figures is very wide indeed and we do not think that much progress can be made with this method of settlement until after the amount has been determined, Sn we shall deal with the amount first and we must say at once we think the employers have now gone as far as it is reasonable to go. Certainly that is what they have aimed to do." You've guessed it! Devlin, ever ready with his praises of employers' "reasonableness", back at his favourite occupations! The above quotation is the heart of Devlin's latest proposals (just published by H.M.S.0., Command 3104, 1s.9a) to"solve" the deadlock over the pay increase which is to accompany so-called decasualisation in the ports, Devlin goes on to faithfully report the employers' contention that a large proportion of the extra cost “will have to be passed on in the form of increased charges. They cannot in this respect disregard the national interest and in this respect they may well be criticised for offering too much rather than too little." ‘shat astonishing cheek! 5 We should perhaps remind readers that a few months ago, another Government appointed Inquiry, the Pearson Report on the seamen, spoke of the shipowners "reasonable" offers, beyond which they couldn't possibly go and of how devoted those same shipowners were to the "national interest". May we also remind you that the seamen hit back in no uncertain terms, demonstrating quite clearly (in Not Wanted on Vo , the N.U.S, militants' pamphlet, produced in Hull and taken up by the union nationally) that because of the secrecy which surrounds shipowners! profits, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO JUDGE THE "RE/SON- ABLENESS" OF ANY WAGE OFFER, The dockers must respond in the same way. Their union claims have been rebuffed by Devlin almost completely. Local union comment on Humberside from Brother Dave Shenton, the TWGU regional secretary, has already shown the disquiet felt by dockers, He has said: "great play has been made of the £25 a week, but there is no guarantee of this wage. Devlin merely says that the average earnings should be £25 a week, High and low tides are of no use to us. Under present conditions, some dockers could be earning £30 a week while others could earn. only a few pounds." Most port employers are private companies, with no obligation to publish profits, Others amalgamate their profits from stevedoring with profits from other activities - particularly shipping, which has special and totally unjustified privileges to maintain secret profits, All we can discover is the profits of the public wharfing companies in London, A calcualtion made by the Hull Port Workers' Committee showed that in January last, those profits had increased 300 times as much as piece-rates for dockers. The dockers said then that the employers could only prove them wrong by OPENING THE BOOKS TO - UNION INSPECTION, And that's what they must respond to D bi "reasonable employers," v Pp o Devlin's sermons about
Then there is the question of HOW the increase is to be paid. The unions wanted a straighforward wage increase, the employers wanted it in the form of a "modernisation" payment. ‘his frankly called, by Devlin, a "sweetener"! The bitter pill ‘to be swallowed with this meagre sugar lump, is an all-out attack on "restrictive" practices, and particularly continui ty rules, The employers! aim is to ©: "buy out" the dockerst controls. Devlin backs them
continued aver/
Devlin proposals continued/
to the hilt. To yield, he says, on the "modernisation payment" principle, would be to lose "the battle" (for modernisation) before it was begun. “lsewhere, the Report does make clear that the unions now understand what Voice has argued all along: that decasualisation is being pressed now by employers as a means of increasing their control over the dockers. The unions told Devlin that “decasualisation can no longer be regarded as the benefit it would have been if it had been introduced when it was first asked for. Even then there would have been two sides to it - the advantage of a regular wage against the loss of freedom that is inherent in casual employment. There would have been times in the past when the balance would have come down heavily in favour of the regular wage, Now it is the other way round. Today there is not the same uncertainty about obtaining work." So Devlin's £2 a week "modernisation" payment aims to buy out the dockers! hard won freedoms which, limited as they are, should be the stepping stone to greater things, workers' control, and not sold out so cheaply. N.B. This article has been especially written for the November issue of Humberside Voice,