Ken Tarbuck Since the ‘prices and incomes policy’ of the Labour Government has beena relative failurewe have witnessed the growth of the demand by the bosses for ‘productivity deals' and this has had the full backing of the present Government.
The question we have to pose here is why the emphasis on such bargains? There are two main answers to this. Firstly » like all of the measures taken over the last six years - it is an attempt to stop the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, or to use the euphemism of the employers ‘to reduce labour costst, Secondly it is a question of power. This is intimately linked with the first aspect, because the underlying reasons behind productivity deals is that since the end of the war in 1945, workers have managed to wrest some degree of control over their wages and conditions of employment, i.e. there has been a decline in managerial control over certain aspects of the work situation. Productivity deals are meant to whittle away the controls established by the workers and once more re-assert full managerial control over the whole productive process,
The demands of the employers of course vary from one plant to another, depending upon which aspect of control they feel to be the most important to re-assert their authority over. In some factories this has taken the form of a drive to introduce Measured Day Work, i.e. the abolition of piece rates, In other situations it has been an attempt to regain control over the allocation of overtime, but above all there is the demand for ‘flexibility of labour', This essentially means that the management can move men or women around at will, and also determine the manning of productive lines. Each case is decided on in an empiricalway, the criteria being where do the ghop stewards have the most control and then attempting to reduce it.
The employers and the Labour Government have common aims in this drive, Barbara Castle urging on the employers to
push for these sort of deals. However, this spills over into the political arena, because along with productivity deais there nave been the attacks on the right to strike, as was witnessed ‘ast year in the notorious document "In Place of Strife" (sic). The present Labour Government has done all that it could to assist such deals, particularly in the creation of a post-war record number of unemployed. This is another aspect of productivity deals that has to be taken into account, and that they ultimately help reduce the demand for labour in any given area that they implemented on a large scale, There have been a number of productivity deals agreed to that in the first instance produce no redundancy, but as ‘natural wastage’ takes place the actual number of workers taken on to replace this declines, 50 that the net effect is to reduce the demand for labour and reinforce the upward trend in unemployment, Along with this higher unemployment, has gone the attempt to absorb even further the Trade Unions into the state machine and to make them pliant tools of the employers. Also the same thing is being attempted at shop floor level where shop stewards are being drawn into collaboration with the management in the implementation of productivity deals and the 'disciplining' of any workers who kick over the traces.
The response of the trade union movement as a whole as been uneven and fragmented, there has been no cohesive strategy worked out. On one extreme there has been downright opposition but with no counter strategy to them to one of whole hearted welcoming. In between these two extremes there are several stances taken up. The Transport and General Workers Union have a potentially useful approach, in that on paper they put forward the idea that productivity deals should be concluded in such a way as to increase workers take home pay and extend shop stewards control. However, the reality of how this union has operated leaves a great deal tc be desired. The T & GWU method could rebound painfully upon its members if this is taken to be a form of conditional support for productivity deals. The aims of productivity deals are summed very well in Prices and Incomes Board report of 1968 when it said "A change in the method of working is an essential part of any productivity agreement"... ''The calculations of management must show that the Total cost per unit of output will be
reduced’. * That is very clear and to the point, because in simple language it means that each individual worker must be exploited to a greater degree, that there must be an increase in = quoted by Tony Topham, Trade Union Register,
Merlin Press 1969.
the surplus value extracted from the worker, Under no conditions canMarxists support such deals under capitalism. It may well be that the individual worker seems to be better off in monetary terms, but this is only so under conditions of speed up, tighter supervision and great effort, the lions share of which will go to the bosses. Furthermore with the rate of inflationary price increases as they are today it means that the extra monetary 'rewara' will soon be swallowed up, but leaving the bosses with the gains in reduced costs and greater control over the worker.
What has been the real effect of the prices and incomes policy and productivity bargaining? In 1967 productivity in manufacturing industry rose by 5.9%, average wages by 5.35%, but retail prices rose by 2.5%, thus leaving the workers worse off in real terms than before, In 1968 the corresponding figures were, productivity up by 6.9%, wages 8.1'%, prices 5.6%." So that once again any gains in monetary terms were considerably reduced. The nett result of the combined policies of ihe Government and the Employers mean that at the very least the share of wages in the national income has been Limited fo its previous level, but it is more likely that the nett effect really has been to reduce this proportion.
In essence if trade unions accept productivity bargaining on che terms laid down by the Government and Employers it means that they accept the present division of the national product, and the present distribution of wealth, i,e. they accept status quo in this area, But in fact things do not stand still,the ultimate logic is to increase the share of the national wealth going to property and the capitalist class. What has happened in certain cases where productivity deals have been accepted has been that while the wage rates have increased the actual take home pay has been reduced: This is because there has been a loss of overtime, bonus payments, or piece work.
I mentioned earlier that under certain conditions the introduction of productivity deals has resulted in the reduclion of demand for labour, coupled with ali the other etfects this puts further power into the hands of the employers, because it helps swell the pool of men and women seeking employment, and therefore puts those who are working at a disadvantage because they can feel the pressure of those wilhout work breathing down their necks, and tends to make thein more pliable as far as the bosses are concerned,
* quoted by Tony Topham, Trade Union Register,
Merlin Press 1969
There is another aspect of productivity bargaining that has :1 be considered. This is, that it tends to break down solitarity among the workers. Because productivity bargains are -:sually negotiated at local or plant level, this gives the employets a further lever. Previously minimum wage rates have heen usually negotiated at national level, thus at a minimum level giving some feeling cf solidarity, Now with productivity nargaining the employers can take the offensive and attempt to niay off one plant or section of workers against another. Al} che time this process goes on it means a reduction of the small elements of control that workers have fought for in the post war vears,
This is why 1 said that the question of productivity bargain- 14, was a question af power.
What should the workers response be to this developing situation? A straightforward rejection, which stays at that ievel merely leaves the initiative in the hands of the employers. What is needed is a counter strategy which will take the
offensive into the employers camp, The very first demandid that any group of workers should make is an opening of the books thus gatling the information needed to assess the real potential fur wage increases or improvements of conditions, Secondly they should frame their demands in such a manner as will give to the workers an increased share of any new wealth created. Coupled with these measures should be the demand that workers will have the right to veto any changes in conditions that they do not agree with. To carry out such demands means that industry-wide rank and file committees need to be set up to police both the employers and the full lime officials of the unions, And since we are in the age of the international firm these committees must co-ordinate their activities with those of workers in the same industry in other countries.
Agitprop Information
1 Gelwer Siren,
JErT CTERATURE PROGRAMME: Muil-urder, conference
‘kaokatalls, and office sales ot parophlele fran: groupa
an Brevis, North America, und tue Continent, Tapica
inciude: edncation, raclem, imperialiscu, woroen’s
I eration, Airics, Asis, pulltical economy, Send
?> for lint,
HOW-TO MANUALS: ailk- sercen paster® etreet Chiitre,
Send iy - each phis pastage.
nla, accivities of ihertrc, TNFORMAVION SERVICE; We maintuin filer with addresses
du fevaational vontacls, aid ~ OF or gahlaaxvone, left press, and individuals wich
flption: £1 year; apec:alised skitte.
+ fatamps aggesittTe, fur aaucple copy. For more tnformalin:, pleaae write or
Lephone.