Scrap-heap for Portworkers? Not on Your Life!

E in the docks industry are faced with demands ’

from the Dock Labour Board and the employers for a reduction in the register. It seems: that the ’ Transport and“General. Workers’ Union officials have nothing better to offer than consultation—and perhaps compensation, For many dockers that could only mean the scrapheap of unemployment. Portworkers must not fall for that...

:

If the employer cannot provide employment and a decent living wage, then the Government must.provide work. Our policy must be voluntary temporary release and no sackings.

At a mass meeting of Liverpool dockers last November a prominent TGWU militant told the men that a circular on redundancy had been sent to all branch secretaries.

Despite the hardship’ that redundancy would. cause to a section of dock-workers (if it were -implemented) there had been no branch discussions on the problems.

The likely effects of redundancy never pricked the conscience of the TGWU officials—they have a job for life—and a policy of combating the threats of sackings was not considered necessary.

It was said that a certain port labour officer had been openly . threatening. dockers that.they would be on the list if they did not ‘toe the line’. .

:

Employers try to dictate Loe -Last attempt to reduce the register drastically was in 1951-52, when a temporary release scheme was adopted by the National Joint Council. But in the end the terms of release differed from what the employers wanted.

The latter, of course, always try to dictate ‘hiring and firing’. ; . "Examination of 4 man’s record (for militancy and other crimes) and ‘first on, last off’ are always’ suggested as solutions to ‘redundancy. -.

Even the original draft of the temporary. scheme had to be . ' modified so as to enable the released. docker to return to the docks should he want to do so.

The employers would have liked a two-year minimum period, a but with qualifications. It was finally agreed’ that a docker ;

to gain conirol of the industry in which its members participate, this policy of nationalization of port transport was not put as a solution to the dockers’ problems.

The present low percentage of levy (i2 per cent. daily workers) shows how little justification the officials had for crying: ‘The scheme!’, ‘The scheme!’

ft also raises questions in the mind of the rank and. file’ about the policy of the union representatives on the National Joint Council.

Is it a coincidence that following each wage award a concession in the shape of reduction of the employers’ levy is This is the first of two articles by Peter Kerrigan, well-known Liverpool! militant portworker, on the problems of the docks industry.

agreed to by these gentlemen? Through these reductions in levy, the employers received a rebate of £545,000 in 1955 and approximately £600,000-in 1956.

While they are quick enough to ‘pocket the profit from ; high’ employment they are quicker still to share the poverty among the dockers should the levy be threatened by an increase. ;

Officials don’t scream ‘The scheme!’ when through reductions in the levy they hand the employers a nice bonus.

While agreeing on a maximum, the unions should also force through.a minimum levy at say 20 per cent., which would safeguard the dockers’ guarantee.

;

The. object of the scheme was ‘to ensure greater regularity of employment’. That means regularity not for the chosen few, the ‘blue-eyed boys’, but for all trade unionists in the industry.

We should rememiber the policy ofthe TGWU -in- relation - to-the-séttlement-of-the British -Motor-Corporation -dispute-in-1956. The strike leadership settled for compensation and consultation. The words meant in practice that the employers would not sack any more men without first consulting the -unions.

How much consolation is it to know that before you are sacked your boss told your union official about it?