Gerry Kelly speaking to workers working the Lump at the ATV Centre.
Workers in the building industry have long suffered from low wages and appalling working conditions which would not be tolerated in most other industries. Every winter large numbers of building workers have traditionally been laid off as a matter of course, and this has been accepted as just a bitter fact of life. Safety provisions in the industry are criminally low-40% of fatal industrial accidents occur in the building trade.
It is especially surprising that this should be allowed to happen when it is remembered that the building industry enjoyed consistently enormous profits during the post-war economic boom up to the late '60s. These conditions have been caused by the uneven and often total lack of unionisation in the industry, but in order to understand this we have to look at the structure of the industry which enables the boss to aggravate and capitalise on the fragmentation of the Building labour is naturally fragmented by the peculiar structure of the industry. Sites are too small to begin with, employing a relatively small number of workers during the period of construction. That is to say that different crafts are employed at different stages of production. Lastly, the different workers on a particular site are employed by different sub-contractors. Thus the labour force is divided by time and place of work and by separate employers. This situation makes the problems of organisation-particularly astute move. They were extremely short of on non-union sites-very much more difficult. The bosses have not failed to take advantage of these difficulties, and have successfully introduced another of their own, which we will come to later, THE LUMP.
There have been some moves made over the last few years towards overcoming these divisions with the amalgamation of several existing unions culminating in July of this year. This new union, as yet unnamed, is presently making significant inroads in areas where union tradition is weak. It has just succeeded in winning the first closed shop in the Birmingham area at the Wimpey site in Birmingham New Town and Stevenage is now a closed shop throughout the town.
But the strengthening of the organised building workers and the successes that the new union has achieved serves to cover up the right-wing nature of the ASW leadership and that, in its attempt to reorganise the building workers, they are also attempting to oust the the militants in various ways. This is one reason why they call for a closed shop as opposed to 100% union membership because any militant who is disciplined and thrown out of the union will also be thrown off the sites.
In order to understand the role of the ASW leadership, it is necessary to look into the background of the building workers organisations over the past few years:
In 1965, the labour force in the industry was 1,700,000 with a turnover of £3,851 million; by 1970, the labour force, which had been declining Tha Red Mala 20.l Cacha 1071 P.aa 6 steadily, was reduced to 1,251,000 while the turnover had increased to £4,971 million. The actual labour force which is organised amounts to only 400,000-one-third of the total. (Even this figure is deceptive, since local trade union officials receive money related to the number of members which they have on their books, regardless of the fact if members are in or out of benefit; for example, the AUBTW, before it amalgamated with the ASW in July of this year claimed to have 60,000 membership, but a conservative estimate would be nearer 40,000). As well as the organised labour force being relatively small, the whole history of the building trade has been one of fragmentation and competition for members between the main unions in the industry, namely the ASW and T&GWU.
The ASW has traditionally been the biggest union in the trade. Following on the TUC's call for unions to streamline their structure, the ASW began discussions with other unions. The first union which agreed to amalgamate was the NUPCM in 1964. Then talks began with the ASPD, the AUBTW and NAPO. The ASW had always recruited craftsmen; the AUBTW, bricklayers and T&GWU (together with the GMWU which had a few members) labourers. T&GWU wanted at this time to increase its influence and this meant in effect that it was necessary to cater for craftsmen as well. T&GWU offered NAPO a very fair deal and the two amalgamated. In 1969 the ASPD executive council were drafted onto the Executive Council of the ASW, which meant in effect that the two unions had amalgamated. For the ASPD, this was a very money (their funds and assets were less than E6 per member and anything less than £20 per member indicates a very weak union). One of the main reasons for this financial situation was the fact that the ASPD had very bureaucratic machinery and therefore had enormous administrative costs. The ASW was financially in a strong position. It was probably this factor which helped persuade AUBTW and NUPCM to also amalgamate with the ASW and the new union finally emerged in July of this year. Just in passing, it is worthwhile mentioning that the two unions mainly concerned with woodcutting, the ASWCM and NUFTO, shied away from these negotiations, as they are wealthy unions and all the unions that had amalgamated with the ASW were extremely weak financially. The new amalgamated union, despite the fairly strong position of the ASW, is now financially in real trouble. Last year it had a deficit of £ 160,000. One reason for this is the number of fulltime officials it has and the wages they receive. There are nearly 200 fulltime officials, and the annual salary for them alone (not to mention the amount paid out for administrative staff, etc.) amounts to Emillion. Each fulltime official receives 200% of the highest nationally agreed rate in the industry which they cater for. Although only a small section of the industry. this is the exhibition industry which receives 80p an hour. So, not including expenses, perks, etc. a fulltime official receives over £3,000 a year. The problem in trying to reduce the number of fulltime officials is that any cut would give the impression that the union had no intention of increasing in size, and it wants at all costs not to give this impression. If the union could double its membership, its financial problem would be solved, but the rank and file is extremely demoralised about the extreme right-wing leadership of the ASW.
