Building Workers Struggle for Jobs, Site Organization

and Public Ownership UR building industry is one of the most backward of all industries. We are building magnificent office blocks, garden cities, handsome schools—bui very few cutside the industry appreciate the filthy conditions we are sometimes forced to work in.

Now building workers are also faced with unemployment. An industry that has always been casual is becoming the most casual of all. The whole blame for this rests with the Tories. They desire unemployment, and they have begun with our industry.

Therefore the aim of all building workers must be the . rewurn of a socialist Labour government.

Encouraged by the growth of unemployment, the employers are resisting the establishment of strong trade union organizaon that will struggle for better conditions. .

In London over the past six months there have been seven major disputes—at Higgs and Hill (White City), Unit Construction Co. (Abbey Wood), Myton’s (Moorgate), French’s (Fleet Street), Minter’s (Financial Times), McAlpine’s (Shell Mex House) and again at Abbey Wood—all concerned with the issues of black-listing, victimization and-site conditions.

The big thing that has stood out in all these disputes has been the readiness of the workers at site level to struggle. The other lesson is that this has not, unfortunately, been matched by, any similar readiness on the part of the official trade union leadership.

Thirty years ago the building unions accepted, in a time of defeat, an outrageous agreement for the settlement of disputes. called the ‘green book procedure’.

Aftermath of General Strike This was the aftermath of the General Strike: in return for recognition of trade unions at site level the right to strike was in practice taken away.

Since the disputes machinery has been set up there has not been a single case where they have recorded that a trade unionist was victimized.

In fact this disputes machinery has: been very much to the zdvantage of the employers, because while a case is being referred to a commission the steward or stewards concerned remain discharged, the site is left leaderless, and the employer ts free to do as he pleases in the meantime .

Here is a typical example. On the Bucklesbury House site in the City of London, on which 200 men were employed at the time, the employer decided to discharge twenty workers, imcluding the site Federation steward.

Only two hours notice was given on the Friday, as provided for under the agreement. The employer did not refer the case to the disputes machinery before discharging the men.

The whole job stopped work and the men remained out for two weeks. The instruction of the local. trade union officials . was for the men to return to work (without the Federation steward) pending the use of the machinery.

Farce piled on farce ‘No decision’ was recorded at local level. A national disputes commission was convened, which recorded that ‘no blacklisting or victimization shall occur on either side’. The management still refused to reinstate.

The only action of the trade unions was to ask for another national commission based on the same people;. to .‘interpret’: the first findings.

So farce was piled upon farce. And all the time dues-paying members of trade unions were left completely without the support of their unions. The Federation steward was not reinstated, and the whole site suffered a set-back.

Yes It should be noted that the employer’s argument in connexion with the Federation steward was simply that he was ‘redundant’.

This failure of the ‘trade union leadership to defend their members has produced a wide degree of apathy within the _building unions, and made it possible for the employer to keep down working conditions.

This same attitude of the leadership has been responsible for the failure to take real advantage of the post-war building boom, when the demand for building trade labour was never greater. and to extract the best. possible working conditions from the employers.

The first lesson for building workers is to demand that their unions see the defence of the membership as the first charge on the union and the disputes machinery as secondary.

Support from all sections It is true that owing to rank-and-file activity some unions have been forced from time to time to give official recognition to disputes. All unions should follow this example.

.

But whether a dispute is official or unofficial, full support should be given to it by all.sections of the industry. A dispute must be judged on the basis of the issues at stake, and not on the basis of the official attitude of the trade union leaders, or the disputes machinery.

The recent example of the solidarity around the Shell-Mex men is one that we should extend.

It should also be remembered that even when a dispute is official that is no guarantee of success: because of the existence of the disputes machinery, and the attitude of the unions to it, official disputes are often terminated on a very bad basis.

The Minter’s dispute on the Financial Times site was an example of this.

With unemployment growing, bonus schemes on a target basis become even greater evils. Every sincere trade unionist will ask that our executives abolish the bonus schemes and fight for a higher wage.

On sites it is obvious that, where possible, guaranteed standing bonuses’ should ‘be fought for rather than target schemes.

All these problems in the building industry begin to raise sharply before the building workers the question: ‘How necessary are the big building firms?’

Can employers be eliminated?

Is it possible to get rid of Wimpey, McAlpine and the rest, and run the industry without them?

Already the London County Council is employing almost 1,000 men on direct labour. There is no private employer, and the LCC estimates that the houses are being built more cheaply and more quickly.

The site Conditions enjoyed by the men on the LCC direct . labour schemes are vastly superior to those of privatelyemployed men.

After six months’ employment each LCC worker is entitled to six weeks’ full money when sick. At the end of twelve months he is entitled to thirteen weeks’ sick money. bonus schemes are properly negotiated, and pensions are provided.

The private building employer, of course, pays nothing to workers, when. they. are sick—and.it..is.estimated-.that..John . ”... Laing’s-pensiom is: three: half-crowns:a- week: after: thirtyyears!.”

Obviously we can do.without-the private employer. One of our biggest efforts should be to make the LCC extend direct labour to the. major. part of its*new building.

This would give guaranteed employment to many thousands of building trade workers, and pave the way for socialist "89

-Marcu- 22; 1958