Tory Railway Reorganisation Plans

THE appointment of a ‘Railway planning board’ which will work out in detail Macmillan’s proposals for the ‘Radical reconstruction of the British Transport Commission’ is the first of a series of moves intended to ensure that the nationalized railway system of the future will function as a well-oiled point within the framework of British capitalism.

Tory control over the railways has given them the power to obtain this. therefore, be prepared to break this power and exercise their own control where hard-won conditions and security are affected by the reorganization.

Two days before the announcement in the House of Commons of the Board, Heathcoat Amory (Chancellor of the Exchequer) had outlined in his Budget speech his proposals to ‘consolidate economic. progress’. ‘progress’ when measured in terms of profits and dividends has never been greater. The part the railways have played in it has merited the attention which they are now receiving.

In the Budget particular emphasis was placed on the special subsidy given to the railways for the next year. It is hoped, by the Tories and employers, that this investment will reap rich rewards in terms of ‘economic progress’. The ‘Railway planning board’ is there to see that this hope is fulfilled.

Not so naive Those who accuse Macmillan of conspiring to wreck the railways by setting up the Board are naive. Not so naive are others, such as the Labour MPs who raised riot because the Trades Union Congress and the BTC were not represented on the Board.

Far from wrecking the railways it is the aim of Macmillan, supported by the employers, to provide the most up-to-date means—technically and managerially—of railway transport for raw materials and finished products. The. proportion of money being spent at present, in the modernization programme, on the Goods and Freight section, supports this contention.

If British capitalism is to recover its position in the markets. of the world, then such a system is essential at the point of production—that is Britain.

Hence the note of urgency about the reorganization programme.

In reaching this goal the old-fashioned bureaucrats of the BTC and trade union leaders are an obstacle. As_ the Economist of April 7 points out, a member of the BTC could hardly ‘offer disinterested advice . . . which would almost inevitably effect his own job and _ position.’

‘On the other hand’, the article goes on, ‘there are obvious advantages in associating with the TUC.’

Many railway workers remembering the recent threatened strike would perhaps agree. The TUC has been ‘associated’ with Tory dirty-work before, so why draw the line now.

The cold shoulder Railway trade union leaders are given the cold shoulder completely. Perhaps they, too, couldn’t offer disinterested advice. Brother Greene of the National Union of Railwaymen, for example, who knows that his next wrong move will land him back pushing a truck at Paddington.

What Robens and the Parliamentary Labour Party are concerned about as everyone knows, is burying nationalization. Their outcry came because the Tories don’t share the Economist’s and Gaitskell’s confidence in the TUC to do this job properly.

Railway workers, too, are an obstacle. The Tories know that they can rely on the right-wing trade union leaders, but since the Dining Car Strike and the sight of Greene being led by the scruff of his neck into a fight on wages the Tories must have grave doubts on what to expect from rank-and-file railway trade unionists.

Railway workers must, Willingness on the part of the Tories to concede the 5 per cent. interim increase and give the go ahead for the implementation of the Guillebaud Report, must not be seen as a weakness on their part.

It is true that a rail strike would have upset ‘economic -recovery’ and made the Tories think twice before bringing about a strike.

The increases awarded from the Guillebaud recommendations have succeeded in lowering militancy for the time being. In this period Macmillan has been busy laying the foundation for the next offensive.

.

During the threat of strike action, advice from various sec. tions of the employers and their press to ‘take on the railway workers’ was rejected.

Obviously quite a number of calculations came unstuck. The main one being Greene’s abilities to hold back his rank and file.

Tory long-term planning .

Macmillan and the employers have no intention of letting the railways go to ruin, whilst the possibility of making them serve capitalism still exists.

Obstacles like the BTC and right-wing trade union leaders can be disposed of like tame mice. But railway workers present a different problem.

The pill for them to swallow, therefore, must be sugarcoated. The Guillebaud findings provided such a coating.

