A second victory has been chalked up in what is part of the war to secure a future for Britain's construction industry. But, as ever, the value of winning this battle depends on the next steps and the lessons learned…
Victory over employment of British workers – now there is a war to win
WORKERS, JUNE 2009 ISSUE
On 6 May, a demonstration of construction workers took place outside the site of the Olympic stadium in east London to highlight the refusal of employers engaged on that project to employ British workers. This went largely unreported and without the official support of the unions. While the demonstration was relatively small, what also went unreported was that a number of sites were shut down as a result.
It is in the nature of class struggle that it will ebb and flow, interspersed with flash points. It is not possible to maintain a high level of activity if our forces are unable to sustain it either due to lack of numbers or clarity of line. As was reported in the March edition of Workers, the issue of the use of foreign labour had not gone away after the Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) dispute and would resurface again. Such a point was reached when engineering construction workers walked off the job on 19 May at the South Hook LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) terminal being built near Milford Haven in South Wales.
The dispute was sparked by the refusal of Hertel-UK to employ any more British laggers, choosing instead to bring in workers from Poland. Action quickly spread to the nearby Dragon LNG site followed by Aberthaw and then to some 15 sites across England and Wales, including LOR, the focus of the previous explosion of struggle earlier this year. The speed of the response to this latest attack forced Hertel to back down within two days with the employers (and no doubt government) fearing a further galvanising of resolve, not only among construction workers but generally throughout the country.
What next?
So, a second victory has been chalked up in what is part of the war to secure a future for Britain's construction industry. But, as ever, the value of winning this battle depends on the next steps, lessons learned, and how it is seen outside the industry within our class. The question still remains: What are our demands?
The truth is that British workers are demanding the right to work on British construction projects and under the national agreement – NAECI (National Agreement Engineering Construction Industry, known as the Blue Book) – and there is absolutely nothing wrong or “racist” in the demand. Unfortunately there are many forces at work, “left” and “right”, that seek to dilute the clarity of this call. Such is the desperation not to be attacked as “racist” that the slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” is shied away from because the BNP use it in their attempt to con people into thinking that they are for workers – that’s easily resolved – just add after it “And NO to the BNP” and kill two birds with one stone!
Mealy-mouthed
It really is mealy-mouthed to suggest that we are simply trying to make the employers adhere to the Blue Book and the SPA (Supplementary Project Agreement – used on Category 1, major new build sites). Invariably the SPA contains the clause "When recruiting, contractors will give due regard to the recruitment of suitably qualified local labour". So, the employer gives due regard and decides to employ from overseas – rubbish. What we really mean by that clause is that we want any unemployed British worker to be given a job before employers consider bringing in anyone from outside the country – and we all know it! Why else, when we know there are unemployed Brits, does it flare up? That the employer is simply just not playing the game?
We also know the employers, government and the main unions – Unite and GMB – are wedded to the EU and the free movement of capital and labour, and think that somehow it is wrong, or even “racist”, to try and control this movement. Is it really accepted that the EU millions have the right to move to any other country, to live and seek work without any control whatsoever? (And there we have the unholy alliance of the employers and the leftist Trotskyist groups, for both agree that should be the case.) We know that under EU law the employers can employ whomever they wish from within the EU, that it is illegal to discriminate in favour of any particular nationality and they are quick to remind us of this “fact”. The reality is,that British workers do not accept this and neither do the majority in the EU nor the world. If the employers felt strong enough, the SPA clause would be removed and they would use EU law to enforce it.
From “the other side” comes desperation to avoid the truth about the EU being exposed for what it really is. Unite has called on Labour MEPs to state their position regarding the right of Britain not to implement in full the Posted Workers Directive.
‘Social dumping’
This directive, which came into force in December 1999, seeks to prevent the free movement of labour within the EU from causing distortions of competition and bringing forms of “social dumping”. Apart from this and the call to challenge the recent rulings in the European Court of Justice that render national agreements worthless – interesting that, in recognition of our strength of feeling against the EU, the outcome of the LOR dispute has not been challenged – there has been little support shown for the plight of our construction industry.
This has led to a number of problems and a potential turning away from our trade unions, either in total or in part, from those seeking more open support from their unions. There is an opportunist move by one faction of the “left” in trying to cosy up to the RMT, partly because of its connection with the offshore oil workers’ liaison committee, partly due to the RMT’s militancy and partly because of its position over the European Union. This also reflects an introspective position that concerns itself mainly with the construction industry and at times denigrates not only the public sector, but manufacturing also.
Yet the problems that all unions face over this question are the same. The answer is not to jump ship but to fight to win an anti-EU position within Unite and the GMB. While our unions’ democracy still exists it must be used.
Summit call
Unite has also decided to call a “national summit” stating that the key to resolving the current problems lies in the hands of the shop stewards. Careful over the use of that word 'national' and remember, to be international you must first have national. In addition, Unite says “it is now time for the energy providers to take responsibility for the contractors and sub-contractors and insist that the contractors give UK workers fair access to work and that the national agreement is honoured.” So, on the one hand the key is the shop stewards and on the other it is up to the employers to police the employers – and not a mention of the EU and their laws anywhere to be seen.
The summit is called but no date yet has been announced. Meanwhile, the Blue Book is currently up for renegotiation and runs out in December this year. Firming up the SPA clause is one of our demands, while the employers’ organisation (ECIA) seeks once again the removal of the tea break. Negotiations are stalling, and moving quickly to a formal national balloting position is the desire from the cabins.
Shop stewards
The role of the shop stewards is key and must reflect the thoughts and anger from those on site concerning the right to work in our own country. But there must also come a point where the shroud of permanence cloaking the EU is ripped away and the demand simply to implement the Posted Workers Directive is recognised as inadequate for our needs. A clearer direction is needed and must seek to include our class as a whole.
In the meantime, any peace on our sites can only be temporary, as the employers will undoubtedly test our mettle again in the near future. We have demonstrated our readiness to fight and willingness to respond to the employers’ attacks; turning our defence into attack must be the aim.