Sting in the Tail: The common factor (1994)

The Sting in the Tail column from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

The common factor

Following the Estonia tragedy:

"Swedish and Finnish ferry lines admitted hushing-up six serious incidents which preceded the Estonia’s sinking ” (Teletext 30 September).

These roll-on roll-off ferries are liable to capsize when even a relatively small amount of water enters the vehicle decks, yet Alan Clark, ex-Tory MP, said on Question Time (29 September) that marine architects can quite easily design ships which prevent this, but, with touching concern for human life asked “would this really be worth all the expense and inconvenience?”

And this is what it is all about:

“The economic reason why vehicle decks are not subdivided to prevent rapid capsize is that this would obstruct bailing, increase turnaround times and reduce the number of cars or lorries a ship should carry. That would mean higher fares, lower profits, or both — and at a time, so far as British operators are concerned, when ferries are facing fresh competition from the Channel tunnel” (Guardian 24 September).

Every disaster which comes along, be it Piper Alpha, the King's Cross Underground fire, the train crash at Clapham Junction or the Herald of Free Enterprise, provides evidence aplenty that capitalism’s remorseless drive to cut costs at the expense of safety is the prime cause of them all.

Healthy profits

Today’s economic climate has seen many employers cut the wages and conditions and increase the workload of their employees.

This often leads to the deterioration of the physical and mental health of the workers involved, but some other employers recognise that this approach is counter-productive and are concerned to protect and even improve the health and well-being of their employees.

Companies such as Grand Met, Glaxo. Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer, IBM and Nestle are participating in the Wellness Forum which promotes preventative health care by health screening along with weight control, anti-smoking and anti-alcohol abuse programmes.

There are sound commercial reasons behind this. A spokesman for the Institute of Personnel and Development told the Independent:

“Employers in their own interests have got to maximise the use of people at work as far as they can. Absenteeism is very expensive ” (9 September).

This absenteeism is estimated by the CBI to cost £13 billion a year, and the Independent adds that the Forum has “a belief in the correlation between a healthy workforce and healthy profits”.

Looking after the goose that lays the golden eggs always made more sense than killing it.

YC’s get KO’d

A new book True Blues, claims that Tory Party membership has slumped from 2.8 million in 1952 to below 500,000 now and is still falling.

Feeling better? Well, there’s more good news, because the Young Conservatives are set for the chop. And no wonder. Having been taken over by the “radical right” in much the same way as Labour's youth wing was by Trotskyists, the YC’s have long been a thorn in the side of the parent party.

There were well-publicised links with the BNP and other racists groups, support for apartheid, jokes about the Holocaust, vicious faction fighting and lots of hooliganism From a peak of 100,000 membership has plunged to around 5,000, so Tory Central Office probably reckons that what’s left isn’t worth the hassle.

A Tory' youth organisation may well continue to exist in one form or another, but the heady days when the YC’s seemed to consist of youngsters all desperately trying to outdo one another in sounding more reactionary and bloodthirsty, are probably over for good.

Heller’s history

Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22, published in 1962, was a brilliant and hilarious account of the corruption and insanity of capitalism set against the background of World War Two.

The long-awaited sequel is now ready, so Sally Vincent travelled to interview Heller, and her account of their meeting appeared in Weekend Guardian (24 September).

Heller’s perception of capitalism has not dimmed. According to Sally Vincent he thinks:

“We can produce enough food to feed the world, hut simultaneously can V because there's no profit producing enough food. ”

And he apparently thinks that “Marx was right”, although about what he didn't say, but his perception leaves him when it comes to interpreting history which he thinks is “autonomous and proceeds independently of the people who make it.”

Marx took a very different view: 

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. ” 

As a novelist, Heller takes some beating, but when it comes to explaining history then it has to be Marx.

Doubting Thomas

The sacking of the Sussex vicar Anthony Freeman for revealing that he doesn’t believe in God highlights the problem facing many of these sky pilots.

Take the example of an anonymous Church of Scotland minister, whose dilemma was reported in Scotland on Sunday (14 August):

“Thomas does not believe in God. There was no virgin birth, no resurrection, Jesus was a mere inspirational mortal like Ghandi and there is, most sadly, no life after death. The last bit gets tricky, for he must pretend to believe in some kind of afterlife to soothe many of the pensioners he talks to each Sunday from the pulpit. "

All workers must sell their ability to work for a wage or salary, and these professional holy men are no different. Here is what our reverend gentleman has to say about it:

“To be honest, I've got a family to feed and a career and a pension to think about. I don't think I should put my job on the line just for the sake of discussion of some arcane beliefs and ideas that probably don't really matter anyway. ”

Blogger's Notes: 

• Joseph Heller's Catch-22 was reviewed in the November 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• The King's Cross Underground fire was covered in the March 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• The Piper Alpha disaster was covered in the August 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard.

