Back to Labour Values index
Back to Dock Strike index
Back to article index
Previous
REGISTERED PORTS v UNREGISTERED PORTS
The problem the Labour Editor referred to does not exist in the non-scheme ports. These ports have not been expanding and growing because of their owners' desire to do the dockers down. Felixstowe, the largest of them, was established in the early 50s "when Gordon Parker ... bought a derelict and silted-up dock largely because his family grain business was experiencing frustrating delays when exporting through other ports." (Sunday Times, 30.7.72) The port continued to grow for two reasons (l) it had geographic advantages over London, "... many others ... see it as a staging point on the highway into the heart of Europe, eight to ten hours nearer in voyage time to the Common Market, via Rotterdam, than the Port of London " (ibid) and (2) its production process is more reliable and efficient than the registered ports. This second reason depends on the relation of the workers to the production process. "Many of the men who came to restore the dock and then extend it stayed on to work it as dockers. It gave them opportunities for employment in an area which was not over endowed with them ... Old mistrusts, lack of real relationships between employer and employee, and lack of communication between them, all the things which have bedevilled many of the old-established ports, are not part of the Felixstowe picture. There, good communications hinge on the fact that the dock company is the sole employer of labour and security is equated with permanent employment. And most important, especially since so much of the present crisis pivots on the issue of containerisation and jobs lost as a result of it, is that Felixstowe has always managed to win and siphon off enough business to keep it providing new and additional job opportunities for men even though it is highly capital intensive and grows on its own efficiency. In short a new machine there is a joy to the men, not a threat to their livelihood." (ibid) The workers at the unregistered ports supported the registered dockers throughout the strike; they came out unofficially when the five were imprisoned and in fact it was their delegates who abstained in the conference on 27th July making it possible for the registered dockers to stay out for their demands. (It seems clear that the abstention occurred because the registered dockers argued it was their decision to make and the non-registered delegates agreed - though they were prepared to go on strike to support that decision, see Sunday Times, 30.7.72, p43.)
Now Socialist Worker's response to the above Sunday Times description of Felixstowe workers would be that these workers were lacking in consciousness - their blindspot was in believing that their conditions were real: that their jobs were the best available in the area, that they had nothing to fear from machinery which increased their productivity because an increasing volume of business meant not only that their jobs were secure but that more labour would be needed; that they had nothing to lose in doing their jobs, i.e. fulfilling their labour contract because the employer in hiring them was indeed after their labour power - he had no ulterior motive. We for our part can see no reason to doubt that that Felixstowe workers would strike unofficially if they had material reason or need. The fact is they have not.
Under capitalism, the needs of society and its productive forces are met through the market. The port employers in the registered ports were unable to produce the service demanded by the shipowners (not only at the price required, but also with the required efficiency - shortest turnaround time - and reliability - service which is relatively continuous which means few unofficial strikes). Therefore the small employers - entrepreneurs - sprung up to meet this real social and productive need. And until production and social needs are scientifically planned thus putting the market out of a job, such entrepreneurs will continue to 'spring up'. They do so not because capitalism is a grasping, inhuman system but because they meet a real need of the society. It is a fact that one of the reasons the registered port employers have not made the necessary technical and organisational changes fast enough or thoroughly enough has been their workers' resistance to change. Employers today cannot dictate to their workforce, especially if that work force is as well organised as are the dockers. It is also a fact that these same workers could have forced the necessary changes on their employers; they could have used their organised power and place in the production process to make the employer efficient. But, horrified Socialist Worker readers will retort, that would have put them out of jobs. We reply that there is no indication that higher labour productivity means fewer jobs under capitalism. In Germany where there has been a much faster rate of technological change than in England, the demand for labour has been so high it has been necessary to import 2 million workers to satisfy that demand. Temporary unemployment occurs and there is also a need for retraining. But the state is prepared to make provision for both of these because it recognises the working class' support for them. What both the Morning Star and Socialist Worker have neglected to notice is that the dockers have demanded not the right to work for the working class as a whole, not even their own right to work, but their right to work at their specific jobs.