Busman’s half-holiday
Many London bus drivers and conductors saw the passing of 1948 and the commencement of 1949 from the rooms and halls in which they had met to consider what action they should take to achieve their claim for increased pay for Saturday afternoon work. January 1st found some of them on strike all day, most of them on strike from 1 p.m. onwards, and a few not on strike at all. A confusing state of affairs. To understand the situation in which the busmen found themselves it is necessary to examine their position during and since the war years.
During the 1939-1945 war, the Transport and General Workers’ Union, of which London busmen are members, concurred with the London Passenger Transport Board to accept an amended working agreement, foregoing certain conditions that had been achieved during previous years. The “five standing” rule was suspended to allow more passengers to be carried per bus. The spreadover duty position was revised and concessions were granted by the men “to help the war effort.” The generally-accepted idea was that after the war the pre-war conditions would be re-established, and that the L.P.T.B. would consider favourably a number of demands for further improvements in wages and conditions. The phrase used was, “When normal conditions prevail.”
On the strength of this the Union formulated what was known as its Post-War Policy. This included demands for an increase in the basic rate of pay, longer-annual holidays, payment during sickness, a shorter working week, pensions on retirement, increased time allowances for signing on and off duty and increased pay for Saturday, Sunday and holiday working.
The post-war years have seen a number of changes both in the industry and in the union. The London Passenger Transport Board has gone; its place has been taken by the London Transport, Executive, which is a section of the state-controlled national transport system.
London passenger road transport comprises three main undertakings, Central Buses, Trams and Trolley Buses, and Green Line and Country Services. In 1947 a demand was made for the breaking down of the differentials between these undertakings and, although it did not succeed, it resulted in a common working agreement for the bus and tram men of all the sections. Previously each section had negotiated and worked under an agreement, separate from, and different to the other sections. Although wages and conditions still vary between the sections, agreements are negotiated on behalf of the staff of the three operations. This brings the men’s representatives together at conferences on common issues. Local matters are still dealt with by the sections independently of each other.
The working of a five-day week in a number of other industries has resulted in an increase of Saturday pleasure travel. The greater concentration of sports and social facilities at week-ends results in busmen getting less and less time off on Saturdays. Work becomes comparatively harder on that day. A Saturday evening off from work is a rare occasion for a London busman.
By a conference decision of the men’s union representatives the “closed shop” has been introduced into the industry. To become, or remain, a busman one must be a member of the Transport and General Workers Union or other union recognised by the Trades Union Congress.
Some adjustments of pay and conditions have been made since the war. Where these have constituted gains for the busmen, as in the case of increases in pay, the 44-hour working week and an improved holiday system, they have been below the level of the men’s original demands.
During the early part of 1948 a demand was made for an increase in Sunday pay, from time-and-a-quarter to time-and-a-half. To enforce this demand the busmen staged a one-day Sunday strike. The T. & G.W. Union branded the strike as “unofficial” and the Union machinery was withheld from the men. All decisions had to be made independently, garage by garage, or depot by depot. Despite this, the strike was practically unanimous and a good degree of solidarity was experienced. Although it was originally intended that the strike should continue each Sunday until the demand was met, no effort was made after the one day of striking. Some weeks later the rate of pay for Sunday work was increased to time-and-a-half.
Now, the demand is for time-and-a-half on Saturday afternoons after 1 p.m. The case is presented in The Record, the official journal of the T. & G.W.U., November, 1948, issue:
“There are strong reasons for presenting the claim at this time, foremost of which is the effect of tin.’ application of the five-day week, now accepted as the normal working week in many industries, on transport staffs who are compelled by the very nature of their work to sedulously serve the ever-growing needs of the travelling public on every Saturday afternoon and evening throughout the year.
“There is no lack of will on the part of the drivers and conductors to perform their duties on this particular fay whilst most people are enjoying leisure time as best they can, but recognition in the form of a compensatory payment is a due require¬ment fully justified by the circumstance of there being no general day of rest or leisure falling on Saturdays as is the case in other industries. Secondly, the work performed on Saturday afternoons and evenings is regarded by those who serve the travelling needs of the public as more onerous and exacting than on week-days. There is, of course, a greater concentration of people to be transported during the more limited and non-staggered period on Saturday, thus placing an additional strain on the crews.”
The claim was rejected by the London Transport Executive on the grounds, amongst others, that the rates of pay now in operation were intended to provide for all changed conditions up to the time that the agreement commenced to operate; that there has been no change which warrants an increase in pay since that date; also, that the industry cannot afford to pay the rate demanded. Lord Latham, the £5,000 a year chairman of the L.T.E., estimates the cost of meeting the demand at £750,000 a year. (Sunday Express, 3/1/49.)
When the assembled delegates from the bus depots and garages were informed of the attitude of the L.T.E., they resolved to demand the pay increase by January 1st,’failing which they would call for strike action after 1 p.m. on that date, and continue such action each succeeding Saturday until the increase of pay was granted. At subsequent meetings, the majority of busmen endorsed their delegates’ decision.
A leaflet was issued, signed by the National Secretary of the T. & G.W.U., warning the men against strike action. This leaflet quoted a section of an agreement signed in 1940 and still operating, which bound the Union and the Transport Executive, when in dispute, not to resort to strike, lockout or any action that would disorganise the transport services. This was a surprise to most of the men. who had no idea that such a clause existed in their agreement.
Further discussion with the L.T.E. on the wage increase lasted up to December 31st, whilst the men awaited the, result. The result was a flat refusal by Lord Latham to meet the men’s demand. The Union officials ruled out strike action as unconstitutional and recommended the acceptance of Lord Latham’s suggestion, that the case be submitted to an independent tribunal.