The grand Plan is a farce (1965)

From the November 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

After much ballyhoo the grand National Plan was published in September. It aims for a 25 per cent increase in total production by 1970. In a television talk Wilson described the Plan as a “national crusade for higher productivity” and called for a “determined attack on anything that holds back production”. Among those he mentioned as “wreckers” were “Luddite employees”. The Plan assumes that the problem of increased production is just a technical question; it assumes a state of social harmony since only if the interests of everyone were the same could those who hold up production justly be called wreckers. Both assumptions are open to challenge.

A social order in which the land, raw materials and the man-made instruments of production were owned in common and were subject to the democratic control of all would be one of social equality and harmony. There would be no built-in minority privileges or sources of group conflict. The problem of producing things to meet social and individual needs would be merely one of planning and organization. The people of such a society would have to work out ways of organizing themselves to satisfy their needs. Use would be the aim of production. Planned production for use would be the rule. Nobody could have any interest in wrecking the planned production of things to satisfy needs.

This, however, does not at all describe the present social order. For today the land and instruments of production are the property of a minority, which means that production is not for use—not even the use of the privileged minority themselves. This arises from another feature of the present order: the owners of the instruments of production, or capitalists, are rivals of each other, they compete to sell their products. Hence things are produced for sale rather than for use. Market production is unorganized, unplanned production. The competing capitalists get a living from the profits they get from selling their products. The making of such profits is in fact the aim of production. The question that is asked before things are produced is not “can they be made?” but “can they be sold?” The rule is thus: no profit, no production. The market and the need to make a profit are restricting factors; much more could be produced than can be sold at a profit.

Total production does increase in the long-run but this growth is by no means a steady expansion. Periods of rapid growth are followed by periods of stagnation. This is the familiar boom-slump (or “stop-go”) cycle which is an unavoidable feature of unorganized, market production. Confidence in future profits is a very important factor in fixing the rate of growth. In times of rising prices and sales expanding and reckon that they can get the best of it; their expanding and reckon that they can get the best of it; their rivals think the same. The result is overproduction relative to the market: more has been produced than can be sold. When this happens expansion is checked, production slumps and the number of unemployed rises. In treating increased production as if it were just a technical question the Plan ignores the dangers of overproduction. Wilson merrily calls for more and more production without stopping to think whether it can be sold. Even if he doesn't businessmen will. By all accounts the Plan is over-optimistic so that if businesses do gear their output figures to its targets they may find themselves with stocks of unsaleable goods. More likely, however, is that everyone will ignore the targets and treat the Plan as the scrap of paper it is.

Wilson seems to think that a rational explanation—and defence—of restrictive practices and strikes is impossible. As we saw, the land, raw materials and machines are today monopolised by a minority. As a result the rest of the population are forced to work for those who own, for a wage or a salary. Wages are in fact the price of a person’s working ability. The benefits of increased productivity go only to the minority of capitalist owners: a greater share of what is produced goes to them, if wages are kept to a minimum. It is obvious that the question of increased productivity is not one over which the two classes of people, capitalists and workers, have a common interest especially as labour-saving inventions, as the name implies, often allow workers in a particular industry to be laid off.

Those who make up the most numerous class of people, the wage and salary workers, are driven to consider ways of mitigating the workings of this system. The first and obvious move is to try to restrict the competition for jobs; to unite the workers of a particular trade into a body capable of raising wages by restricting competition. Trade Unions are an outstanding example of a restrictive practice. Many ways of restricting competition in particular trades have been worked out: long training periods; requirements that only trained men can do a particular task; requirements about unskilled assistants. Other practices aim at forcing capitalists to take on more workers than are strictly necessary. “Making work” may raise the costs of the capitalist but it also restricts competition in the labour market. Besides dealing with wages, Trade Unions can also exert pressure to improve working conditions. They can try to restrain arbitrary acts of dismissal and punishment by the owner or his disciplinary agents; to establish and maintain a standard pace of working which allows even the oldest to keep up. All these practices which, along with tea-breaks, make work a little less unpleasant also restrict production and raise costs.

