Dockland
Disputes within disputes
David W. Wragg
It is simply a statement of the obvious to say that an island nation is dependent on its ports for economic survival. No doubt the poor economic performance of post-war Britain can be largely blamed on the port industrial relations and, sometimes, appalling manage ment in the ports. That the incidence of industrial disputes should be so high in a particularly vital part of the economy cannot be regarded as pure coincidence — and this view can now be firmly regarded as fact following the desperate attempts of the militant dockers leaders to maintain the recent dock strike in the Port of London.
The greatest tragedy of all must be the absence of any means of ensuring a secret ballot on strike decisions, with which the recent dispute, and many others, might never have even started, The main sufferers here are the dockers themselves, denied the opportunity to work and, many of them, in fearof intimidation. Of all the work opportunities in this country, none is as secure as employment in the docks.
All employment in the major ports is strictly controlled by the National Dock Labour Boards and the local boards, which exist in each major port, and many smaller ones, and without whose express blessing there can be no hiring, firing or transferring of labour by the actual employers. Any question of discipline can be forgotten completely, since the local, and the national, boards contain equal numbers of employee and employer representatives. Dockers who could not be employed are normally placed on an unattached register, and receive not the dole but a guaranteed 'fall-back' pay, provided out of a levy on the employers.
In recent years, voluntary severance agreements, costing employers and taxpayer mil lions, have helped to reduce the numbers employed in the docks. In fact, the idea was to move unfit men out of the industry, although only those able to find work elsewhere opted for severance. At times too, employers, already overburdened with more labour than they could afford, have been forced to take on men from the unattached register.
Not surprisingly, with these restrictive practices and the attendant financial burdens, the ports in the scheme have been losing ground to those outside it — including the brilliantly successful private enterprise port of Felixstowe, which has grown since the early 1950s from a moribund employer of a handful of men to one of Britain's major ports employing the best part of a thousand. The irony is that the ending of casual employment in the major ports has rendered the National Dock Labour Boards and their Dock Labour Scheme unnecessary, yet the present Government is committed to its extension to all ports, and the nationalisation of the private enterprise and municipal ports.
A major issue in the London dispute has been the reservation of work in container depots, which are situated well away from the immediate dock area, for registered dock Workers. Container depots have to be situated well away' from the docks because of the amount of space needed and the militant practices of dockers have prevented work in the depots being given to men from the docks. Some years back, a committee of inquiry, known as the Bristow committee, recommended that the area covered by the Dock Labour Scheme in London should be extended beyond the port boundaries to five miles on each side, reserving all work in container depots and warehouses within that area to dockers. The Government has more or less committed itself to this — which is something the Transport and General Workers Union dare not do, because of opposition from its road haulage members.
It is easy to blame the Labour Party for not wishing to end restrictive practices, as well as allowing union militants to dictate policy and extending the dead hand of nationalisation throughout the land. However, the Conservatives had the opportunity to do something about it, and did nothing. It was far easier for Mr Heath to drag Britain, screaming and unwilling, into Europe, than to give a comparitively gentle shove towards the twentieth century to the dockers — not all of whom accept the militant attitudes of their supposed leaders.
A real commitment by the present leadership of the Conservative Party to denationalisation of all industries taken over by the present Government, to ending the National Dock Labour Scheme, and to making all union elections, including strike ballots, secret and postal, would do much to restore confidence in the Party. It would also be a ray of hope for the future, and possibly one to be welcomed by dockers who overwhelmingly voted for a return to work from the most recent dispute, and who must be aware that all surveys have shown the men in the non-scheme ports to be better off, financially and otherwise.
Alas, no matter how vital such commitments and the reforms must be — there is a strong tendency for the Left to be allowed to make all of the running today. Indeed, since much damage to industry from the present Government is the result of the Conservative Industry Act, one can say that the Conservative Party has not only stopped opposing socialism — and to oppose effectively means to reverse when possible — but has opted actively to assist the process of Collectivisation. Although the docks are the case in point, and a vital one at that, throughout British industry, particularly the key industries, there is a case, be it a lesser one than that in the docks, for 'a strong reforming attitude, which can only come from government inasmuch as the problems and the opposition from the left would be far beyond the capabilities of industry. The alternative is to let matters take their course, with the major ports decaying and the new ports growing, but this would take at least another two decades, and the disruption cannot be afforded during that time.
Previous page
