No retreat on Devlin Phase Two: a vicious agreement

No retreat on Devlin PAGE HIRE-AND-FIRE discipline, Measured - Day Work, 'scabbing' by agreement, fines, re-deployment, closures, sackings, wage-freeze, grading, mobility of labour and shift work are all to be found either directly or by implication in the enclosed docks productivity agreement rejected by London's dockers in mid. November.

The most likely outcome of this week's preparations by the port employers for new talks with officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union would seem to be a new wage offer for these same terms.

But, as the Workers Press reported exclusively-more than 24 hours before the deal was published—on November 4, it is 'a blue-print for far-reaching attacks on jobs and conditions . . . "almost a carbon-copy of the MeasuredDay Work deals the car review committee and arbitration committee.' The tie-up between the above two clauses is dealt with in clause 13, on page five. Paragraphs ii (a) and ii (f) state• "The terms and conditions in this agreement require employees to achieve a satisfactory level of throughput, •When an employee regularly fails to work at the accepted speed he will be subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Dockworkers' Employment Scheme, 1967:

bosses want to push through"'.

Its proposals are aimed entirely at breaking the organised strength of portworkers and cannot be accepted at any price.

The purpose of the agreement-as stated on its first page is to promote efficiency, to introduce and operate mechanization and improved working methods and to improve wages and conditions. A careful reading of its 12 pages will show what this amounts The deal has following eight main aims:

'Back-door THE SETTING of a fixed wage with no extras, tied to the unlimited right to increase productivity through a combination of 'modernization' and time - and - motion methods. This is what Measured-Day Work is all about.

The introduction of the fixed wage in place of piece-work payment ensures that the massive increases in output— and profits-brought about through the use of new methods will not be reflected in the wage packet.

Time-and-motion systems make certain that the docker is working flat out every second of the day.

Involved here is an entirely sly, underhand method of introducing MDW.

While its basic principles are laid out on different pages of the agreement, no mention is made anywhere that it is Measured-Day Work that is being put forward This 'backdoor' introduction shows that the employers are quite clear as to what sort of vicious speed-up system this But where are the union officials on this? Nowhere have they exposed this fraud or explained the full implications of this agreement, or of the MDW system which is leading to major disputes in every section of the motor industry.

The relevant passages in the agreement are: • On the Fixed Wage:

Page two, clause five "This wage structure will incorporate the modernization allowance and be paid on the understanding that it includes an allowance for shift-work and also that all additional time-rate payments, for any reason whatsoever, are discontinued.' Weekly payments are given in the rejected deal as £33 10s. for category 'A' dockers and £25 for those assigned to category 'B'.

Even if the employers raised the 'A' figure to £37 10s. or even £39 . . . remember, it would be a fixed time-rate!

Time-and-Motion:

Page 6, clause 16 states:

"This agreement involves the application of modern techniques of method-study and work-measurement which will necessitate the implementation of training programmes and appreciation courses for those employers and employees who need to familiarize themselves with such methods. Employees attending such courses will be paid the basic weekly wage.

'Information arising out of the application of methodstudy and work-measurement will be made available to the CLAUSE 13, headed "Observance of the conditions of service contained in this agreement, includes the following:

'Where an employee refuses to work and his action prevents other men who are willing to work from working on that job it is agreed that:

replacements may be put in if necessary and available or the remaining men will continue to work.

'Should the employer deem (a) and (b) impracticable the men will be redirected to other work' Acceptance of such a clause would mean that the employers would be entitled to call in union officials CC enforce 'scabbing' during disputes.

This clause has nothing to do with wages or conditions, but is entirely concerned with breaking militancy and encouraging 'scabs'.

Discipline THE CLAUSE headed 'discipline' contains only statement that:

"The parties recognize that employees and employers are subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Dockworkers' Employment Scheme, 1967:

However, the sections quoted above on not working fast enough also • amount to discipline clauses.

The agreement also adds that if the employer is not satisfied with a worker's performance, he can call on the union officials to instruct him to get a move on. Clause 13's paragraph ii (b) states:

If an employer considers an employee is not achieving a satisfactory level of throughput the employer will consult with the employees representatives' If the efforts of the official as acting supervisor are not a success, the employer can then take the worker before the joint arbitration procedure and arbitration committee's decision will be binding on both parties'. Closures and cuts in manning THOUGH NOT directly mentioned in the agreement, its principles add up to cuts—far more drastic than those that have taken place up to nowin the number of dockers at work.

Since the first stages of Lord Devlin's docks 'modernization' were introduced, London has seen the closure of St Katherine's dock, Abbey wharf, London dock, Regent's canal dock, Dundee wharf and Mark Brown's wharf, as well as 'rationalization' of lightermens', " canal lockmens'° and tugmens' jobs. The latest to go is Hay's wharf.

More cargo shifted by fewer men through fewer berths.

This, quite simply, is what the combination of new handling methods and modernization means. So men who are told that only higher productivity can save their jobs find their jobs disappearing altogether ... as a result of higher productivity.

'London faces labour surplus of 600', claimed "The Port' (December 4).

'Before Christmas', added an article about the closure of Hay's wharf, 'a number of smaller wharves are closing, too.' After commenting that a thousand more men would have to be offered voluntary severance, it went on to report that 'a suggestion from employers that a number of "ineffectuals"—men who have not yet accepted voluntary severance but who are not capable of doing dock work— should be compulsorily severed with compensation will not be accepted by the unions'.

This is the result of Devlin's first phase.

If the employers were to get the upper hand with the second, more closures would follow almost immediately.

(The closure of the Surrey Commercial Docks is being discussed at present. The Port of London Authority has recently denied a rumour that it is considering the immediate shutting-down of the India and Millwall group.)