These devices will be more or less effective depending on conditions in the labour market. But, as can be seen, they are protective rather than restrictive practices. Their primary aim is not to restrict production but to protect those who work for wages in a particular trade. There is no direct relationship between wages and productivity. Wages are a price and depend on market conditions. An increase in productivity which does not alter conditions in the labour market has no effect on wages. An argument does arise, however, as to how increased productivity does affect the demand for labour. Experience suggests that, in the first instance at least, labour-saving inventions lead to sackings and hence help to exert a downward pressure on wages by increasing competition in parts of the labour market. When we consider the long-run effect, we should remember that under the wages system people live from week to week and, as Keynes is supposed to have said, “in the long run we’re dead”. Again, there is the lesson of “overproduction” where the result has been widespread unemployment. The experiences of workers over the years has suggested that unrestricted competition and production are by no means beneficial to them. “Restrictive practices” are tried and successful weapons for defending the interest of the class of wage and salary workers.

Strikes, too, interrupt production and thus are condemned by Wilson. But here again experience has taught that the collective withdrawal of labour is a most useful defensive weapon. Experience has also taught the best time to use it. In times of slump, with many seeking work, strikes were less effective. In times or shortages of labour the matter is altogether different. Groups of wage-workers can choose when to use it. The obvious choice is when an interruption of production is going to hurt the capitalist most: when he has a valuable order or when sales are good. In these circumstances he will wish to settle more quickly. Thus for airport workers to strike at a peak holiday period is by no means the result of “viciousness” but rather of sound action based on experience. It is true that in cases like this other workers are put to considerable inconvenience and, of course, popular sympathy should not be ignored when considering strike action. It seems that only when “the public” suffer will the capitalist employer listen.

We see then that Trade Union protective practices and strikes are by no means examples of inconsiderate wrecking. They arise from the very nature of the present social order which forces one of the two classes to defend its interests in these ways. In assuming that such actions are irrational the Plan indulges in wishful thinking. The class struggle is a fact which cannot be persuaded (or coerced) out of existence. These practices are firmly rooted in the tradition of those sections of the working class where Trade Unionism is common. They will persist and be modernised and perfected throughout the period of the Plan. The class struggle too will treat the Plan as a scrap of paper.

The Plan assumes, as we have seen, that the interests of employers and workers are the same but sees a basic conflict of interest between the various “nations” of the world. The expressed purpose of the Plan is to make goods made in Britain better able to compete on the world market. In this struggle for a share of the world market “restrictive practices” are acceptable. For it is not only workers who organise and struggle to restrict competition and production in their own interest. This is true of groups of capitalists too. They can, given favourable market conditions, join together to raise prices and so rake in a monopoly profit. The perfect competitive conditions of the Free Trade dream have never existed and the very workings of competition lead to the growth of monopoly elements. The “nation” is itself a form of monopoly. The capitalists of a particular political area use the power of their State to try to further their interests in the same way that workers use their Trade Unions. This power is used in various ways to restrict competition, especially by tariff protection, which restricts the free movement of goods and gold. Tariffs, import controls, duties and surcharges, national currencies, and exchange control all restrict some parts of production in the interests of a particular group of capitalists. In the eyes of the Plan some such restrictions are praiseworthy. The Plan is against monopolies at home (which allow one group of capitalists to hold the rest to ransom) except for those in the export industries. Clearly a double-standard is applied: the capitalists on the national scale can band together to restrict production but the workers, never!

But here again the Plan is unrealistic. Many of the measures it offers for solving the capitalists’ overseas payments problem, such as cutting down overseas aid, investment and defence spending and finding substitutes for imports, may make the world market more competitive, thus making the 5 per cent annual increase in exports harder to get. For these measures could make the overseas payments of other groups correspondingly worse. They too will try to recoup by similar methods.

So all in all the grand Plan is a farce. Even as an attempt to solve the capitalists' particular problem it will most probably fail. It had to ignore the possibility of overproduction, the class struggle and the effect of its own policies on the world market. It will turn out to be no more reliable than the long-range weather forecasts which have also been introduced recently. This is not really surprising since the market is as unpredictable as the weather.

Adam Buick

Apple, Foxconn and The iConomy (2012)

From the March 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Apple, the creators of the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone and iPad as well as other must-have devices, are now industry leaders in providing personal computing and related technologies. But amongst the latest gadgets and a total income of over $108bn (2011), what of the company’s workers and workforce? How do they fare under the influence of a company with more money than the US Government? (In July 2011 because of the debt-ceiling crises, Apple at one point had bigger cash reserves than the US State). Not so good would be the short answer.

