The new act is designed to cut out a large tax fiddle. It has been estimated that out of a total labour force of about 1.3 million only 500,000 are on union books. Because the lump is a tax dodge it is difficult to find out exactly how many workers are involved, but the figures for unionisation give some clue. The worker in the union is more likely to be on an organised site and not on the lump. The terms of the act call for all sub-contractors to register and pay a registration free to an accountant. All other site workers will have one third of their total earnings taken back for tax in the absence of any tax rating and social security card. To register as a sub-contractor it is necessary to be up to date on previous tax payments. It is unlikely that most lump workers could get up to date on tax payments by 5 April; therefore to avoid getting taxed of a third of their income most have taken up cards. In many cases the larger firms are telling workers to get union cards. But small firms will still rely on lump labour to make a profit, requiring workers to have registered individually as sub-contractors and perhaps paying their registration fee. All this boils down to a sharpening of the tendency towards a national levelling of conditions of labour, decreasing the uneven state of the industry.
THE CHANGING BUREAUCRACY In the building industry-like other industries -rationalisation is a driving force. Besides labour being cut (new building techniques, etc.) a push for equality of conditions was on the agenda because of the much greater dominance of a few large firms (Laing, MacAlpine, Wimpey, etc.). Workers in Stoke could compare conditions, with the same boss, as those in Merseyside. The regional differences were being reduced; nevertheless the gulf between skilled and unskilled is encouraged by wage differentials and the old system of unions based on craft divisions. Faced with these new conditions, it appeared that limited local struggles were less important as the main sort of dispute in the industry. The importance of Birmingham (see The Red Mole,30) lies in its city-wide fight, and joint site actions. This growing need for greater national representation was recognised in the trade unions at many levels. In a sense the bureaucracy had never been established in the A.S.W. in the same way as in other large unions, because the struggle in the building industry went along on the basis of local initiatives.
National needs brought the chance for the A.S.W. leadership to establish its own set of national policies for the building trades unions.
Centralisation and the growing union membership has given the bureaucracy a base but is also changing its politics. National leadership, particularly in the A.S.W., were now involved in some sort of continual confrontation with the employers, because of the general political climate and because they had to have (for the first time) a real set of national goalsbroadly against the employers interests.
The bureaucracy is shifting left. This shift is uneven, and some sections (e.g. local officials and the General Council) tend to go faster than others because they have a more immediate contact with the rising militancy and the growing membership. All these changes were represented in the old A.S.W. by two things: firstly the change to becoming the U.C.A.T.T., and secondly the wage demand now being negotiated. (The previous national agreement was in 1965, and was recognised as virtually a complete sell-out.) The U.C.A. T.T. has the same internal structure as the old A.S.W. The top heavy officialdom remains, but its use as the means by which the bureaucratic policies of the leadership are given' to the enlarged membership, is lessening. It is cut off from the rank-and-file needs and wishes. With the new wave of militancy this layer is regarded unsympathetically by the workers. Taking its place are new men, organising around slogans for a more democratic union, who are speeding up the national shift to the left. Some of the regional officials in Birmingham are an example of this in a fight with the Executive Committee bureaucrats over the new rules reducing the status of the Council. As yet this group's future is not completely clear, but it must be said that it is in the best position to make gains both from the new needs for national direction and its strong links with the rank-and-file.
THE CLAIM As stated, the claim for E30 for a 35 hour week is part of the changing national scene. The employers" latest offer was rejected by the National Joint Council for the Building Industry on 8 February. This offer is for the basic craft rate for a 40 hour week to be increased by E1.40 from June 1972, and the labourers' rate by E1.20 (again an attempt to increase the differential). Holiday stamps to be increased in August 1972, so that holiday pay would increase. Sick pay to be increased in June 1972 from 50p to 75p for each day lost. This adds 34 per cent to craft rates and 3 per cent to labourers' rates, while the rest of the package represents an offer of about 7½ per cent. This offer is therefore in line with the Govern. ment's (pre-miners) wages norm. The employers have made it clear that they want to force a new wage structure onto the industry, embodying grading and job evaluation to replace the present agreement that ends this June. The claim is important because (through the efforts of the union) there is a good chance that the labourers on unorganised as well as organised sites will receive a substantial increase in basic rates. Basic rates are low in theindustry-and the worker only manages to exist on his bonus. This gives the employer tremendous power over him, as anyone who has tried to organise an overtime ban on a site will explain.
Employers are aware that upping the basic rates by a large amount will increase the combativity of large numbers of workers. We can expect a bitter struggle because of this.
The claim is also a vehicle for the more militant officials and representatives; theirs is a key task. They must organise the new ground swell trade union membership around the claim, and will use it to seek national office in the U.C.A.T.T.
THE LUMP The lump remains an important issue tor.
U.C.A.T.T. and building worker militants. Despite the cut back of numbers on the lump, while any lump labour exists it can only serve to bring negotiated conditions down. It will not be easy for lump labour to scab any longer, but the Industrial Relations Act protects scabbing anyway. As long as the lump exists, trade unionists are not secure. The problem of the new "rash" of sub-contractors, discussed in the interview, is clear. The new Act gives official status to the old lump for these people. This group will probably increase the difficulties of organising on a national scale -acting as a legalised buffer for the employers. In the long term this issue could be the central one in any campaign to Building workers at a Bryants' site in Birmingham vote to march through the city in protest agains democratise the unions in the building industry.