Who would be next to be 'compulsorily severed'? FINES FOR TIME-KEEPING DEDUCTIONS for lateness are given in the agreement as:

'Up to 30 minutes late.

Loss of half-an-hours'

at the appropriate rate the shift in question.

"30 minutes to one hour.

Loss of an hour's pay at the appropriate rate for the shift in question.

'More than one hour.

Loss of pay for the in question.

The productivity greement lemands the flexibility of labour-gangs, such as the one on the left at lilbury, would br reduced in number and the militants weeded out. ' Persistent lateness, absenteeism or unauthorised absence during working hours, it is stated, will be subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Dockworkers' Employment Scheme, 1967:

Shift-work THE EMPLOYERS are taking their drive towards seven-day, round-the-clock, three or fourshift working in stages.

Their present proposals simply aim at getting the principle of shift-working accepted everywhere. If the employers were to get the upper hand they could always enforce changes at a later date.

The relevant clause states:

"The basic working week (Monday to Friday) will comprise 35 hours, including 34 hours meal-breaks. This working week will be on a twoshift basis.

First shift-7 a.m. to 2 p.m. (including 45 minutes break).

Second shift-2 p.m. to 9 p.m. (including 45 minutes break).

'Apart from the meal break of 45 minutes in each shift, employees will be required to work from the agreed startingtime until the finishing-time of a shift.' The bit about the basic working week being 35. hours is so much rubbish. Were these terms agreed, dockers— as well as having to change and wash in their own time could be asked to do certain other tasks outside the 35 hours (remove or replace hatches, return mechanical gear, shift cranes).

At this rate, the dockers would find themselves back near the 40-hour week.

Flexibility and re-deployment THE AGREEMENT demands complete mobility and flexibility as required by the employer, including:

Movement of employees or gangs to other work on either ship or quay at any time within a shift, including shipto-quay and quay-to-ship.

Movement or employees or gangs from discharging to loading and vice-versa at any time within a shift.

'Commencement and continuation of work irrespective of the number of men employed unless the employer deems this impracticable which case men will be redeployed.

These paragraphs aim at ensuring non-stop working at all times. Gangs finishing one job would be immediately rushed to another.

The last paragraph in effect gives the employer the right to reduce the number of men in a gang at any time.

This use of maximum mobility also enables the employers to reduce the number of gangs.

by agreement Phase Two For example, instead of four gangs being started on four jobs first thing in the morning the jobs could be arranged so that one gang would do all four jobs in turn in a set time.

Full flexibility can also be used to split up militants or break up gangs which are complaining about conditions.

frozen' wages THE INTRODUCTION of modernization combined with speed-up methods brings about such enormous increases in output that any system tying wages to productivity would mean very large payments being made continuously.

In order to forestall this, the employers try to change to a system of payment in which the output, profits made or the cost of living have no effect on the wage packet.

The worker is, in effect, being told by the employer 'once we've paid a fixed sum for your ability to labour, what we do with it or what we make on it is none of your As we can see from the graph, the traditional methods of payment and wage bargaining, especially when backed by strong organization and the ability to back demands with strike action, have the best chance of keeping up with the cost of living.

Under the new methods (incentive bonus tied to workstudy and Measured-Day Work), rates-though often begun at a slightly higher level than traditional-soon fall below a living wage.

£37 10s. or even £39, in other words, would make little difference to dockers in the longer term.

It is being argued that new demands for a rise can always be put in at regular intervals and they can be fought for on a 'militant' basis.

But the employers are banking on the terms of these agreements to break down militancy and stop rises taking place.

The Phase Two deal is thus in line with the Prices and Incomes Board's most recent recommendations for productivity bargaining (published last week).

It is entirely a product of the government's incomes policy over the last three of registered dock labour.

If it is signed, hordes of work-study consultants will invade the docks.

Permanent work-study departments would be set up to time each job and to fix timestandards for every action.

The level of 'standard performance' decided by the timeand-motion people would be tied to the fixed payment and to the disciplinary procedure as outlined in the agreement.

But even this would not be the last word Devlin Phase Two aims at preparing the way for Devlin Phase Three-more closures, more discipline, more refined work-study methods.

The National Ports Council is already examining the various predetermined motiontime systems' where times are taken from a standard times manual which has been compiled by backroom 'experts'.

At the same time, the employers would latest technical developments -lighter-aboard-ship (LASH) vessels container-carrying 'Tumbo Jets'-to prove that competition was increasing and dockers must make even greater concessions.

Already, many employers are using modernization to make inroads into the concept

The attitude of the current gaggle of Transport and General Workers' Union officials in keeping quiet on the real aims of Devlin and using a postal ballot shows that no real fight is going to come from this direction.

Similarly, the British Communist Party, which, with its own daily paper at the very outset of Devlin was easily the best-placed organization expose it, has never at any time analysed the situation or led a campaign against the scheme.

Instead, it organized diversion for selling-price and guarantees'.

s the government has no blished its White Paper nationalization, presumably everything is now alright as far as the CPGB is concerned In fact, as the dockers know, everything is far fron alright government' 'nationalization' plans aimed solely at extending the work of their Devlin scheme and at centralizing modern. ization and manning control At the same time dock like Felixstowe, man container terminals and other depots are to be left in private hands.

Party, we sathe Nationalization under workers' control of all ports and associated industries!

• A basic wages with no 'strings'!

• Unity of all ports against the Devlin scheme!

• No 'competition between ports'!

A fight in the unions for an alternative socialist eadership which fights on hese policies.

Communist increase in Since the introduction of Lord Devlin's docks "modernization' London has see the closure of S Katherine's doc Abbey Wharf, London dock, Regent's Canal dock, Dundee Wharf, Mark Brown Wharf, and the Surrey Commercial docks (seen lef is due for closı