Apple itself employs around 60,000 people worldwide and by some accounts can be a strange place to work. Despite the famous informality of jeans in the office, reports in a recent book (Inside Apple by journalist Adam Lashinsky) claim working for Apple is like being ‘in a cult’. With overbearing management, extreme secrecy and even ‘lock-down rooms’ constructed inside other rooms to prevent information being leaked outside the company, ‘paranoid’ may not be too strong a word. Many employees have been fired for discussing their jobs outside work and it is rumoured that company spies operate in bars and venues used by employees. Lashinsky states: ‘So there’s no confusion, the penalty for revealing Apple secrets, intentionally or unintentionally, is clear: swift termination.’ An ex-Apple employee goes further saying that Steve Jobs (now deceased) would make it clear before any media ‘company broadcast’ about new developments or products, that ‘Anything disclosed from this meeting will result not just in termination but in prosecution to the fullest extent our lawyers can.’

Lashinsky also describes Apple as ‘cultish’, and states that ‘neophytes are entrusted with only so much information’. He goes on: ‘As with any secret society, trustworthiness is not assumed. New additions to a group are kept out of the loop for a period of time, at least until they have earned their manager’s trust.’

A senior Apple engineer said: ‘People are so committed that they go home at night and don’t leave Apple behind them. What they do at Apple is their true religion.’ It is alleged that Apple operates around the concept of disclosure – Jon Rubinstein, a former senior hardware executive at Apple, says, ‘We have cells, like a terrorist organisation. Everything is on a need-to-know basis.’ So much for the ‘be inspired every day’ tag line on Apple’s recruitment page, then.

Outside America and Europe things are worse though. Despite early Apple claims to be ‘made in America’ the company have for years been outsourcing work to China and other far eastern countries. One of the main contractors for Apple abroad is a Taiwanese concern called Foxconn, part of the Hon Hai Precision Industries Company. With factories in China and Taiwan, Foxconn is staggeringly huge and is now estimated to employ well over a million people – 500,000 work at its huge Shenzhen facility in China alone. These mega factories are small cities in themselves with shops, barbers, banks and other facilities within the factory complex. Workers are housed in huge dormitories and never leave the site. Overcrowding is rife.  One online estimate states that it is ‘five times the density of population as Mumbai’. Working hours are long and pay is very low by western standards. In 2011 no fewer than ten workers killed themselves in the Shenzhen plant alone and another three attempted the same act. Many jumped from buildings, including one who had lost a prototype iPhone, prompting a media outcry.

The company responded in typically business-like fashion by introducing a new anti-suicide clause in its workers contracts – apparently those desperate enough to want to take their own lives will think again if it means a breach of contract. They also cynically raised wages twice in one week in 2011 which brought the average basic pay of an employee from 1200 to 2000 yen a month, or roughly from £130 to £200.

Death may not come by one’s own hand here though. In May of 2011, Foxconn again hit the headlines when a massive explosion ripped through the plant where the shiny aluminium backs for Apple’s iPad2 are polished, killing three workers and injuring many more.  From reading online news reports, however, the biggest worry seems not to be about the dead and their families but about whether the gadget-hungry fools in the West would get their iPad2 on time.

Workers in China travel far to get jobs in this plant. An in-depth article in the New York Times (25 January) reported on one such individual. It stated: ‘When Mr. Lai finally landed a job repairing machines at the plant, one of the first things he noticed was the almost blinding lights. Shifts ran 24 hours a day, and the factory was always bright. At any moment, there were thousands of workers standing on assembly lines or sitting in backless chairs, crouching next to large machinery, or jogging between loading bays. Some workers’ legs swelled so much they waddled. ‘It’s hard to stand all day,’ said Zhao Sheng, a plant worker.’

The article goes on to say ‘Banners on the walls warned the 120,000 employees: ‘Work hard on the job today or work hard to find a job tomorrow.’ Apple’s supplier code of conduct dictates that, except in unusual circumstances, employees are not supposed to work more than 60 hours a week. But at Foxconn, some worked more, according to interviews, workers’ pay stubs and surveys by outside groups. Mr. Lai was soon spending 12 hours a day, six days a week inside the factory, according to his paychecks.’

The long hours and low pay are not the only issue. The NYT article notes that: ‘Mr. Lai’s college degree enabled him to earn a salary of around $22 a day, including overtime — more than many others. When his days ended, he would retreat to a small bedroom just big enough for a mattress, wardrobe and a desk.’