THE CHARTER Trade union bureaucracy exists because the rank-and-file leadership are bureaucratic, not just the hierarchy at the top. The rank-and-file worker also has bureaucratic ideas about the function of his trade union, despite his potential to struggle against it. This idea is clearly illustrated in the day-to-day practice of most trade union militants. Specific to the building industry, the Building Workers' Charter nevertheless demonstrates this truth. The Charter is the product of the same conditions that have produced the left shift in the
U.C.A.T.T. leadership, at a different level. The left felt the need for some sort of rank-and-file platform within the industry with its own conference, which has been linked from the outset with a series of successful struggles in Birmingham, London, Merseyside, ManEke the Charter, show this very clearly they struggle against the current leaderships, but at the same time inevitably provide an election platform for the left bureaucratic strata growing up in the regions. Men like Bert Smith on the Regional Executive of the U.C.A.T.T. have no difficulty in supporting the Charter. Rank-and-file militancy does not inevitably mean a conflict with union bureaucrats but, if handled correctly, can often be a product of their initiatives. This does not stop the Charter from having a larger potential than a mere election platform. It certainly represents the wishes of building worker militants, unites them and gives them a public face. The Charter, then, represents two things, not by any means in conflict with one another. First, it is a genuine grass-roots movement for militancy, but secondly the only way it can express this militancy in the union is through support for a left bureaucracy. It struggle for democracy within the union is real enough and it deserves full support from any building worker for this. However, the Charter cannot come to grips with the real reasons for bureaucracy, without challenging the gap between politics and day-to-day militancy. The nature, then, of the trade union bureaucracy in the building industry (and other industries) is such that they can live with, and indeed sincerely support and encourage trade-union militancy in certain circumstances.
FUTURE OF THE CHARTER Broadly the tendencies outlined will continue. There remains, however, the problem of how revolutionaries must work within the build. ing trade. The first point is that our work beginswith and revolves around the Building Workers' Charter. Wherever we could we have set up "Charter Groups" around the demands in the paper. In such groups we are trying to develop a tendency representing the rank-and-file movement, but also moving away from total dependence solely on the demands of the Charter. In this way we can try to distinguish the movement from left office seekers. Practically, this means presenting demands of more than just greater militancydemands which introduce the idea of the politics of trade union struggle. These centre around the platform of workers control as a day-to-day issue. This means working within Charter for the addition of certain demands, for instance, raising the issue of the union's right to stop job loss. This would involve more than a campaign for five days work for five days pay, but also link up with the issue of decentralisation. By raising these points we can show that building workers bear no responsibility for how the bosses run their industry, and should accept none. The Charter conference of April 29th in Birmingham promises to be the biggest rank-and-file conference ever held in the building industry. And it will be the best opportunity yet to present the above ideas in an organised way. in union membership and militancy, and the - What is the present situation in the building trade here?
S. • -Well, there were no organised sites till two years ago. The men are now organising. But there is no tradition here-no tradition of militancy like Merseyside. Preston is still largely unorganised-l'd say about half the sites are organised. By organised, 1 mean they have recognised shop stewards.
What about lump' labour?
S. -There is "lump' labour in the town. The site opposite us was lump'. We put pressure on, and the organiser called round. Now it's social security cards in. But they are still receiving their wages with no wage slips- the organiser is going to sort that out. "Lump' is mainly with private developments and in the suburbs.
Some of these sites are fairly large, about 200 to 300 houses.
S. With the "finishing" of lump, I can see two things. First, everybody will now be subcontractors. They will register as that.
- You can get cards to exempt you until 1976. I know blokes who have already done this by paying a fee to register.
S. - But the "labour only" merchants will carry on. They have no office or business, and don't supply materials-all they supply is labour. They will still get their cut. This is nothing but "glorified" lump. The men will face cards in, plus a tiered system of profits, as the labour only merchants will take their margin of profits as their "wages. Second, many of the men on lump will join the union. Many are behind in their tax and cannot register.
-I can see an increase in sub-contracting, like in brickworking and steel fixing. Then you are working side by side, but are paid by different employers. With the Industrial Relations Act outlawing sympathy strikes, this could mean trouble. -What are the unions like in the town? S. They are in no way militant in this area. But there are signs that this is coming to an end-at least on the larger sites. And especially as many have worked in Merseyside-they come back with some militancy in them. The two main labourers' unions are U.C.A.T.T. and T.G.W.U. The T. & G. have over 110 building workers but they are hedging on setting up a separate branch. They are putting off the militants all the time. The U.C.A.T.T. are no better. My branch-it's a labourers branch shows what the area is like. If you get ten men that pay their subs regular, you're lucky. - How strong is Charter in the area? S. -Preston Charter was set up in February. Nationally, Charter is usually organised on the bigger sites. Here we have two large sites, and men from both sites are in Charter. There is a good potential for Charter as there are new city developments coming up.
J. -So far, we've invited speakers up from Merseyside and Manchester. We sell 200 Charters an issue, and have got a local bulletin going The two sites S. was talking about participated in the recent Manchester march and token strike. Both sites stopped for half a day and about 60 men went down to the march.
-The potential for Charter is good but it will be difficult. For example, most blokes are not even in the union when they come on the job. They are not even at the stage where they can see the failing of the union and be able to support Charter. They don't know what it's supposed to be doing. - What do you think of U.C.A.T.T.'s pay demand?
S. -The official demand is £30 for 35 hours The Charter's demand is £35 for 35 hours. It seems to me the union has picked on what the Charter is selling. The union is now show. ing some signs of militancy. For example, one regional councillor is now supporting Charter.
-Martin Doyle Paul Smith Steve Donnahay John Riley
----- pull-quotes -----
group. They are represented in the General Council of the U.C.A.T.T.—who are engaged
Part of the march against the 'lump' in Birmingham last year The following interview with two IMG militants in the building trade in Preston underlines the points brought out in the article, i.e., the growth difficulties that the lump' poses to that growth.