Fifty million pounds is a cheap price for what the railways can return in the future.

If militancy can be quenched and Greene and company put back on the ‘Throne’ the task of ‘reorganization’ becomes easier.

It is only by understanding the long-term aims of the Tories and employers that railway workers can have a stake in future struggles.

The drive for increased production and efficiency is aimed at strengthening the position of British capitalists in world markets. These people will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. Evidence of this is seen every day in struggles on takeover bid and mergers. Greater wealth and power is being concentrated in the hands of fewer people. An employer today who takes on 5,000 workers, tomorrow takes on 500,000.

Such people stand behind the Tories and their reorganization plans for the railways.

By Leaders retreat The retreat of Gaitskell from Socialism and the betrayal of leaders like Carron of the Amalgamated Engineering Union (the expert on greater productivity), shows how they react to this pressure.

The leaders of the three railway unions are hand-in-glove with Gaitskell and Carron.

Instead of pointing out the obvious dangers and preparing for struggle they join in with witch-hunting shop stewards and other militants.

Already redundancy and transfer schemes are in operation on the railways which don’t allow for a fight against the hardships that are brought about by reorganization. The

leaders of the three railway unions, for their part, have agreed to these schemes and co-operate in carrying them out.

Hundreds of men are leaving the industry each week, forced out through poor conditions and additional hardship created by the ciosure of branch lines and the effects of modernization.

Men who have given 20 or 30 years’ service to the railways and who have gone through bad times before, are starting fresh jobs because they see no future on the railways.

This is what the Tories wish. Disillusionment, once created, becomes a strong weapon with which to beat down militancy, and launch into a reorganization programme.

However, recent events show that in spite of poor leadership and efforts to sow apathy, railway workers are prepared ' But an understanding of what the fight is about and how to win it will bring greater striking power in struggle.

Every thinking railway worker knows that the railways cannot carry on without some changes, and far from being - Luddites, most welcome the change.

But being in favour of change doesn’t necessarily mean being in favour of worsened conditions.

Need for a policy There is a need today for a policy which will safeguard and improve the conditions of railway workers and counter the proposals of the ‘Four wise men’.

It is accepted that less men will be required to run the industry in the future. But does this mean that sackings or forced resjgnations are the only ways of achieving this objective?

Today the Tories are giving consideration to all but the railway workers. Even less will be given in the future. Millions of pounds every year are paid to ex-share holders for railway ‘assets’ which are being torn down every day. Further millions are paid in interest to the City of London on money borrowed to finance re-building.

Yet railway workers have to threaten strike action for a decent wage.

This contradiction becomes magnified when men who have given their lives to the railway are thrown on the scrap heap because they are no longer required after the introduction of new techniques or the closure of uneconomic parts.

Yet, compensation and interest parasites live in ease through the sacrifices made by these men in the past.

No compensation or interest The first demand, therefore, to be made by the railway trade unions should be that no compensation or interest should be paid during the period in which the railways will be overstaffed and redundancy is threatened.. This money can be used to bring the 40-hour week, longer holidays and an earlier retiring age on a decent pension. If this cannot absorb the surplus labour then otherwise redundant workers must be kept on the books until a suitable vacancy arises or they can be trained for jobs outside the industry.

Rank-and-file committees should be set up to control the transfer of staff between depots to ensure that conditions don’t suffer at either end.

Plans for closures or the introduction of new methods must be kept in check by such committees. Books and accounts must be opened for their scrutiny and the Unions should employ professional technicians and accountants who are sympathetic to trade unionism to assist rank-and-file workers in understanding such books and accounts.

Full control must be established over all the plans of the BTC to ensure and safeguard jobs and conditions.

The full industrial strength of railway workers must be used to back up these demands.

Unity between depots and regions irrespective of union or grade can only be won in such a fight. .

Rank-and-file railway, trade unionists can make up for lack of official leadership by pressing forward demands which ase aimed at solving a problem Greene & Co. refuse to face. fs