‘Those accommodations were better than many of the company’s dorms, where 70,000 Foxconn workers lived, at times stuffed 20 people to a three-room apartment, employees said. Last year, a dispute over paychecks set off a riot in one of the dormitories, and workers started throwing bottles, trash cans and flaming paper from their windows, according to witnesses. Two hundred police officers wrestled with workers, arresting eight. Afterward, trash cans were removed, and piles of rubbish — and rodents — became a problem.’

Sadly, Mr Lai was one of the workers killed in the explosion at the iPad plant. He suffered 90% burns and died in hospital two days later, his girlfriend only recognising him from his legs. The explosion was later found to have been caused by aluminium dust igniting as three polishing lines worked continuously to keep up with demand a few weeks after the iPad2 was launched. In the drive for profits at any price, though, neither Apple nor Foxconn paid much heed it seems. Just seven months later in December 2011 an iPad factory in Shanghai exploded from……..igniting aluminium dust, resulting in 59 injured, 23 of them hospitalised.

Foxconn, however bad, are not the only villains in the piece and Apple has to take a lot of the blame. When the world’s media started publishing stories about these conditions, notably an undercover report from the Daily Mail, Apple were shocked into action. A massive auditing operation of their suppliers was carried out and the results published. Some of these results showed allegations of under-age workers (under 16 in China) being hired – one audit in 2010 acknowledged 91 employees found to be under this age or were when they were hired at Foxconn alone. Although seemingly going in the right direction, there is a large element of smoke and mirrors being deployed. As a former Apple executive with firsthand experience commented in the NYT report ‘Noncompliance is tolerated, as long as the supplier promises to try harder next time…’

But others disagree. Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) has twice been used by Apple to advise on such issues: ‘We’ve spent years telling Apple there are serious problems and recommending changes,’ said a consultant ‘They don’t want to pre-empt problems, they just want to avoid embarrassments.’

While Apple may indeed have spent 2010 getting more adept at identifying problems and forming action plans to put things right, the company’s own report admits that if situations have not been resolved within 90 days of an audit, it will only ‘continue to collaborate with the supplier towards further improvement.’ It is obvious that the die has been cast – Apple really has nowhere else to go to get its products made: it needs its suppliers as much as they need Apple. Both are caught in the relentless quest for profit at any cost. This is borne out by Apple being approached by companies desperate to become a new supplier. When Apple decides to see if they can supply a particular product or part, they contact the company. The NYT reports says: ‘When the news arrives that Apple is interested…small celebrations erupt. Then, Apple’s requests start.’

Apple typically asks suppliers to specify how much every part costs, how many workers are needed and the size of their salaries. Executives want to know every financial detail. Afterward, Apple calculates how much it will pay for a part. Most suppliers are allowed only the slimmest of profits. So suppliers often try to cut corners, replace expensive chemicals with less costly alternatives or push their employees to work faster and longer, according to people at those companies.

‘The only way you make money working for Apple is figuring out how to do things more efficiently or cheaper,’ said an executive at one company that helped bring the iPad to market. ‘And then they’ll come back the next year, and force a 10 percent price cut.’

The financial evidence for the above is also available. A recent Bloomberg chart shows that from 2007 and the introduction of the iPhone, Apple’s profit margins have increased to over 30%. Over the same period, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn’s parent) has stayed steady at just 1.5%.  

‘Hon Hai is willing to sacrifice margins so it can get volume and scale,’ said Vincent Chen, in the same candid report.  Chen is an analyst at Yuanta Financial Holding Co in Taipei who has a ‘buy’ rating on the stock. ‘Apple is also getting so large that it needs a supplier that can provide such scale.’

The iPad is ‘very difficult to make,’ Hon Hai founder and Chairman Terry Gou told shareholders in June. Gou’s strategy has earned him the nickname ‘Low-Cost Terry,’ according to Chen.’

Low cost indeed, but high profit for Apple. The real cost as always, is being incurred by millions of Chinese and Far Eastern workers, living in huge de-humanising factory complexes and  working long hours for little pay in often dangerous conditions. And not just at Foxconn. At another Chinese plant, this time owned by Wintek, the workers actually went on strike. They had been asked to use a noxious chemical called n-hexane which is known to cause nerve damage and paralysis. The substance replaced rubbing alcohol to clean iPhone screens, as it evaporates to the air three-times faster and speeds up production. Over a hundred employees suffered injuries as a result of its introduction, prompting the industrial action. The NYT noted:

‘In its supplier responsibility report, Apple said it had ‘required Wintek to stop using n-hexane’ and that ‘Apple has verified that all affected workers have been treated successfully, and we continue to monitor their medical reports until full recuperation.’ Apple also said it required Wintek to fix the ventilation system.

That same month, a reporter interviewed a dozen injured Wintek workers who said they had never been contacted by Apple or its intermediaries, and that Wintek had pressured them to resign and take cash settlements that would absolve the company of liability. After those interviews, Wintek pledged to provide more compensation to the injured workers and Apple sent a representative to speak with some of them.’

Half a year on, trade and business reports highlight the cut in prices being paid by Apple to Wintek for their services. Business has spoken, unlike Wintek which declines to comment on the issue.

So are Apple alone? Not really. They are merely following, very successfully in monetary terms, the rules of capitalism – namely rule Number One – Profit at All Costs. Moving production from a heavily regulated and therefore expensive country like the USA to a relatively unregulated and therefore much cheaper country like China makes perfect economic sense from a capitalist’s point of view. The market dictates all. An Apple executive sums up this attitude with a salient point: ‘You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories, or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards, and right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China.’

The reality of modern capitalism is that it transcends national borders. Barack Obama once asked Apple CEO Steve Jobs, ‘when are those manufacturing jobs coming back to the USA?’ Jobs famously replied, ‘Those jobs are never coming home.’ This exchange highlights the way that capital does not heed the often spouted patriotism and rhetoric of politicians but deals in cold hard financial facts. Workers would do well to note this and adjust their own attitudes accordingly. Perhaps if we cared less about new gadgets at any cost, humane and environmental, and instead forged stronger links with workers around the globe, we too could adopt a truly global resistance to the onslaught of capital and start paving the way towards socialism and the end of sweatshops and the consumer culture altogether.

David Humphries

The Docker's Problems (1944)

From the February 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having witnessed the spectacle of millions of their fellows chasing the will o* the wisp of steady employment in the long years before the present war, to-day in 1944 the workers are performing miracles of constant, unremitting toil. Their numbers reduced by the calls of the armed forces, they are feeding the mammoth war machine of Britain and simultaneously providing the civilian population with at least that minimum of creature comforts necessary. Intriguing speculations are rife in the world of the industrial workers, contrasting tho pre-war scene with the present one. One vivid contrast is that which prevails in the great ports.

Before the war, in “normal” shipping circumstances, there was invariably enacted at the northern ports scenes of struggle for four to eight hours' work that had to be seen to be believed. The docker was then ironically termed a “casual” worker, and the fight for bread often became an actual physical reality. Unfortunate foremen, whose unenviable task it was to select the recipients of four hours' work were often injured, their hands bitten and their clothing torn in the wolfish scramble that took place. Favouritism and nepotism were the order of the day, and violent was the experience often of any who presumed to change the status quo. To-day “things” are changed. The Government, in the beginning of 1941, perceiving the vital need of a trained supply of dock labour, introduced various schemes that have in effect decasualised dock labour. A minority of the men, recognising dangerous anomalies in the official proposals, resisted the innovation. Albeit, the Ministry of War Transport had its way, and to-day in all great ports the Government directs the ebb and flow of labour. Viewed superficially, the weekly guarantee of sums ranging from 55s. to 82s. 6d. to dockers is an immense improvement on previous conditions. For months past, in the columns of the Glasgow dailies, officious magistrates and others have dilated oracularly on the “enormous" wages of the Glasgow dockers. Their effusions have been productive of acid comment among the men concerned. The docker's wage rate has remained unchanged since early in 1940, since when prices generally have risen. The docker to-day, in order to earn a wage that will provide him and his dependants with a working-class standard of comfort has to work many hours of overtime. And that, at a task unquestionably enervating and exhausting. The dockers imagine that most Labour magistrates—who are especially prone to criticism of the men—would quail at the prospect of one hour's work wrestling with bales and cases or pushing trucks, let alone 70 or 80 hours! For years deprived of steady employment, to-day subjected to disciplinary measures for absenting themselves from work.

For years, accustomed to scrambling for work, to-day. in some instances, scrambling in the opposite direction. Their natural industrial combativeness gelded by a combination of patriotism and bureaucratic efficiency, they have in a situation favourable to them as sellers of their commodity, labour-power, allowed their wage-rate to remain static since the first year of war. The Government selected as local administrators prominent members of the dockers' unions, some of them Communists and I.L.P.ers. As is usual, these individuals have “out-Heroded Herod”! The dockers to-day are afflicted with misgivings regarding post-war conditions. Under the plea of a "quick turn round ” of ships to expedite the war effort, they have seen the insidious "whittling away” of much of their T.U. rights and conditions. Conditions that were won after years of unceasing bloody struggle. They see, also, mechanisation taking place, speed-ups that will remain, that will displace large numbers of men in the years to come.

