The following letters were published in the SCOTTISH MINER, journal of the Scottish Area National Union of Mineworkers, They take up the question of the Common Market; to join or not to join. J. Brightman of Pontefract, Yorkshire, writes: Mr. McGahey states that the coal miners of Britain should stay out of Surope, I disagree with him entirely. ‘“e ought to have been in the European Coal and Steel Community from the start. And it would have been a lot better for the entire mining community if we had. I would like to ask Mr. McCahey if he arrees with me that in the E.C.S.C. countries the coal miners have achieved a lot more in wages, fringe benefits, service holidays, early retirement benefits, retraininp and the guarantee of their wages up to 90 per cent in some cases in the event of a pit closing down, Take the under-18s, They get not less than four weeks! paid holidays in all the Six countries. Is that so bad? In West Germany, all coal miners over the wge of 55 can and in some cases must retire when a pit closes down. Their previous wa-es are paid up to 90 per cent and not less than 60 per cent for the rest of their lives. Is that so bad? What does a redundant miner get here? As for disabled miners -- when a pit closes in West Germany they are safeguarded by law. Are they here? What's wrong with miners being laid off work for three days with half pay as they were in West Germany? Here in this country we are stockpiling the surplus coal which means loss of earnings for the NCB. I wonder from the nation's point of view which is the best. The surplus of coal in Western Europe he talked about does not matter so long as we can compete with the others in the Common Market. And I think we could, Mick McGahey, Vice-President of the Scottish Area NUM answers: (the reply has been edited for space economy) Mr. Brightman is accurate in most of his facts but totally mistaken in his conclusions, It is true that miners. in the European Coal and Steel Community generally speaking, enjoy better pensions and fringe benefits. Bit it is not true that these are laid down by the E.C.S.C. and are obligatory on the member countries. Miners! wages and conditions are far from uniform in the six countries of the E.C.S.C. and there is nothing in the Paris Treaty of 1952 setting up the =.C.S.C. which says they must be. Indeed, the High Authority of the governing body of the E.C.S.C. recently complained about the difficulty in achieving what they call "harmonisation". "The disparities that persist, even between different regions of the same country are an indication of the extreme difficulty" it is stated. "Living and woricine conditions are soverned by economic factors such asthe situation of the undertaking in the Common Market, the state of labour supply, etc., and by sociological factors such as the relative size and influence of the employers! and workers! organisations. These factors operate daifferently in different countries and even in dif‘erent areas or concerns within a single country." So it is clear that membership of the B.C.S.C. does not bring about the social benefits that Mr. Brightman would have us believe and T am sure believes himself. He is way out on wares. For example, certain social
benefits, particularly family allowances, are much better in France than
they are in Britain. But wages of French miners are far less than they
are here.
It is true that allowances advanced by the E.C.5.C. help tide a man over
until he finds a job and boost his wages for a spell should he take work
elsewhere at lower earnings. But they end after a year and then the
worker is on his own, And for many of the workers, the only new jobs a-
vailable are at wages a good deal lower than they earned in the pits. It
should never be forgotton that the basic aim of the Enropean Coal and
Steel Community is to rationalise both industries -- that is, to cut out
the "unprofitable" parts,
One important part of the picture which Mr. Brightman omits is the tre-
mendous struggles of the coalminers in the E.C.S.C. countries as witnes-
sed in the massive demonstrations and strikes in the Borinage in Belgium
in 1961 and in ijecazeville in France in 1962.
Or the successful resistance to the plans to transfer 5,000 miners from
the declining Central-Midi coal fields in France in the 1950's to the
expanding Lorraine coal field. And, of course, more recently we had the
tremendous struggle against closures in the Belgian coalfield where two
miners were actually killed in the fight to maintain their jobs. So
things are not quite so rosy for the miners of Western Europe,
Britain's coal and steel industries are going through a very difficult
period just now. They wuld find themselves very much worse .ff if
they entered the Common Market. For we would not be allowed to keep out
cheaper coal or steel from any of our Community partners. There are other
implications associated with our entry. Food prices, it is admitted,
would rise by approximately hs.6d a head -- £1 a week for a family of
four, It is for all these reasons the Scottish miners are opposed to
entry into the Common Market.
|
:
:
:
: