Lancashire's largest colliery, Mosley Common, is threatened with closure. The NCB have stated that, unless output exceeds 20,000 tons of saleable coal a week, it will shut in six months time. For that to happen would be unique. In the past, whenever the NCB closed a colliery, it justified its action by saying the reserves were worked out, or were insufficient to justify modernisation, or the coal could be better extracted from an up-to-date colliery nearby. But with Mosley Common this is not so. It has a 100 years' reserves of coal, modern machinery, a good layout. The NCB's case is based solely on economic grounds, The colliery's closure would entail tremendous hardship to the men. In previous instances, the NCB has guaranteed displaced miners jobs elsewhere. But this time, it has told the 2,850 men that their only chance of getting fresh employment was if labour wasteage occured in other pits. The prospect for most of them is consequently grim. Moreover, should Mosley Common close, it would bring into question the whole existence of the Lancashire coalfield. With the ending of the biggest pit, the winding gear at other collieries are soon likely to be still forever. The union's reaction to this threat has been to fight to keep Mosley Common open. It hopes to achieve this by demonstrating that the NCB's output target can be achieved during the next six months. The most vocal exponents of this line are Jim Hammond, an ex-CPer, who is the miners' agent, and MickWeaver, the union secretary, who is also communist candidate for Wigan. They do a lot of talking about the need to achieve greater productivity, to end abstenteeism, and to promote the maximum cooperation between management and mene In their opinion, everything has to be subordinated to getting out of the red. At @ reeent public meeting, Hammond spent much of his time attacking a leaflet published by Labour Worker supporters. He said that their reference to the NCB's desire to increase exploitation "was just dam nonsense". What this leaflet had said was: “Under the threat of closure, the NCB believes it can secure greater effort, greater output, greater exploitation. With the fear of unemployment in Lancashire pits as well as textile mills, employers will be able to control workers better---to get more work for the same pay---and that is what the Government wants." When union officials act as unpaid foremen for the Coal Board, this only serves to justify our contention. It also argued that the Hammond-Weaver solution was, in fact, no solution at all. If, for the sake of _ argument, we assume output at Mosley Common was miraculously doubled, this might solve the problem for Mosley Common, but at the expense of collieries in other parts of the country. For the Government has set a ceiling for coal output of 170m. tons. The more of that total which is produced at Mosley Common leaves less to be got elsewhere. Others would be faced with the prospect of closure. And doubtless the Jim Hammonds there in South Wales or Durham, would respond in ‘precisely the same way: with appeals to the men to increase productivity. Nobody should delude themselves of what is involved in increasing productivity, about which there is so much glib talk. Mining has always been a dangerous occupation: coal has always been besplattered with blood. As modern machinery replaces the old pick and shovel method, it has become more ---not less--hazardous. Since 1953-6 the casualty rate (deaths and serious injuries) has increased by 35% Also, the toll of dust diseases has risen as dramatically as productivity. The Hammond-Weaver line involves accepting the basic concepts of capitalist orthodoxy. It permits them to have common ground with Joe Gormley,
right-wing secretary of the Lancashire miners and member of the Labour Party
NEC. No attempt is made to challenge the underlying principles on which the
NCB made its decision. Yet, it has been clearl
y been shown in the Derbyshire
NUM pamphlet, A Plan for the Miners (p.36-7), that the Coal Board salon
with figures, twists them to suit its own convenience, whenever it contemplates
a closure. Yet, union officials have not raised the element demand :
the books to trade union inspection. gp Sires a
An examination of the books would give them a powerful weapon. Not only would
they be able to document the actual cost of mismanagement, but also to show
to what extent the provision of cheap coal for private industry, a hidden
capitalist subsidy, and compensation to former owners have helped to contri-
bute to the present deficit. The union should also raise the demand for wo-
rkers' control---the mines for the miners. NUM spokesmen make scathing
attacks on NCB incompetence. A cage, thought to cast £100,000, lies rotting
in the colliery yard; a 2,500yd tunnel was made, the just discontinued; an
expansive crusher was bought and left virtually unused. Each of these cons-
titute powerful arguments for changing the whole structure of colliery or-
ganisation.
In "The Miners! Next Step", published by South Wales colliers in 1912, the
demand for workers! control was first raised. It helped to transform the
entire industrial scene, creating militancy among the miners and the Labour
Movement generally. The same could occur today. It is in the interest of
all workers to see Mosley Common doesn't close. If it did, the coal under
the colliery---a vast quantity of subterrean wealth---would be lost to the
country forever. Also, most of the £10m to £12m of public maney spent on
developing the colliery would have to be written off. ‘So let us dispute the
NCB's right to squender so much of the community's wealth and resources. If
the NCB is incapable of running the colliery properly, then let them hand it
over to workers who are. Let our cry be: The mines for the miners,