workers press

The Socialist Labour League's press: The Newsletter, Workers Press, Labour Review and Fourth International, 1952–1973. A searchable archive of the scans

Offer say Leeds dustmen

By Jack Gale

Workers Press no. 16, 18 October 1969 · scan page 5

Topics: Post office and public services

Read the scan at ETOL (PDF) →

Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: headlines and words can be misread, and a caption or advert can run into the text. For anything you quote, read the scan.

FIVE HUNDRED Leeds dustmen, out on strike since Wednesday, decided at a mass meeting on Thursday to reject advice from union officials to return to work.

Union leaders told them nothing would be achieved by the strike, that Leeds could not pay more than the national agreement and that there would have to be workstudy schemes.

The dustmen rejected these arguments and pointed out the Edinburgh offer was due entirely to the London strike, not to the union leadership. The leaders would have settled for 18s., they said.

The union officials finally left the meeting saying that those who wanted to strike should strike and those who wanted to work should work.

Differentials

The dustmen regard the 30s. offered them at Edinburgh as inadequate and point out that it is not being paid as a straight increase.

Differentials are being imposed.

Grade one men would get 15s., street sweepers 17s., men and plant men £1 10d.

Drivers are offered an interim award of 15s.

In addition there is a trial bonus for eight weeks of 25s. in return for a 10 per cent increase in productivity. IT IS two weeks since the close of the Labour Party conference and six since delegates to the 10lst Trade Union Congress packed their bags and left Portsmouth.

What have the trade union leaders done in that time about the two big questions which shook up both these gatherings— equal pay for women and the future of the government's incomes legislation?

Two documents which give part of the answer have been under discussion this week.

Burning questions In their headlong retreat before the government and the big employers, the union chiefs would no doubt like to relegate both issues to the sphere of bureaucratic toingand-froing with the Department of Employment and Pro-

← the whole issue

Something wrong on this page? Report an error