Legal

Pages

Thursday, 28 April 2022

Universal News and the Execution of Mussolini

Mussolini Executed, 1945/04/30

 

 

Universal Newsreel transcript


Ed Herlihy Universal narrator:


Bombastic Mussolini the sawdust Caesar, comes to his end in the gutter. Fitting climax to a life of treachery and double-cross, he led his country to ruin when he threw his lot in with Hitler. Oh yes, they saw some palmy days when Il Duce confidently stabbed France in the back. He had dreams of empire before the bayonets of the Allies deflated this false prophet. 

He was captured once before and rescued by German paratroops. This time he had no such chance, partisans tried him along with his sweetheart and several henchmen. Just as these pictures show the trial previously of other key fascists and collaborators; he was brought before a firing squad, and in this manner he died as tyrants should. And was hung by his heels, a fitting and glorious end.

 




 

Saturday, 23 April 2022

Shop Talk

 

When I was a schoolboy
Teachers said study as hard as you can
It didn't make no difference
I'm just a hard workin' driver man
- Captain Beefheart & Jack Nitzsche

Recently I've had to go back to factory work, and on agency too. It's not great, but it's not terrible. It's been a few years since I've been on a factory floor, though not much has changed except that there are bits of clear plastic attached to some lines at average head height. Part of the COVID response, it was that, and posters everywhere telling everyone to maintain a two-meter distance. Of course, being a company policy, some of those posters are stuck in parts of the building where that is physically impossible. 

As agency and a new hire, I've been moved about quite a bit filling a short fall, so my roles are quite different. Fast lines can be a nightmare, but I've been several slower lines, which has allowed me time to think. You can't talk much in the production areas, there's too much noise and everyone's wearing ear defenders, though there is a sort of informal factory language that combines gestures with words that you pick up. So outside of breaks, even if you're two centimetres away from like six other people on all sides, you're largely on your own. 

On one shift I was at the end of a line that moved relatively slowly, and I was right next to a clock, so distractions over time anxieties weren't an issue. There were two other workers on the next station, and the line supervisor would walk up and down the line occasionally, but it was just me and thoughts until clocking off time. I've come to the conclusion that working on a line in a factory is an excellent primer on how the economic system works. Most of your labour is occupied on confusing tasks that seem wasteful (but not in the way that most people understand the term) and you're dependent on the actions of other people whom you can't see because there's a machine in the middle of the line, or the line starts in another room and gets to you through a hole in the wall. And the whole design of the machinery and organisation of the system was done by experts of one stripe or another who haven't been on a factory floor in years.

The, routine has become so rationalised, compartmentalised and automated, you are isolated from all decision-making and even collaboration with those physical rubbing shoulders with you. The work gear, the overalls, ear plugs, hair nets etc, further reinforce a uniformity and place barriers between you. Even the ones in positions of responsibility know only a fraction more than day one hires. They know how to switch the machines on, and how each station can best do each task down the line, but ask them the why and what for? And they don't have a clue.

The pay is poor as well. Most people in society except this as a given and perfectly alright, as the work has been structured in such a way that the vast majority of the human population can do at least some tasks. I won't argue that the barrier to entry is very low, it's the workforce with the highest number of disabled and English as a second language composition I've ever encountered. But the argument doesn't really hold water to me. 

It may be "accessible" for want of a better word, but it's also one of the parts of the labour and supply chain where exploitation is at its most extreme. To go back to that line, I was stacking boxes onto pallets. Each box contained six packages, and there were seventy boxes to a pallet, and I'd stacked five and a half pallets by the time the shift ended. I won't say what the packages were for security reasons, but I have seen them for sale in shops, and they retail for between £1-2+. Now I know that the producer doesn't get every penny from a sale, there's a line of entities taking a cut, so let's say for simplicity’s sake the company gets £1 per package, it's probably a bit less, but it's a nice round number.