The fight is on now for the ASW to attempt to take over completely the organised workers in the trade. At the National Federation of Construction Unions conference in June, where the ASW had 75% of the organised vote, it put a resolution to terminate the NFCU. As the NFCU had until then negotiated with the employers for the whole trade, this in effectresulted in the ASW now being the only visible negotiating body. This will make it extremely difficult for the T&GWU to operate in the building trade.
But the rightwing leadership of the ASW is not without opposition. April 1970 saw the formation of the Building Workers Charter, which goes some way in attempting to oppose the ASW leadership, albeit with the Communist Party the main force behind the Charter. The demands of the Charter can be divided into two categories: those which have the aim of improving the general conditions of building workers, and those which have the purpose of fighting the rightwing leadership of the ASW. In the first section the demands are quite straightforward and need no clarification: - E1 an hour for a 35-hour week; - 3 weeks holiday with full pay and the introduction of New Year's Day and May Day as paid holidays; - A fully comprehensive pension scheme; - Decasualisation of the building industry, including the registration of all building trade operatives; - Adequate safety and welfare regulations; - Establishing a 100% trade union membership; - Total opposition to the lump; - Full protection of shop stewards; - Full nationalisation of the building industry (this latter demand is of course meaningless in its present form-one only has to look at the nationalised industries that we have today-this demand must be linked to workers' control of the industry).
The other demands are: - Democratise the trade unions by making delegate conferences policy-making bodies; - All trade union officials to submit themselves for election every three years and branch officials every year; the disbanding of selection bodies; - The establishing of one fully democratic union for the building industry.
It is these demands which really take a swipe at the ASW. At present in the ASW, delegate conferences are a policy-making body and decisions taken there have to go to the Joint Committee, consisting of the Executive Council and the General Council, which will implement the decisions if they so wish. At present, regional secretaries are appointed by the bureaucracy for life (that is, until 65). Anyone wishing to stand in elections for the position of an official must first satisfy a selection committee as to his abilities and qualifications and this committee has absolute discretion in deciding who goes forward for election by the membership! In the (SIDE WARDS ORKERS The Bryants Strike: A The following interview with Gerry Kelly, s is shop steward from Bryants /Woodgate Va speaking in his personal capacity, took plac immediately after the demonstration in Birmingham on Tuesday 5th October, wher 2,000 workers marched through Birmingha the first stage of a campaign to kill the lum The next day, Bryants (Woodgate Valley came out in support of a claim for 20p an h (non-productive) increase in their basic rate claim was dismissed by Bryants who refused even to negotiate and dismissed the men immediately they went on strike. That ever a joint shop stewards meeting of the site to the decision to recommend to the men that rather than moderate their demands they increase them to encompass the eight dema of the demonstration (see in interview belo so widening the base of the struggle. This w unanimously accepted by the workers at a meeting on Thursday.
The significance of this development is t make the present Bryants strike a test battl the whole of Birmingham and probably the whole of the Midlands building industry. Ti employers certainly will not give in easily a demand would probably add 150% to their bill. However, because the dispute has such enormous significance for the rest of the building trade, the Woodgate Valley site car rely on really solid support from the rest of industry. Immediately they took the decisi the Mowlems workers on the same site elec to put a 50p levy per man per week while t men are on strike. The canteen is closed to lump labour and the Mowlem workers hav barricaded their site against lorries using it o backdoor to the Woodgate Valley site. The trade union branch has made the strike offi and in a statement by building trade shop stewards in Birmingham, signed by federat steward and chairman Peter Carter and un official Bill Edwards, it condemns Bryants o being "among the worst offenders in emplo lump labour" At the time of writing other are considering giving the same support as Mowlems and all the signs are that it will be forthcoming. -Could you explain how exactly the "lump" ope The lump is labour only sub-contracting. A man onto the site and says: "I've got ten men, you giv a price for the job" and he pays these men say E4 day. Men on the lump have no guaranteed week, over time rate, wey are notinsured agaist accide receive no holiday pay, no sickness or unemploym benefit and most important of all, are not insured against the sack-because they are employed on a to-day basis, they can be sacked at any time of thi or week "according to the whim of the employer Incidentally, the "lump" got its name because the basis for payment is a lump sum.
— Why are you against the "lump"? because It is cacap labour- men on we sumep wor
t Battle For The Midlands. first instance, successful candidates are electedfor five years. If the official is successful a second time, he is elected for life. Bearing these facts in mind, the Building Workers Charter is quite clearly an attack on the completely undemocratic practices of the rightwing ASW leadership.
And it is necessary that effective opposition does develop against the ASW leadership. BRA THE WORKI