Labour Party Report of the Port Trensvort
stud (obtainable from the Labour Party, Transport douse, Suaith scuare, S.WVel., price 1/6a.)
Publication of the Labour Party %enort on the Nationalisation of the docks industry last month marks another step in the long drawn-out struggle between Devlinisation and socialisation for this vital industry.
The study group included Ian itikardo, Jack Jones, John Zughes and Peter shore, and was set up by the ixecutive in Yecember last year. Their report has been produced and published “against the clock', and was clearly a belated response to the realization that an unambiguous drive by the Government in the Devlin direction would produce a major industrial explosion ii dock-land. Unfortunately, the publication of the ‘teport is not in itself an unanbiguous guarantee that the Governuent has abandoned its attachnent to Devlin The Docks end Harbour 2ill is still around, with its provosals to introduce the licensing system for the strensthening of the big employers of dock labour. The Labour Party Jeport correctly states that “such a plan could not hope to win the confidence of the men". The Amendwents to the vock Labour Roard schene are still around too, the Government has not abandoned its hope tnat it can legislate for Devlin whilst teasing us with promises of ultimate national-= isation. #ven if the Government were wholly sincere in its intentions and the esuivocation, dovble-talkinzg, and delays in publication to which this jstudy-Group Revort has been subject leaves acres of room for doubts =- the prorraame of “rationalise, then nationalise" is one that should be challenzed on principle. First, it ueans that oy the time netionalisation is introduced, the private employers will have sreatly strengthened their vrosition, thus making their future role in the public industry more powerful, and increasing their pressures for anti-socislist compensation terms. -econd, the history of the railways and of coal particularly the outmanoeuvring to which Lloyd Georse subjected the workers in those industries after the lst world war, sugsests that there is a strong possibility that rationalisation will be treated as a substitute for nationalisation, and thet delays can take the sting out of the worker's profound objections to Devlin. ‘"“Jiot so much ea programme, more a way of life" might be an appropriate deccription of the methods of Lloyd George-‘Jilson, and when we take the signature tune's words it's all been done before", we get even closer to on apprehension of wnat might well be the ultimate destiny of this study feanet Revort. Before any consideration of the content of the pencrty see fore, it is absolutely vital to sound the most solem warning agai
é : - x ted any complacency. after all, this Governezeut is not exactly no for its record in keeping promises!
The Labour Party's Docks Report /continued
The Report is good reading where it is dealing with the
honeless present structure of ownership and control in the industry.
It is sound too in expressing fundamental criticisms of the Devlin
approach to the industry. It is cool, logical, and final in :
proposing nationalisation as the only acceptable easure for the
industry. It is clear too that "without a substential element of
workers' porticipation, no scheme can hope to succeed. “It is the
approach to this latter -uestion which is most crucial for the
development of socialism in this country,
The Report's Recomuendations provide for the National Port
Authority, to plan the whole industry, and for ‘efional Port
Authorities to take over the assetSof existing authorities,
incorporating all the ports of the country. At the N.P.A. level
they recommend that Board members should be apnointed by the
finister with a proviso that some me bers should represent orzane
ised labour in the industry, “on similer lines to ii.D...b. practice".
At Regional level they propose to cut out the renresentatives of
various interests who appear on the present authorities, and to
have smaller, working Boards, substantially full-time. ome would
be appointed by the iiinister after consultation with the N.P..t.,
‘ond a smaller but siznificent number will be nominated by the
recognised trace unions" - these would include doci-workers selected
by methods similar to the local D.L.3.s.
There are several serious reservations about all this. first
there is no dewand that iinisterial appointaehts should be inhibited
to prevent the emergence of ‘business men's syndicalism''. It is a
pity that the influence of one memberof the Croup, John ilughes,
who has done so much to demonstrate thet nationalised industries
have become dominated by private interests and are operated for
them, did not prevail in this matter. A simple recuiremert, such
as we provosed in the ‘'*nti-Devlin Neport", that Ministerial
appointments should be subject to a workers' veto where private
interest could be proved, would have filled the need here. Second,
the method of appointment of workers' representatives, ther numbers
end proportion to the whole of the Boards, and the suestion of their
accountability to their members, are all left distresdingly vague.
Surely it is axiomatic that socialists should not propose measures
which contain eny likelihood of the spparation of workers!
representatives from their fellow workers. Such stevs can lead
to their being held resnonsible for rationalisation gecisions, which
may well work to the detriment of workers' interests. The correct
solution at these national and rezional levels is surely for
workers to demand and obtain rights of supervision, rights of access
to accounts end proceedings, without being soddled with "responcibae"
but minority roles.
The final proposal they make is for Group Operating Committees
at dock level. These would be the principal operating agencies and
over /
The Labour Party's Docks Report /continued apart from the full-time salaried Dock i‘anager and his vrincipal officers should be elected workers' committees, with the elections conducted by the trade unions in the same way as are shop steward elections. They would have authority in the stevedoring overations “pay and =sroductivity" matters of local significance, disciplinary matters, safety, training, welfare, and selection of supervisors. Some of this is very sood, but much of the significance of this recommendation is destroyed by the objections alkeady expressed about higher level controls. There is no provision for these port level committees to have any access to or control over, the hicher level Boards, and narticularly over the trade unionists on those Soards. Most cangerous of all is the inclusion of "pay and productivity" yuestions as a responsibility of an operating agency of workers' revresentatives. une of the elementary agreewents which has been reached in recent discussion on workers' control is that collective bargaining functions should be carried out by the trade unions: that workers' councils should probe severately into areas of control.
411 these criticisus are concerned with precise watters of constitution: this is necessary, for it is in precision of aim and purpose thet we will find the constitutional borderlings between workers! participation and worers' control. This does not imply thet at this staxe we should be demanding legislative enacte ment of full socialist self-manage cent. That woubd be utopian: hat is for a socialist society. “hat is re-uired is the delineation of areas in which unfettered, free, indevendent democratic powers can be exerted by workers' comaittees, and other areas where powers of supervision and access can be developed.
Finally, what on earth is this Group thinking of in writing ‘that the best talent from the existing stevedoring compenies and the comparable sections of the shipping compenies(!!) will be attrected into a new-looking industry such as we have proposed."
In summery: the teport is firm and clear about nationelisation It rejects Devlinisation completely. The Government must be pressed by the Labour Party, by the Unions, and the militants in the indistry to scrap its Devlin plans, and stand by the Group Necomrendetions to nationalise. On workers' control, the weport ges far beyond anything we have had from a sewi-officicl docwsent for generations. But after all that has been written and said in recent years, after all the pressure that the dockers thewselves heve shoim ageinst the present set-up, the teport is disappointing. S5usiness en's syndicalism is given too much scope, and the workers' role is surrounded with dangers and limitations. It could have been so much better.