Another final straw

Peter Paterson

The Times, like most other Fleet Street Papers, is noticeably reticent about explain

ing the ins and outs of the industrial disputes Which lead to restricted circulation of the paper, or its complete shutdown. This Monday, however, on the reappearance of the paper after a week's absence, readers were for once given a fuller explanation. Instead of a tiny paragraph somewhere at the foot of page one headed 'The Times', followed by something on the lines of 'Times Newspapers regrets that some readers were unable to receive their copies of the paper yesterday. . .blah, blah, blah,. . .apologises to all concerned' we were given a blow by blow account from Labour Reporter Donald Macintyre which went into the kind of detail usually reserved for the affairs of British Leyland.

I have a tiny personal interest to declare in one aspect of the dispute that hit Times Newspapers last week, having written an introduction to a feature in the Sunday Times Magazine last weekend, nominating People in various fields of endeavour who Seem likely to achieve prominence in the• 1980s. No doubt a lot of people received the magazine along with their normally supplementless Sunday Express or News of the World, but the Sunday Times itself, as happened the previous week, together with The Times and the London editions of the Guardian, all last week, did not appear. The Separate dispute at the wholesalers which prevented the distribution of the other morning papers in the London area concerned me only as an addicted reader of newspapers, but both, coincidentally, ended at the weekend.

Without in any way claiming to have Investigated the affair — though by chance I did run into Sir Richard Marsh, chairman of the Newspaper Publishers' Association, during last week — and having talked to a number of people on the Sunday Times, I have come to the disturbing conclusion that had things been handled differently by Times Newspapers and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the Sunday Times could have appeared on Sunday, even if in a somewhat truncated form. There are people on the Sunday Times, no

doubt ill-intentioned fellows, who assert that the management had no desire to pro duce a smaller paper because of the losses it would involve. I have no way of knowing Whether that charge is true, and others have averred with equal conviction that the management was indeed chagrined when an entirely new dispute by a different set of workers made publication impossible last Saturday evening. At any rate, it would appear that

engineering workers on Times Newspapers have become increasingly disaffected because, they claim, they receive lower wages than engineers on other Fleet Street papers (though all newspaper engineers earn more than their brothers outside Fleet Street). The handiest available weapon they could use to support their demand for a 20 per cent rise on top of the 10 per cent Phase Three rise they had already received, was the fact that they were slightly understrength. They therefore declined to 'cover' for their missing colleagues, and were sacked as being in breach of contract. That halted last week's Sunday Times, and spread over to The Times and the Guardian on Monday.

It was on the Tuesday that things started to go wrong. Times Newspapers had a meeting with the admirable Reg Birch, executive member of the Engineering Union for the area that covers Fleet Street. It appears to have ended amicably enough after a short time with everyone agreeing that there should be 'a period of reflection'. One description of this agreement is that it was 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink. . ,', in other words, that everyone concerned thought they knew what this delphic utterance meant, and that a settlement had been mat erially advanced.

What on earth did it mean? Was it considered expedient, the engineers concerned having already been given notice, to let them sweat it out a bit? Or was it a question of 'Leave it to old Reg, he'll fix it?' Goodness knows — yet this is the very stuff of industrial relations in the newspapers, as in many other industries.

On Friday, Eric Jacobs, Labour Editor of the Sunday Times, approached his own management to find out what was happening. They told him about the earlier meeting, and added that they were awaiting a call from Mr Birch. Mr Jacobs thereupon called Mr Birch, to learn that he was awaiting a call from Times Newspapers (and it should be added that Mr Birch's responsibilities as a national official cover a far wider sphere than Fleet Street).

Soon after that call, the period of reflection ended, and a large part of Saturday was spent settling this dispute. The agreement: no 'money on the table' as the men had demanded, but immediate talks on a productivity deal which will no doubt add up more or less to what they wanted. Obviously, it would be a late start, but a smaller Sunday Times than usual could still be produced.

At that point, another of the thirty or so `chapels'or union branches, at the Sunday Times put its head above the parapet. A group of machine assistant members of Natsopa, known as 'regular casuals' as they work every Saturday night for the Sunday Times, thought the bonus of £4.20 offered them in addition to their six-hour shift payment of £37 was inadequate to compensate for the inconvenience of a late start. So the paper was halted.

All this raises the interesting point that if Mr Birch or Mr Hussey of Times Newspapers had not wasted quite so much time on reflection, the dispute might have been settled earlier. And there would then have been no occasion for the Natsopa machine assistants to complain of a late printing time. Perhaps, after all, this is too simple an explanation. Maybe there were continuing contacts between the two sides, or some other moves we know nothing about. But on the face of it, it seems fair to conclude that it was this failure to maintain contact that caused the late start that prevented the Sunday Times from appearing last Sunday. Unfortunately, neither Donald Macintyre's expert account, nor the leader in the same issue of The Times, explained the curious Tuesday — Friday hiatus. 'A week elapsed. . .' said the leader unhelpfully, 'and on Saturday the necessary assurances of normal working were forthcoming. .

However, Fleet Street is not fond of inquests into its own affairs, and in any case, more momentous events may be at hand, against which the comings and goings of this particular dispute will shrink in importance. Some Fleet Street executives are now loudly claiming that the worm that is management in Fleet Street is about to turn. Newspapers this year should be more profitable than for years past, thanks to high volumes of advertising and cheaper newsprint by courtesy of the stronger pound. Moreover, several groups are backed by non-newspaper money — travel, TV, oil, and so on — and the moment for a showdown with the unions (or with their highly independent members) may be approaching.

On this reckoning, managements will choose their time and prepare to treat the next unofficial demand or breach of agreement as positively the final straw — closing down a newspaper and insisting on a completely new deal with their labour force as the price of reopening. Such bold and brave ideas have been heard often enough, and never acted upon in the past. Newspaper managements are traditionally prepared to reach a common line at meetings of the NPA, and then pop round the corner to break it by doing an under-the-counter deal with their printers.

But the national newspapers have already this year lost twice as many copies because of disputes than in the first quarter of last year. And there is a limit to the patience of all those who contribute their talents to making a newspaper only to find that some small group can frustrate their efforts, and jeopardise their jobs. With some tough new men in control, the lockout could well be revived as a countervailing force to the unofficial strike or go-slow.