At the end of January 2009 construction workers walked out of Lindsey Oil Refinery in Lincolnshire and signalled a seismic shift in workers’ response to the free movement of labour so beloved of employers and politicians, right and left…
On 28 January 2009 engineering construction workers at Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) ignited the spark that is the 21st century Battle for Britain.
French multinational Total, building new plant at its refinery at Immingham in North Lincolnshire, had appointed the US company Jacobs as main contractor. Jacobs in turn had removed the sub-contractor Shaws and appointed IREM – Italian/Sicilian – to take on the sub-contract.
The dispute at LOR that followed was settled, winning a commitment from IREM that half the jobs will be offered to local labour, and this job is due to finish in a few months’ time. But the whole issue of the use of foreign labour continues, now open, now hidden.
‘The issue of the use of foreign labour continues, now open, now hidden.’
At the heart of this struggle is the attempt to destroy the last remaining national agreement in construction in Britain with foreign contractors using foreign labour to build new power stations and other plant in Britain that come under the terms of the NAECI, the “Blue Book”.
Alstom, another French multinational, is the main contractor at Staythorpe power station near Newark in Nottinghamshire and also on the Isle of Grain in Kent and at Langage near Plymouth. All these sites have sub-contractors refusing to employ UK labour.
Total said things such as IREM has the “specialist skills” – but they never said what those were because British workers have them and are currently out of work. It said IREM is paying the same rate – maybe, but even that’s in dispute and it’s certainly not paying the other aspects of the Blue Book with regards to accommodation or the ability to go home once a month and have it paid for.
At Staythorpe, Alstom claims two-thirds of the workforce are from the UK. Maybe, but Alstom is being disingenuous: it is referring to the civils not the skilled engineering construction workers. The dispute has raised issues that have gone well beyond the immediate.
The LOR battle began by quoting back Brown’s slogan of “British Jobs for British Workers (BJ4BW)”. Brown, of course, used it in an attempt to curry favour during his populist “Britishness” phase when first assuming the role of PM.
But the construction workers’ use of BJ4BW captured the imagination of workers the length and breadth of Britain well beyond the industry itself, in a way not seen since the 84/85 miners’ strike. It roused workers throughout Europe and indeed the world, and sparked sympathy walkouts across the industry in Britain. Why? Because it is right!
Enough is enough
These were not spontaneous (without thought) walkouts – the issue has been simmering for years. Workers in the industry have been becoming increasingly concerned and angry. Staythorpe became the focus last October, the Isle of Grain became engaged in December. At LOR in January enough became enough.
The ultra left, along with the media and government, immediately began wittering about its potential to be latched onto by the far right odious BNP, as if honest British workers cannot distinguish between a bigoted xenophobic anti-worker approach and the defence of ourselves and where we live. (One wonders how fascism during WW2 was ever defeated!).
Confusion
British people are “allowed” to cheer and hoorah for the Olympic team or any other sporting event but when it comes to work, our own future or our ability to put food on our own tables it is somehow “racist” to say no! Where do we draw the line? This is a measure of the confusion that exists within our class.
The ultra left and global capital share the same demand even if they express opposite reasons for doing so – both demand no borders and unfettered migration. The logical extension is that the British working class should accept the EU diktat (for we have never been asked) that anyone in the EU (and beyond) can come and live/work here. Millions have the “right” to do so.
That so-called “socialists” accept this is at best misguided and at worst collaborating with the destruction of any semblance of existing class organisation. When capital demands the destruction of the nation state, then the demand for workers nationalism and sovereignty becomes revolutionary. Capitalists know this. It is our side that lacks that clarity.
Class
Not so long ago it was commonly accepted that if workers, even if unemployed, accepted lower wages and took the jobs of those fighting to improve their lot, they were described as “scabs”, the lowest of the low. It was never a question of colour or nationality – simply class relations and whose side you were on. Now, because the employers use mass migration/importation of labour, we are cluttered with notions of “they are only trying to put food on the table”, “it’s not their fault”, “what’s wrong with someone trying to better themselves?”, and so on. Nothing at all, so long as it isn’t at your or my or our/their own country’s expense!
Make no mistake, this dispute has not “gone away” simply because LOR was settled and it has dropped out of the news headlines. Far from it – struggle will ebb and flow, and that is natural. The LOR dispute has unleashed the class, in general, to areas that it has been concerned about for some time.
But the nature of the enemy is underestimated and has been ignored for too long. So it is no surprise that there are difficulties. As a result of the struggle so far, engineering construction workers, while experiencing a leap in understanding, have made demands that show a lack of clarity of the forces ranged against us. Social democracy retains its grip, but it is loosening.
Control
This is evidenced by a general call for the Labour government to understand their plight, and if they only did, they would do something in the interests of Britain and the people who put them into government. That the EU and “free” movement of labour isn’t really the problem, it’s just some nasty greedy foreign employers taking advantage. Then there is the fear that they may be tarnished as racist, thus the demand is for British workers only to be given a “fair crack of the whip”. That we need control is becoming ever clearer – admitting it is the start of the solution.
The calls for the unions, Unite and GMB, to organise for “official” strike action ignore that fact that British and EU laws say it’s not legal without a “trade dispute” and that ACAS has confirmed the employers did not act “illegally'”. (Trade unions were once illegal!)
“So what” say some – the NUM and Scargill did it. But the NUM was a single-industry union with 200,000 members. Unite and GMB are now general unions with around 2.5 million members covering some 25 sectors, and they aren’t all on board. Despite the rightness of the cause the unions will not endanger the whole organisation at this point in time.
‘This is a fight for a future.’
It is becoming a race against time to raise our understanding of where we are. The employers’ organisation, the ECIA, has upped the ante by raising the spectre of legal action. Reckless angry calls for all-out action are being countered with the understanding that this is going to be a long fight and if we are serious about winning, then the tactics we employ must be guerrilla in nature. There is also a growing understanding that this is a fight for a future for the industry itself within Britain, and win we must.
We are told that globalisation is just the way it is. That protectionism is wrong and positively dangerous (indeed it is - for capital). That we have to accept the demise of the idea of the nation state. That whatever capital decides we must accept it, even if it means our own destruction. How bizarre is that?
Workers’ nationalism
When the enemy says these things, might it not be right to advance the concept of workers’ nationalism in every country, which would actually deny the ability of global capital to operate? It has to be far simpler than trying to create a global union – with what as an end game? Being able to take on the employers on a more equal footing? Surely that simply means they are still in control?
Imagine a world where workers, in control, refused to go to war against each other and instead traded on an equal footing, recognising that how we produce goods/grow food must be done in a sustainable way and must be useful. Now that is a future worth fighting for.
• Related article The fight for Lindsey: a letter from Lincolnshire