STEEL CONFERENCE
OR some considerable time, a Study Group has been meeting in the Sheffield district to discuss problems of steel nationalisation. It has consisted of Trade Union members and Officials (in their personal capacity) drawn from several of the different Unions in the steel industry. A few weeks ago they circulated a document to steel workers in other Areas, Members of Parliament and a few University Lecturers and others, calling them to attend a meeting in Sheffield. Sixty-five people attended the meeting, coming from Sheffield, Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Scunthorpe, Staveley, Stanton, Manchester and elsewhere. A detailed exchange of views took place which was carried on from one Sunday to the next. Those present were not official delegates, apart from four delegates sent from the delegates’ Council in one of the works of the still not denationalised firm, Richard Thomas and Baldwins. Leading members of Steel Unions attended in a personal capacity. One M.P., Eric Varley of Chesterfield, attznded on behalf of a group of members interested in the problem, Very great concern was expressed by men who claimed to represent the feelings of the workers in the industry at the possibility that the industry might not be nationalised in the present session of Parliament. Any one who doubts the interest of steelworkers in nationalisation would have had his doubts dispelled. Those who attended the meetings agreed to go back to their union branches, Constituency Parties and Trades Councils to organise meetings up and down the country in favour of early nationalisation, At the same time, almost equal concern was expressed at the possibility that the 1949 Act might be
re-enacted. The following main reasons were put forward: 1. This would seem to be a mere act of revenge and would make the necessary rationalisation of the industry exceedingly difficult. This would not break up the British Iron and Steel Federation —with its control over ore and scrap supplies, prices and other policies—the rock on which the last nationalisation attempt foundered.
i)
3. This would leave the present companies and directors with great power, not only to hive off profitable bye-products, but to subcontract profitable parts of the industry, leaving the state corporation to supply cheap bulk steel to private enterprise. 4. This would do nothing to bring workers in the industry into the sphere of management, where the crucial changes required by rationalisation and growing automation are going to be made. The third aspect of nationalisation that aroused strong feelings especially from Sheffield workers is the possibility that only bulk steel producers, producing over half a million tons, will be nationalised. This would leave out all Sheffield firms, yet they produce probably as much as a fifth of the value of national steel output, in the form of special steels. Again, this is the more profitable section of the industry, where firms often have a true monopoly of special products, To leave them out of nationalisation is both to miss the chance of economies of integration and to leave the state with only the least profitable end of the industry. Steel making firms that were not brought into national ownership should operate under licence.
Report of Conference of Steelworiers
which met in Sheffield on Sunauy,
February 7th and 14th, 1965
In the matter of the participation
of workers in management, the
general view was expressed that des-
pite the risk of .inding themselves
saddled with unpopular _ national
policies which they could not alter,
trade unions should take responsi-
bility for electing men to sit on the
managing Boards at e.ery ievel ot
industry. These would not be trade
union officials nor would they in any
way supplant the negotiating role of
Trade Union officials in collective
bargaining on Wages and conditions;
except on the national board they
would not be full time, but they
should be elected at least in part
thiougi trade union organis..0~..
One way of doing this which seemed
satisfactory is suggested on the
report that. goes with the docun-.ent.
Workers’ Counciis representing
Trade unions: and wider Shop and
Department Committees sheuld also
have some power of veto on manage-
ment appointments. The lessons ct
the powerlessness of workers in the
coal industry to influence manage-
ment decisions, which they had
nevertheless to defend in the general
interests of a nationalised industry,
were not lost on members who raised
those questions. The right te ask tor
detailed costings was essential if fair
and correct decisions on rationalisa-
- tion were to be made.
Many delegates spoke of the im.
portance of taking steps towards
uniting the various Unions working
in the steel industry. It was agreed
that the best way forward was a
Federation on the same principle as
the Confederation of Shipbuilding
and Engineering Unions. Great em-
phasis was also put on the import-
ance of persuading white collar and
technical workers to join their
appropriate unions. A nationalised
steel corporation should be required
to negotiate wages and conditions
only with bona fide national unions.