Me putting seven boxes down onto a pallet covered my wage bill for that day. Now I know businesses have more costs than just wage bills, there's material costs, the hiring, leasing and buying of machinery, paying business rates, maintenance, tax, wastage costs, fees for services like advertising and registration etc. And I can't find out what the costs actually are without raising a lot of questions about me with the company. But given the size of the place and its workforce and how long it operates per day, I'd estimate that each employee doing say half a pallets worth or their equivalent would cover all of that, and the rest is just profit. Each box after number eight that I stacked on that pallet and all the labour that went into putting that box in my hand was profit for the company.

And the kicker is that the way this works, what's on paper as being better for the worker, longer shifts for more wages, just magnifies the gains of the employer. If everything was going smoothly, it took about twenty-five minutes to half an hour to fill a pallet, and that was a slower line. I've been on some lines that moved so fast I'd be driven mad trying to calculate at which point the profit bar had been passed.

I've not worked in retail or fast food, but I've interviewed for both and have friends who have worked in them, and I recognize quite a bit of the same dynamics from the factory floor. I think just one big shop covers the day's pay of a checkout worker. I'm not surprised that there has been growing activism and labour militancy over increasing the minimum wage, spearheaded by workers in these sectors. 

Increasing base rate of pay won't alter the dynamics of this economy, but this also means that I don't really see any credibility in counterarguments to wage increases. The big two are social, there's a lot of people out there who look down on people who make minimum wage, and so any measures to raise their standing in proportion to others is treated as a threat. This attitude hampers all sorts of labour organising, when ever a trade union strikes for higher pay and conditions the usual line from the reactionaries of society is to pick another group of workers that seems hard done by and then turn around and accuse the picketers of callousness as if they were somehow to blame. Or when several unions get together and organise a sector wide strike, especially if they're representing public sector workers, the press is full of false sympathy for struggling private sector workers. I am seriously curious to see what the argument will be if a truly general strike of all workers was organised, who would be singled out for crocodile tears then? 

And the other is inflation fears. But while I've seen many statements and articles worried about inflation, I haven't seen any that bother to make the case for how and why wage increases would cause inflation. Inflation in the UK has been going up for years regardless of the wage level of the minimum, and already the profit margins companies extract from their workforces are so vast that even the most radical wage increase demands don't noticeably cut into that. At most, wage increases would add a box or two of labour to the scale. 

This was where my thoughts went until the line was wound up for quitting time.

Saturday, 16 April 2022

The Power of Collective Grumbling

 I've recently signed up with an agency and started working in some local factories. I can't give details, but on my third day in one of them I had my first brush with industrial action I've had for a while. I arrived with my shift, put on the work gear, made my way to the clocking in station and waited with the rest of the shift, about 20 of us. One of the supervisors keeps glancing over at us, after five minutes of this he comes over after chattering away on a radio, he tells us there's no work for us to do, which did not go down well as we were all requested to arrive that day. We immediately march up to the on site office of our agency, and we cram in the tiny hallway outside. After five minutes of us loudly airing our discontent and grievances, one of the staff admins comes out and meekly requests we wait in the canteen next door. This we do, for about fifteen minutes, fraternising and agreeing how angry we all are.

Then he comes back and confirms that the shifts have been cancelled and would like us to right down our names to make sure we receive our pay for the hours we were allocated.

There are few advantages to agency work, but the agreements say you enter into an agreement with the agency, they provide work, and you accept that and do the work. We had been assigned our hours and turned up and were ready to go, so we fulfilled our half of the contract. So regardless of how much or little work we did, we were owed that much pay. But, just because that's what is written down in your agreements and documents, that doesn't mean they'll give you it if they think they can get away with it. So, anyone in a similar situation, I would advise not leaving and staying as a group until you have some guarantee. 

Friends have asked if that won't make them less likely to provide work for us in future. That is a possibility, but what's the point of working for a company that won't pay you? And if a company can get away with not paying you when it's supposed to in one situation, it will make sure to do the same in every other situation it can from that point on. Also, numbers are a good shield, agencies can provide hands to fill gaps in production and service roles, but they struggle to fill more than a handful of vacancies at short notice.