So, again at midnight, on December 31st-January 1st, the men met near their respective garages and depots to decide what line of action to take. They distrusted tribunals, they doubted the “independence.” As one busman was heard to express, “If Lord Latham suggests a tribunal, fhat is adequate reason for me to distrust and resist one.”
The men at any one garage could not tell what was transpiring at any of the others. There was no means of communication. In any one case a garage might have been the only one on strike or the only one at work. The result of these independent decisions was overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. Some were for all day striking, some for ceasing work at 1 p.m. and a few decided to remain at work. When; it was found that a garage had decided not to work in the morning, other garages that operated over the same routes, took action not to work those routes.
Immediately there was a howl from the press. The facts of the busmen’s claim were distorted. Different newspapers gave different estimates of the men’s weekly wage, nearly all in excess of the correct figures. Most papers agreed that the busmen were “selfish,” “blackmailing the public” or “failing to honour their contract.” They all did their best to inflame opinion against the busmen.
Lord Latham had a letter posted in all garages and depots threatening those who did not keep ” . . . good faith and honourable observance of agreements …” and “… any employee who fails to carry out the terms and conditions of his employment …” with dismissal from the Executive’s employment. Mr. Isaacs, Minister of Labour, had his say about unofficial strikers and contract breakers. According to the News Chronicle on January 3rd, the “Government is considering whether legal action can be taken against the London busmen who stopped work on Saturday afternoon.” In general, the few hours that the busmen refrained from working caused quite a storm and gave the strike a notoriety out of proportion to its importance in the annals of the history of bus strikes.
A further delegate conference was called together on January 5th. It was addressed by Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the T. & G.W. Union. He succeeded in persuading the men’s representatives to reconsider their strike decision, and to cancel the strike before the next Saturday. The men at their branch meetings agreed to resume normal Saturday working on January 8th.
This short, sharp tussle conveys certain lessons. First, it should be apparent to the busmen, and to all other workers, that the State can be just as vicious an employer as a private company or individual. Having a Labour Party in charge of the State machine does not alter the matter. The dockers’ strike during last June should have proved that.
The position of organised workers in nationalised industries would be funny were it not so tragic. The trade unions gave birth to the Labour Party. They are still its mainstay. Now, with the Labour Party in power, many of the trade unions are becoming more like appendages of government departments. So, when an industry is nationalised, it comes under the control of the State which is operated by the trade union-sponsored Labour Party. State representatives like Lord Latham are on quite agreeable terms with Union chiefs like Mr. Deakin. One is the employer’s representative, the other appears as the men’s. But what happens? Lord Latham says that the strikers must be penalised by suffering stoppages of pay. What, does Mr. Deakin reply? Does he say, “I am secretary of the largest trade union in this country, don’t you dare touch a penny of the men’s pay!” Does he say that? No! Does he keep his opinion to himself and say nothing? Not even that. Mr. Deakin indicated that “. . . he agreed with the executive’s decision.” (Daily Telegraph, 5/1/49.)
The closed shop puts strike delegates in a dangerous position. If they are expelled from the union, as were some busmen after the 1937 strike (see SOCIALIST STANDARD, July, 1937, and August, 1938) they can no longer hold their job. This is a powerful weapon to make trade union members toe the line.
Busmen have tried a number of different types of strikes. They have frequently indulged in the complete stoppage of work. They have tried the “go slow” strike and the “work to rule” strike, both very similar. The one-day-a-week, or the half-a-day-a-week strike has certain advantages if it is organised and carried through. It does not drain the men’s pockets completely as does the more ordinary type of strike. The weekly pay loss may hurt a bit, but it need not cause so much suffering that the men must get back to work hungry and defeated. It can continue for a greater length of time. But unless it causes a considerable amount of dislocation it will not be effective. It is not a matter of depriving shareholders of their profits now-a-days. With the industry nationalised the erstwhile shareholder, now a bondholder with state securities, gets his dividend whether the men strike or not. He is not in the least affected. So a strike, to be effective, must cause dislocation in order to bring pressure to bear on the government. That is where the rub comes for the busmen. The service that they produce is consumed as it is produced. Immediately they stop, work the service that, they provide stops also and their fellow workers suffer the inconvenience. The busmen have to work face to face with those whose inconvenience is increased in direct proportion to the busmen’s determination to fight out an issue. This gives the employer the lever that he uses so well. With tales of workers walking home from work in the pouring rain and children disappointed at being unable to visit the pantomime, the press and radio stimulate animosity between workers in different industries. Remember Mr. Attlee during the 1948 Dock Strike? “You strike against your mates, strike, against the housewives,” a “strike against the ordinary common people.” (News Chronicle, 29/6/48) Now it is the busmen against the dockers and others. “Public opinion” it is called. It is really a lack of understanding that all workers have a common interest as workers, not as busmen, bakers, dockers, dentists, hauliers or housewives.
There is one type of strike that the busmen have not tried yet. One that would not alienate “public opinion.” One that would not interfere with the normal running of the services. One that would show who had the welfare and interests of the “public” at heart. One that would make the newspapers turn about face. The Busmen, have not yet tried to gain their demands by running the buses, giving a good service, but not collecting the fares. That would solve most of their strike problems—and other people’s too. It would show who really had the sympathy for the poor tired worker trudging home in the wind and the London busmen! Do you remember that book your employers gave you just over a year ago? It was called “London Transport Carried On.” It told of the “181 members of the staff of London Transport who had been killed on duty, with another 1,867 more or less seriously injured”. (page 7). It was “a record of the tenacity and courage of-the men and women of London Transport in six years of war.” You were heroes when you were shedding blood in defence of the property of your masters. But now, when you ask for a few shillings for Saturday afternoon work, you are—well you are anything but heroes. That is Capitalism. Don’t you think it is about time you did something to change it?
W. WATERS