Mr. Bevin, with others, has reassured dockers of the continued existence of guaranteed wages in peace-time, but— they are sceptical. Like the vast majority of workers, the promises made by official spokesmen of projected changes in the post-war industrial set-up, leave dockers cold.

They have been lavishly praised for their fortitude during the period of the blitz, and mention has been made of the fact that their dockside homes have been the target of many bombs. Despite all this, they are profoundly aware of the odds against them in their day-to-day struggle. The end of hostilities will find dockers denuded of many defensive conditions, essential to them to—at best—maintain their conditions of existence. The confident prediction that can be made of general post-war industrial upheaval can be made emphatically of dock-land. Unemployment has driven men to the docks of a higher intellectual level than the old-time docker, and this factor will be felt. The remedy for the docker, like all others possessing nothing but the ability to work, is clear. Jealously guarding their existing T.U. privileges, recognising the essential limitations of their efforts to withstand the attacks of their masters, they must perceive that the private ownership of the machinery of producing wealth, including shipping, is the basic cause of their perpetual poverty and consequent struggle for miserable employment. The S.P.G.B. do not, as our opponents impugn, idly wait on the working class. The lie must be bludgeoned—that S.P.G.B.ers are dilletantes, and the efforts of the members in the actual arena of the industrial workshops is the irrefutable proof. The clerks, labourers, dockers, railwaymen, seamen, taxicabmen, waitresses, etc., that form the membership of the S.P.G.B., call upon their mates, wherever they may be, to examine our case carefully. Having done so, we are sure of their ultimate verdict. We have a great historical responsibility to carry, and we need the help of the working class of the world.

Tony Mulheron

Cooking the Books: The Right to Work All Hours (2005)

The Cooking the Books Column from the July 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1993 the European Commission proposed that the maximum time that employers could legally make their employees work should be limited, on average and including overtime, to 48 hours a week.

A quick calculation will show that, for a six-day week, this is the Eight Hour Day, a long-time trade union demand. In Capital (chapter 10 on “The Working Day”) Marx quotes a declaration from a General Congress of Labor that met in Baltimore in August 1866 that “The first and great necessity of the present, to free the labour of this country from capitalistic slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union”. In fact, May Day was instituted in 1889 precisely to demonstrate for this in all countries.

The Council of Ministers of the Member States of the European Union (the body that makes European laws) did not accept this proposal. While still retaining 48 hours as the maximum that employers could legally require their workers to work, they amended the draft Working Time Directive to allow countries to provide for individual workers to voluntarily waive their legal right not to work more than this. This loophole, inserted at the insistence of the UK  minister, came to be known as the “UK opt-out”. Which the then Tory government immediately took advantage of.

Since the bargaining strength of workers and employers are by no means equal this made the Directive virtually a dead letter in Britain, with employers making “voluntary” agreement to work longer a condition for being employed or promoted. As Paul Routledge explained in his column in the Daily Mirror (13 May):

“Forty per cent of UK firms exploit the opt-out – by ‘asking’ workers to sign away their rights. Many bosses require staff to accept employment contracts containing an opt-out clause, even though this is illegal. No clause, no job”.

When the Directive came up for review in May this year, the European Parliament (which is not a real parliament, more a consultative committee) voted to end the “UK opt-out”. Immediately a huge hue and cry was raised by employers’ organisations in Britain. “Freedom of choice” was at issue, said the Director General of the CBI, echoing what employers had said in the 1840s when a timid bill to limit the working day to ten hours had been introduced. It would undermine “competitiveness”, said the Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, expressing employers’ dislike of restrictions on how long they can get their workers to work, since any limitation could mean they might have to take on more workers, so increasing their labour costs and undermining their competitive position vis-à-vis capitalist enterprises in other countries – such as China, Brazil and India where no such restrictions apply.

And what did the newly-elected Labour government have to say on this? Yes, yes, it would undermine competitiveness, we’ll fight to ensure that a maximum 48-hour week is not introduced into Britain, grovelled Industry Secretary Alan Johnston and Employment Minister Gerry Sutcliffe (both of whom had climbed the greasy pole via the trade union movement).

True to their word, they did and won. The Council of Ministers retained the opt-out. Proof if any more were needed (which it isn’t) that Labour is not even a “Labour” party.

