GOVERNANCE
AND DEMOCRACY
–
KATARIS PROJECT
59
figures are acutely aware of the socio-economic significance of all revenue being returned to
the locality and, unsurprisingly, many of the Tower employees are allowed time off to support
these activities.
Although the provision of jobs was the main aim in establishing Tower, members were also
determined that this would not be achieved without the provision of the best possible terms
and conditions of employment. The initial workforce of 239 has expanded to 299 cooperative
members with a further 100 employed as contractors in face development, the bagging plant
and in security. Employees enjoy well above average terms and conditions of employment.
Pay, basic conditions, welfare and safety are comparable with those in other UK mines. For
example, average gross weekly pay for face workers is currently about £540 compared with
the UK average of £589.8. (ASHE, 2005) Dividends and bonus payments can be added to this.
The sick scheme provides for 6 months full and 6 months half pay for all members – this is
unique to mining in the UK; and holiday entitlement at 38 days per year is the highest in
mining. Safety with no fatalities and total injuries of 25 per 100,000 work-shifts compares
with the UK average of 31 injuries per 100,000 work-shifts. Under British Coal an output
related bonus system had been operated. One of the first agreements within the cooperative
consolidated these payments into the basic wage, enabling wages to be predictable. Other
benefits include a 1-year salary in-service death benefit (a provision agreed at the very first co-
operative Board meeting in February 1995.)
3.6.5.
‘Culture-change’ in Cooperative Organisational Space
A complex cooperative ‘work culture’ can be seen to be emerging with distinctive tensions
and trajectories. Respondents gave examples of how, at least initially, the common practices
under British Coal had been reproduced. Managers continued to expect their orders to be
obeyed and NUM members still wanted an enemy to fight. Such tensions can be seen to be
behind the mildly embarrassing 24-hour strike when a manager’s legitimate order was
disobeyed.
In contrast, it is also clear that there is an emerging process of joint working and joint problem
solving which is clearly the consequence of letting go of these historically based expectations.
Some fairly dramatic examples of working together to resolve some critical production
problems were cited. On one occasion, coaling stopped for three months due to a gas incursion
from old workings. Employees were paid in full during this time and worked together to
overcome the problem. On another, the cutting machine was buried in a roof fall and – rather
CAHIERS
DU CRISES
–
COLLECTION ÉTUDES THÉORIQUES
–
NO
ET0908
60
than abandon it – the members dug it out and refurbished it. This level of commitment was
seen by all respondents as reflecting how ownership has translated into cooperative survival
behaviour. Under British Coal, it was claimed, either of these episodes would have led to the
colliery being closed. Such ‘survival’ behaviour reflects a constant theme in the interviews
which emphasised that the core aim of the cooperative was to preserve jobs. While these
various crises have generated a remarkable resilience in the face of potential catastrophe, as
soon as coaling re-started, divisions re-emerged over revenue distribution issues ranging from
pay differentials to cost control. This may seem not unlike what occurs in organisations owned
and controlled in more traditional ways, but these interest debates have consistently been
situated in a wider socio-political understanding of the need to survive and a collective sense
of responsibility and ownership of this basic aim. Several respondents remarked on how ‘they’
are now responsible for their own destiny.
More generalised evidence of the emergent work culture comes from a series of seemingly
marginal but inter-linked changes in how ‘management’ is accomplished. Work issues are
discussed at the start of shifts, there are regular informal meetings in the single canteen,
weekend maintenance work is planned collectively and there are fortnightly meetings between
the underground shift captains and surface managers. ‘Under British Coal they had to be
demanded’. These practices are engendered and sustained through the power shift stemming
from collective ownership and reflect the wider democratic structures and accountabilities.
Who is the management and what this means has become increasingly difficult to define – no
longer simply them and us on all issues – as one respondent put it they ‘could talk to Tyrone
[the company Chair] like a butty’ [South Wales term for a close work friend who you could
take the piss out of as well as work with].
3.6.6.
Space and Alternative Spaces
Our central argument is that the creation of the worker-owned colliery has permitted those
involved to nurture and develop a range of social practices which constitute a persistent,
coherent and significant challenge to the existing socio-political and economic order. The
analysis of the data involves an assessment of the extent to which the cooperative can be seen
to be an autonomous, different and alternative space. In terms of social movement theory, our
suggestion is that the Tower venture can be seen as a ‘repertoire of contention’ and that the
‘autonomous geography’ created by the activists represents a significant challenge simply
because it opens up a range of possibilities which permit workers and their communities to
take control of their own socio-economic destiny.