Back to Labour Values index
Back to section index
Back to article index
Previous
PETER HEATHFIELD
Derbyshire NUM
G.D.H. Cole prophesied in 1917 that mining and the railways would be the first industries to seek self-management. He anticipated that, following nationalisation, or state management, workers through their trade unions would demand involvement in the running and control of these industries.
We Have Limited Ourselves
Sixty years have gone by since Cole discussed these ideas, and 30 years have passed since the mines were nationalised. Hopefully, the Harrogate Forums will ensure a more in depth examination of Industrial Democracy than has occurred hitherto. We have rather meekly limited ourselves - like many other sections of the British Labour Movement - to inept practice of an unsatisfactory concept-consultation .
The whole business of "workers' control", or "industrial democracy", has been kicked around in our Union for some time now and while there have been schools, conferences, papers, pamphlets galore involving NUM members in discussion and analysis of the ideas, the subject is obviously felt as a thorn in its side by our NEC which explicitly urged National Conference in 1974 to reject, failing remittance, a Resolution from the Kent Area calling for an extension of Industrial Democracy providing for workers' participation in policy and decision making at all levels of the industry and to provide also for majority representation of workers to management bodies at all levels.
Similarly, Annual Conference in 1976 rejected the South Derbyshire resolution which called for Management Boards to be made up of not less than 51 per cent of Trade Union representatives. Although not totally satisfactory, acceptance of the resolution or remittance would have ensured the debate had continued. However, the NEC opposed the resolution.
Our official position has been one of concern that if we take over the cares and functions of management beyond a very limited point we may cease to carry out our proper functions as trade unionists individually and as a union on the whole.
That's a very valid concern, in my opinion. But, I think that it's a way of avoiding the real issues, and that we skate very close to being dishonest with ourselves and our fellow trade unionists. We must ensure that the NUM retains its identity. We must also ensure that Trade Union representatives elected to management bodies reflect the policies of the Trade Union and are accountable to it.
One of the valuable things about the several conferences on workers' control and the mining industry which have been held over the past few years is that people get a chance to discuss what that elusive phrase "industrial democracy" means. We get beneath the surface of all the business about "worker-directors" and "class collaboration".
Avoiding Real Issues
Of course these concepts lurk as real dangers, but they no more than sum up the meaning of workers' control than "impersonal bureaucracy" sums up the National Health Service. At Harrogate, we should be able to clear some of the doubts and misunderstandings that workers' control props up capitalism and retards social progress. The reaction earlier this year of BACM to the NUM's limited demands indicates their unwillingness to change management systems and their resistance to ordinary miners playing a part in the control of mines.
The recent attempts to reintroduce piecework systems into coal production stem from management failures to organise successful work patterns. In 1966, on the introduction of the NPLA [National Power Loading Agreement], [2] Lord Robens stated "with the right technology correctly applied productivity would improve".
[2] The NPLA replaced the piece rate system with a national wage structure - PB
It is not the miners' fault that output is falling. Delays, breakdowns, manpower shortages, late arrivals of materials, etc. are still responsible for major output losses. We still hear of rippers having to go outbye and drag arches several hundred yards in order to secure the roof. [3]
[3] 'Rippers are men who remove the rock above the coal seam and set rings (arches) to raise the height of the gate or road as the coal face advances. Outbye means going towards the pit shaft from the coal face. (opposite of inbye).' Definitions from Wikipedia Glossary of coal mining terminology - PB
Clear Up Misunderstandings
Many miners have positive views on what's going wrong, but their opinions are not listened to in management quarters.
Because of the dangers and hazards of coal mining, there is no doubt that we should be at the top of any wages table going; but beyond maintaining our position there, we have to develop an outlook which goes beyond the next couple of years. We have to start looking ahead to the time when North Sea oil and gas are really moving.
A proper Fuel Policy is essential; for that we need to co-operate with other Unions involved to work out the problem of how we are to have access to the facts, the information used by both Government and the management of the oil companies, the NCB and the CEGB to make their decisions - because these decisions presently taken way above and beyond our knowledge and control, will crucially affect the coal industry and the coal miners.
Miners Have Positive Views
What steps can we take? An extension of collective bargaining is one answer or part of the answer; both at pit and area level, the management could be moved some on safety, or manning.
But that still doesn't let us in on the decisions coming from high up which determine for instance pit management's approach to hiring and firing, planning, purchasing and stores, etc.
How can it weaken us to learn how those decisions are taken?
How can we lose our strength by increasing our knowledge?
It seems to me that our NEC, with respect, has itself caught in a bit of a muddle.
Suppose that, at pit and panel level, certain management decisions were subject to agreement with NUM. Suppose we had the right of veto over managerial appointments, over orders for equipment, over subcontracts, over safety tests of new underground machinery. After all, it's our lives that are at stake.
What's the point in fighting for proper wages, the so-called fruits of our labour, if we're in no condition to benefit from them?
What Do We Do?
Our is an industry which is ready for experimentation in OUR terms. It's nationalised; we're employed by a single firm, producing a single product; and a single trade union - the NUM - covers those most responsible for getting the product out.
Many of us are well aware of the potential here. Our National President, Joe Gormley, has expressed the opinion that workers' control is highly desirable - with at least 51 per cent control - as an ideal.
Mines Ripe for Workers' Control
But the stumbling block seems to be the feeling that no Government would introduce legislation making possible some of these changes, so any push on the part of the NUM would be a waste of time. Well, I cannot recall any of our demands being handed to us in a silver platter; usually years of campaigning and some very tough battles have gone before achieving anything!
Tony Benn
But does the current Government present such a stumbling block? Think back to our 1975 Annual Conference in Scarborough, and to the speech made there by Tony Benn, the Energy Minister.
He said this: "... With public ownership achieved and investment going on apace, what is the next area in which we would hope to see this (coal) industry move? I venture to suggest to you that it must necessarily include developments in the area of democratic self-management.
"Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution, which is often referred to but is not often read and understood, speaks of 'the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange' but goes on to say 'under the best obtainable methods of popular administration and control'.
No Window Dressing
"... And although workers ... quite properly reject window dressing which gives the appearance of power without the reality and reject solutions imposed from above... somewhere is the thought that public ownership must mean more than a new name over the door.
"I hope very much in the NUM, in the way you think best, and at the pace you think best, that you will build on the strength and structure of a very powerful and important union ... that you will help to reopen a historic debate upon the role of workers in the control of their own industry and in your own time come forward with solutions."
Harrogate presents us with the opportunity to broaden the discussion on Industrial Democracy. Although we shall not be determining policy, we must ensure that mineworkers have the information to continue the debate.
We have the Ability
Many of us feel that miners have the ability and capacity to play a major role in the running of our industry. It is not our intention to prop up capitalism, but rather to formulate and fashion new systems of management that will enable the socialist cause to advance.
Democracy at all levels is a permanent struggle, an expanding awareness. Our failure to advance the cause of such awareness will inevitably lead to the decline of democracy.