Bernard Franks analyses the three-vear productivity drive against power workers

ELECTRICITY-supply workers have over the past six years been the target of a systematic government-employer campaign to rationalize the industry.

The aim has been to eliminate thousands of jobs and to get much more work from those employees remaining-to get one man to do two men's work.

At the same time introduction of new systems which are a product of the latest developments in electrical technologv are to be used to displace even more workers. veNOJ nurse un If the Tories are able to push ahead with this policy it is because they can build on the foundations laid by the Labour government.

Prior to 1963 no form of modern productivity • system was being operated in the industry. In 1964-1965 the notorious 'status' agreements were introduced-with the full backing of the union concerned.

In theory these deals were to raise the status of all power workers to that of salaried staff. In practice they were an attack on the existing status of the industrial grades by breaking down all defined jobs and trades in the name of 'flexible and efficient use of manpower'.

Transfers

This included a stepping-up of inter-plant transfers development of 'inter-craft flexibility' and a pooling system for craftsmen's mates.

The status agreements also set out to cut back on the wage bill by eliminating overtime and to introduce 'stagger patterns' among day workers.

These involve. working five-day week spread over seven days.

During the 1965-1968 period the Labour government directly intervened in the affairs of the industry through a series of reports by the Prices and Incomes Board. The Board continually laid heavy emphasis on the need to introduce work-study throughout electricity supply.

All payments were to be tied to bonus schemes regulated by calculations based on stopwatch time studies.

The PIB claimed that the general level of working in the industry was low. Performance was said to be beow 65 on the 0-100 perform ince scale (where 100 equal: standard performance). of jobs and signed an agreement with the employers in 1968 setting out guidelines for future productivity deals which included the • sentence: "These schemes will involve arrangements to adjust the size of the work force'.

The PIB commented: "The implication of this sentence is that improved performance should lead to a decrease in the number of men required for any given work load.' (PIB Report 79.)

Up to the present time continuous efforts have been made to introduce productivity deals and their associated methods into every aspect of electricity supply.

Times bank

Use of iob-evaluation, timestudy, motion-study and mobility of labour is being stepped up. Reorganization of sections-meter reading and maintenance, for example has meant fewer men needed.

It is expected that eventually a work-study data bank will exist which will supply standard times for every possible task and action conšlasies power jobs sweat from brow, nose, drinking water.' Union officials hotly deny that there is anything fundamentally inhuman or degrading about the use of microtiming.

Inefficiency

Workers who complain are told that problems have arisen through bad communications, bad application or inefficient management-not because the methods are solely geared to increasing exploitation. A notso-keen reported Contact, was from a supply.

shop steward. In answer to questions he explained:

'When the scheme was first put in it wasn't too bad, but now there seems to be trouble. I think it is something to do with the timing. When for one period you get a 95 performance they think we will get it every week 'Not true, we can't do it, even when they pose another station against us and they can do it-WHY CAN'T YOU? We can't always do it.

'WHY NOT? Well to maintain 95 you've got to go at it and keep at it.

'WHY IS THIS?-AFTER ALL 95 is not 100, IT'S NOT EVEN STANDARD PERFORMANCE.

•Well, we will never reach 100, it's a physical impossibility. For one thing we have a large amount of unmeasured we just cannot make 100, and The electricians' union not the only one in favour of such methods. The AEF has its own productivity department which advises on the implementation of the schemes. The Transport and General Workers' Union also condones the methods and has published a pamphlet on how to negotiate productivity deals.

According the supply bosses the 25,000 jobs cutback in the last three years were achieved through trolling recruitment, natural wastage and redundancy.

During the same period sales rose by 5 per cent and capital expenditure on new plant etc. was £402 million.

During the year 1969-1970 the supply industry made an operating profit of £306.1 million.

After deducting interest the balance of revenue was £64.5 million.

In general, the industry has been doubling its size every ten years.

It is easy to see how, for nany power workers involved in the recent action, working to rule simply meant dropping all productivity methods and reverting to doing one man's work.