Thousands of building workers will be striking against the lump this Friday as Eric Heffer's Bill to outlaw labour-only sub-contracting (the lump) in the building trade, is given its second reading in Parament.
Building workers have been lighting the lump for many years, a system of self-employment which undermines union orøsnisation and allows big profits to be made by contractors who are under no obligations to their "self-employed" employees, However, many workers neither he mor the workers he takes on under would be surprised if they knew just how ineffective Heffer's bill really is, even assuming it were to be passed by Parliament.
REGISTER The main body of the bill is concerned with the creation of a Register of building contrac tors by the Government. Only those who are not eneaged in labour-only sub-contracting are eligible for registration. However, there is no. provision in the Bill compelling contractons to register, and no penalties for failing to do so. And there are no advantages to being on the register, except receipt of a certificate. Only a company which either apples tor registration DOE K TOLUEE DETES DECH TENCTEO ARTS then removed from the register for illegitimate practices (such as labour-only sub-contracting), is liable to any penalty at all But the contractor who has never bothered to apply for registrition in the first place is totally immune. Eric Heffer and others have claimed that this Bill "outlaws" lump labour. What the Bill actually maya is that: "It shali be illegal for any person or persons to enter into a contract involving the practice of labour only .. Now it may be made illegal', but this statement is quite meaningless: it is not made an offerer under the Bill, carrying definite penalties. I1 thus were done, then a contractor working the lump could be taken to coart tried, and punisled. But under this Bill, only those who have applied to register cari be guilty of an offence. the unrepistered contractor remains free to work the lump without any wotries. All thal happens is that his contract is illepal" - that is a labour-only sub-contract are able to take any action alainst one anolher in Elsd courts MORAL SUPPORT The Bill, then, is little more than an invitation to the building industry to register and thereby draw a publie distinction between those con tractors who are unregistered (and therefore likely to be engaging in the lump) and those who are registered (and therefore unlikely to be using the lump). The Bill gives moral support to those who already refuse to make contracts with lumpers. But, as the istington Labour Council recently discovered, this can be difficult: faced with an organised boycott of contractons they have recently dropped their policy of refusing to make contracis with firms that use lumap labour. The Bill will not sort out this type of problem at ail.
Heffer's faith that the Bill, if passed, would have an immediate effect on the lump is mistaken. He seers to be hoping that many of those who hire building contractors (such as local wuthor¡ties) will automatically adopt a policy of making contracts only with registered contractors.
reminder to the coloriously forgetful investor who SOC AOsmC HBK S DIs Ba CamER MonC into new stock flotations. But corine when it did it was guaranteed to get all the publicity with the minithe LUME LUMP-SC tal: Trade Usene a the Fuldn, destry accepts the Bill and applies for registracion. However the National Federation of Building Trade Employers has already made its strong opposition to the Bill quite clear; if most of its members should decide to black the Bill and refuse to register then the Bill would become a dead letter - and bothing could be done about it!
Despite these crippling weakncases. such a Bill could seive a uscful purpose in developing the workers" striggle tor smash the lump. If passed, the present site-by-site struggle against the lump could then be co-ordinated into a united national campaign to force all contractors to register IFa national building strike took place around this question. it micht well succeed in breaking the resistance of key sections of the employers. But some problems would still remain: workers could not put their faith in governmentapponted tribunals and the capitalist courts to deal with their case.
INDUSTRIAL ACTION If the bill were amended to foree all contrac tors to register, with stiff penalties for failure, it might then be a reasonably effective measure as far as attacking the lump goes. The central point, however, is that there can be no substitute for the effcctive organisation of the mass of building worker. A campaign for effective legislation, or to ensure enforcement of such laws, will only achieve what we all want - the smashing of the lump - if it goes hand-in-hand with a campaign of industrial action against offending employers.
Ultimately, however, the lump can only be rooted out by destroying the conditions on which it feeds. This requires a total decasualisation of the trade, with a system of registracion of all building trade workers, and a guarantec of five days tull pay tor ail registered Worker whether werk is avnilanle or not.