Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Foremanship
HOPES that the Devlin Committee might produce a key piece in the jigsaw puzzle of the transport problem at the ports have been largely dispelled by the committee's report, published almost exactly a year after they were appointed on July 27, 1955. From this point of view, the title "Port Transport Industry" scarcely gives an accurate introduction to a report that keeps strictly to its terms of reference, which were to inquire into the operation of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme and advise what alterations should be,made. There is little in the report that will interest or help the road transport operator or ths lorry driver.
The main emphasis is on a proposal from the employers broadly to the effect that they should administer, the dock labour scheme on their own and not in co-operation with the trade unions as at present. The committee turn down i this proposal. They consider that the scheme is working smoothly, and that good progress has been made at least in some directions. They suggest that the scheme should continue much on the same lines as before, with perhaps a more active policy on such matters as the development of a greater sense of responsibility among the dock workers.
Expectation that the committee's report would point towards a satisfactory solution of the labour problem perhaps explains why the subject was not prominent at either of the two conferences on dock delays sponsored by the Road Haulage Association within the past 12 months. The problem has been prominent enough in the minds of transport operators. They are not likely to agree that the present arrangements are fundamentally sound, and that a few small modifications will make it almost perfect. Lack of co-operation from dock workers remains one of the chief complaints of both hauliers and C-licence holders.
Series of Strikes
In a report published last November, the London Chamber of Commerce blamed many of the troubles experienced by users directly upon the series of strikes of dock labdur, which had " bedevilled " the efficient working of the Port of London. The committee set out these strikes in detail, as well as strikes in other ports, and refer to "mass indiscipline" among workers who are not keeping to their side of the dock labour bargain.
The committee say that "mass indiscipline has not been dealt with satisfactorily under the scheme," and "cannot recommend any amendment by which it could be." They do not consider this a defect in the scheme, on the grounds that strikes are common in all industries. The force of this argument is weakened by figures published elsewhere in the report. Between 1947 and 1955, an average of 3,134 man-days per 1,000 insured persons have been lost yearly in dock disputes. For the next most troubled industry, shipbuilding and ship repairing, the figure is 890.
If all workers from time to time resort to the weapon of the official or unofficial strike, the frequency with which it is used in the docks indicates that there are special circumstances. At the risk of straying beyond their terms of reference, the committee might have looked a little more closely into those circumstances. They might, in particular, have paid more attention to the prevalence of restrictive practices born of the fear of unemployment and of the evils of casual labour.
B12 • Many of the practices are now notorious. Although most drivers and their employers are reluctant to complain too loudly for fear of victimization, enough of them will talk at sufficient length to enable a picture to be built up. The dockers, with no attempt at concealment, alternate spells of work with spells of idleness. This may be because, often strictly in accordance with union rules, twice as many men are put on to a job as are needed. As only half of them can work at one time, their mates get into the habit of drifting off to do whatever they think fit.
Working to rule often means refusing to do what common sense demands. The gangs will often move from hatch to hatch, or from hatch to quay, in accordance with their own ideas, and not in such a way as to make their services available where they would be most useful. Their fight against mechanization is equally obstinate. Many a large organization, it has been said, has more fork-lift trucks than are to be found in the whole of the Port of London.
Mitigating Trouble The labour problem is not the only difficulty experienced by operators whose vehicles travel to and from the docks. The large number of interests concerned in the final delivery of -a cargo from a starting point perhaps many thousands of miles away makes inevitably for complexity and sometimes for confusion. Plans for mitigating some of the trouble are already being tried in certain ports, as a result of investigations initiated by such bodies as the London Chamber of Commerce and the R.H.A. There have even been inquiries into possibleimprovements of road approaches to the docks.
Neither operators nor drivers will feel that their grievances are being fully met until they notice an improvement in the service they receive from the dockers. At some ports vehicles are still kept waiting overnight, or even for several days, before they can unload, although there seems to be no lack of men available who could do the work in a few minutes and leave the driver free to return home.
It may be that evidence from the road transport -side would have been helpful to the committee, who have little to 'say on the standard of efficiency of the dockers as it appears to the observer. The report appreciates the need to strengthen authority. In a phrase reminiscent of Mr. Stephen Potter, it suggests that port employers should "cultivate a higher standard of foremanship." If there are foremen who feel that they suffer from lack of authority, the committee feel "the defect is in the foreman" rather than in the dock labour scheme. They might have probed a little deeper to discover whether the shortcomings of the dockers in the eyes of the outside world were caused by something different from either the character of the foreman or the structure of the scheme.
The general impression left by their report is that the committee do not really believe that the present organization solves the labour problem at the ports, but equally do not believe that any of the proposed alternatives would be better. Next time they meet, transport operators and other interests concerned with delays at docks may have to include labour relations on their agenda. If they have looked to the committee to fit this particular item into the jigsaw, they have looked in vain.