Back to the Future for Working Conditions (2013)

From the October 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

Conditions for workers today in Britain are moving back towards those in Victorian Britain. The struggles of the working class in Britain in the nineteenth century to ensure better working conditions and humane working hours are documented by Marx in Chapter ten The Working Day in Capital Volume 1. With zero hours contracts we have gone 'back to the future'.

The capitalist class in the UK have about 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts. These contracts mean there is no guarantee of work and pay each week, no holiday or sick pay. The balance of power favours the employer and makes it hard for workers to complain. Workers are often only told how many hours they will work when weekly or monthly rotas are worked out, but are expected to be on call for extra work at short notice, like the day before. If you don't comply you don’t get any work. Cinema chain Cineworld, Buckingham Palace's 350 summer workers, retailer Sports Direct (20,000 of its 23,000 staff), Pub group JD Wetherspoon (24,000 of its staff  - 80 percent of its workforce), 1/3 of the voluntary sector, 1/4 of the public sector , McDonalds, Boots, Amazon, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Tate Galleries all use workers on zero hours contracts.

There are now fees for lodging claims at industrial tribunals. A worker has to pay a fee when a claim is lodged at the tribunal and another one at the hearing. Level 1 claims include those for unpaid wages, payment in lieu of notice and redundancy payments which cost £160 and a hearing fee of £230. Level 2 claims include unfair dismissal, discrimination, equal pay and whistle blowing which cost £250 and a hearing fee of £950. There will be higher fees for those cases where there are multiple claimants.

Currently an employer could discuss offers of settlement with a worker to terminate his or her employment on a 'without prejudice' basis, which means they could not be divulged in future tribunal proceedings as evidence against that employer. There would need to be a prior 'dispute' for an employer to take advantage of this protection. Under new rules, employers will now be able to engage in pre-termination negotiations/ early exit discussions with a worker even where no formal dispute has yet arisen. The new law allows employers a free reign at any time to enter termination discussions with their staff without fear of it being used against them.

The maximum compensation that could be awarded for routine unfair dismissal claims at an employment tribunal was £74,200. Now it will be the equivalent of 52 weeks' pay or £74,200, whichever is the lower. Average salary today is £26,500 for full time workers.

These changes prompted Elizabeth George, a barrister in the employment team at law firm Leigh Day to say:

'This sends a very dangerous message to employers who will be less inclined to abide by their legal obligations as the risk of being challenged will be much reduced, these fees will disproportionately hit those suffering discrimination because of their age, race, disability and gender, the disproportionate fees will mean many people having to put up with discrimination and unable to challenge unfair dismissals, however badly they had been treated. We have already seen guidance from lawyers advising employers to wait to fire people as it will be cheaper and the chances of being taken to tribunal will be less following the introduction of fees. Instead of standing up for people suffering unlawful discrimination in the workplace, the government is doing the exact opposite'. (Guardian, 29 July)

Online retailer Amazon opened a huge processing centre in Rugeley, Staffordshire in 2011. Arthur Valdez, vice-president operations Amazon said at the time: 'We look forward to assembling a team of talented people who will play their part in ensuring that customers receive the millions of items that will be ordered' (Daily Telegraph, 10 July 2011). Mike Dell, president of the Black Country Chamber of Commerce concurred: 'It's excellent news. It brings jobs to an area that desperately needs it'. Aidan Burley, local Tory MP put his tuppence in: 'It's absolutely fantastic news for Rugeley. People are crying out to get back into work'. (BBC News Stoke and Staffordshire online, 10  July 2011)

A recent Channel 4 investigation discovered at the Amazon factory in Rugeley timed toilet breaks, workers' movements were monitored by GPS trackers, workers given 30 minutes for lunch in a ten-hour shift, 20 minutes of which were spent walking to and from the canteen, workers were issued penalty points for talking to colleagues, taking sick leave, or even spending too long in the bathroom. This all on a 'three strikes and you're out' basis. Workers were searched for stolen goods at airport-style security checkpoints before going into the canteen, and temporary staff laid off to avoid giving them the same benefits and rights as permanent workers. Zero hours contracts were used extensively which meant those staff having no job security and were forced to make themselves available for work with no guarantee they will be offered a shift on a particular day. Also Amazon tried to avoid paying out hundreds of pounds in accrued holiday pay to agency staff by instructing agency representatives not to inform employees that it was owed to them.

We should always remember that the capitalist class demand the free exploitation of working class labour-power. Engels wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 and Marx's Capital came out in 1867. There are differences between life today and life then but fundamentally there is no change as the capitalist mode of production grinds relentlessly on, a person has to 'sell their labour or starve'. Capitalism can never operate in the interests of the working class.

Steve Clayton