Tremendous fight, but What prompted Timex turnabout ?

Scan page 14

WHY did the 348 workers occupying the Timex factory on the Milton industrial estate in Dundee unanimously vote to end their sit-in on May 18, only two days after a virtually unanimous vote to continue the sit-in?

According to the Communist Party's Morning Star, the workers achieved a 'famous victory" and Timex had "conceded all but one of the points for which the occupation had been struggling."

A similar interpretation was placed upon the ending of the sit-in by Gordon Samson, chairperson of the occupation committee: 'It's a tremendous victory. Our workers can walk out of here with their heads held high:"

Staging a sit-in of nearly six weeks duration in pursuit of the right to work is in itself a justification for feeling proud. But in reality the formula for ending the occupation which was accepted on May 18 was not markedly different from the formula overwhelmingly rejected on May 16. Both formulae involved the reinstatement of the 127 workers declared compulsorily redundant and who had initiated the sit-in, and also the reinstatement of the 200 workers dismissed for supporting the sit-in.

But both formulae recognised that Timex management would seek another 425 voluntary redundancies. If these redundancies had not been achieved at the end of 90 days, then management can achieve them by other means, including compulsion. This point was not even mentioned in the Morning Star report.

Another point common to both formulae was the withdrawal of watch-manufacturing from Dundee, the main cause of the redundancies in the first place.

The only real difference between the two formulae seems to be that, according to the first one, all reinstated workers would be put on short-time working immediately, whilst the second formula guarantees the reinstated workers. two weeks full work.

Both formulae were therefore basically the same, and revolved around the acceptance of 425 voluntary redundancies, with the threat of compulsion in the background. The 425 additional redundancies would retal of 2,200 job losses this year - 300 more than the figure first announced by Timex in January. It' cannot be the case, therefore, that the workers voted to end the sit-in beause they were being presented with a radically different set of proposals from that put forward on May 16.

Moreover, on May 17, the day between the two opposite votes by the Timex workers, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service had approached the AUEW in Dundee to try to find a solution - but immediately gave up. "We decided that the gulf that exists is still too wide, and there is no point in our having a meeting at present" said an ACAS spokesperson. ACAS is not kriown for letting şlip even a half chance of ending a dispute. Yet the same day they reached this verdict talks were held at the AUEW offices in Dundee, involving local union officials, Timex representatives and shop stewards from the occupation. The outcome of these talks was the end of the sit-in.

At the end of the all-day talks, local AUEW full-timer Harry McLevy read out a statement which said nothing about the terms of the agreement reached, but simply said:

"Following discussions with the company this morning, this afternoon and this evening, an understanding has been reached. This will be put to the shop stewards at 9 am tomorrow and following that to a mass meeting at 11 am.

Uncritical

Management wanted an end to the sit-in, obviously. McLevy clearly did so too. Whilst he had verbally opposed the formula presented to the May 16 mass meeting, the fact that he had stated his willingness to meet management over the weekend, and then arranged these talks, suggest that he was looking for a way to get the sit-in over and done with.

What of the leaders of the sit-in themselves, like Gordon Samson, Jim Tinney and John Kydd? On the one hand, they had certainly been uncritical, in public at least, of the role of union full-timers. On the other hand, they had taken the lead in opposing the initial "peace formula" drawn up by their union national officials.

Whether they were actively party to getting the sit-in ended, or finally knuckled under under pressure, seems destined. for the time being at least, to remain a matter for speculation.

Whilst many questions about the ending of the sit-in remain unanswered, what is clear is that throughout the dispute, both the STUC, the AUEW and AUEW/ TASS bureaucracies failed to give the sit-in active support and were looking for the first halfplausible reason to call for it to be ended. In the end they got what they wanted.

The withdrawal of the 127 compulsory redundancies and of the 200 dismissed notices was certainly a positive achievement. But how much more, indeed a genuinely "famous victory", , might have been achieved had those in occupation been backed up with the active support they deserved?

----- pull-quotes -----

"BY A narrow majority", as Was it a famous victory Stan Crooke argues that it was not.