When construction workers building a new power station in Plymouth walked out this summer, they highlighted a raft of dilemmas facing the working class – from migration to the role of unions, and the government’s draconian anti-union legislation…
Construction: lessons from a picket line
WORKERS, NOVEMBER 2008 ISSUE
Following the sacking of 16 British workers at the new power station being constructed in Langage near Plymouth, a picket line was mounted on the morning of 7 August and respected by some 200 workers of various nationalities including Polish and Portuguese, demanding that the 16 be reinstated. By 09.00 the gates were locked and passes withdrawn from those outside the gates. The main contractor, Alstom (a French multi-national), was demanding that the contractors on site whose workers were involved, obtain repudiation of the dispute from the unions (Unite – Amicus and T&G – and the GMB) and sack the workers.
Negotiations led to a settlement: the 16 received compensation for being sacked, and those on the picket line returned to work with no recriminations. Although they would lose a day’s pay they would only lose the bonus for that day and not the whole month as is stipulated in the industry’s SPA (Supplementary Project Agreement).
The dispute brings into sharp focus a number of important questions. What role does migrant labour play? How do we combat it? Where did those on strike want to take the dispute? Did the union “sell out” the sacked workers, as is claimed by some? And what are the weapons ranged against such action?
Alstom had engaged the agency Atlanco to recruit labour for the job and, as shown by their advert in the press, were clearly seeking Polish labour. A requirement for the job was the ability to speak Polish – for a job in Britain! Why? Because they are cheaper? Only in part. The site is covered by the NAECI (Blue Book) with all rates for all trades clearly laid out, but as ever the employers, not just Atlanco, are prone to “make mistakes”.
There are a number of reasons why Alstom has instructed Atlanco to bring on Polish workers. They think that foreign workers are more compliant, more willing to cut corners and less likely to organise because they are more vulnerable, and they are – at first. There is also a shortage of skills in a number of trades.
French takeover
Alstom has a number of other major projects soon to start, and this, together with the recent French takeover of Britain’s nuclear production, puts them in pole position for the projected nuclear build. Additionally, the combined gas and steam power station at Langage is both over budget and behind schedule. It is thought that Langage is seen as a testing ground. Could it be that in the bigger picture they wish to undertake future jobs both outside the Blue Book and with foreign labour?
In the weeks running up to the dispute, Polish workers had been arriving on site in significant numbers. On the day the 16 were sacked, as they left, Polish workers took their place and gave the impression it was a clear attack on British workers.
|
| Construction site, Liverpool |
Discontent had been growing at the difficulty British workers had at getting a job on site, and for the record, it isn't racist to demand your out-of-work mate is given a job before someone from outside of Britain. When workers turned up for work on the day and learnt of the sackings it didn't take much to turn the issue into one of migrant labour, and refuse to cross the line. Here there is lack of clarity, over the true position of our relative strengths, our demands generally, and on the day, specifically.
On our side, we were angry about the migrant labour and wanted to show the employer we weren’t going to stand for it, demanding reinstatement. At the same time, the 16 had begun negotiations to extract a pay-off from Atlanco the night before, in the clear knowledge that to “play by the rules” and use the disputes procedure they would get nothing. Under the Blue Book, in your first four weeks on the job, you can be sacked with only two hours notice and have no recourse to anything but internal company procedures – utterly futile – you would never be allowed back on site! The men could have accepted the offer but were determined to make their point.
At the employer's disposal are the weapons of the state including the law, both domestic and European. For a start 'unofficial' action, as this was, is unlawful. The employer's response in the first instance is to demand repudiation (to disown, cast adrift) by the union. If the union fails to repudiate, it risks fines and possible sequestration.
Once the union repudiates, workers either return to work immediately or are liable to lawful dismissal, with no employment rights whatsoever. The employer may selectively re-engage whom they wish, if any. Some say that the union should not repudiate but that it should take on the laws and render them inoperable. As a general aim - of course, but that is a battle that has to be won and not entered into lightly. It demands not only organisation but clarity of thought, and is not to be started if our forces are unprepared to the extent that we are. The same goes for ridiculous calls for a general strike.
Were we ready?
So, on the day, were we ready to start the prairie fire? Some told of tales of coachloads of pickets coming from south Wales, that the Isle of Grain was going to come out, and then there would have been others. Could we shut the job down? For how long? We could have got into pitched battles with the police escorting in scab labour and shown the true nature of the state, as if we didn't know. Only one small problem – it wasn't the demand of the workers on the site or anything like it! We would have had yet another glorious defeat. Have we learnt so little? That level of clarity is not shown by the cry “It cost us a day's pay!”. And since when do we hit the gates expecting to be paid? No “sell-out”, just recognition of reality.
So the Poles, and others, are here, now. We have a choice: fight among ourselves or unite against the employer. Any talk of setting up some sort of apartheid union, as the BNP have tried, would still have exactly the same problems all unions have and is an idea benefiting only the employer.
Ultimately that battle has to be faced, and clearly it cannot be done “lawfully”. It is against the law for a union to even hold a strike ballot over migrant labour – in both domestic and EU law. Besides, in general, unions (and all main parliamentary parties) are in favour of the EU with its “free movement of labour”. The call for British jobs for British workers from these quarters is cynical. Despite recent anti union judgments in the European Court, we continue to be taken up the alley of trying to reform the EU, to make it work for us, refusing to accept its true nature. Can we have border controls? No, not if we’re in the EU. Can we protect what’s left of manufacturing? No, not if we’re in the EU. The list goes on. Nevertheless, the arguments must be fought in our unions to clarify yet further the need to get out. And at the same time, new ways of fighting will have to be developed.