What would have happened if the Miner's Strike never was?
Discussion
I was thinking the today about unions and striking, and the question occurred to me - what would have happened to the Coal industry if the Miner's strike never happened?
With what is going on with UNITE and BA, I considered the following - 5 years ago I would have considered BA to be a quality product, a good airline to fly with.
Now - they have proved to be unreliable because of the strike action, and if I'm honest, I would never actually want to fly with them. I'm sure my views are pretty well represented amongst most people, and so BA are in the position where the continued striking could kill their business.
The bitterest strike that I have any memory of was the Miner's strike. I listened to a great debate on Jeremy Vine about 6 weeks ago, where they interviewed 2 ex miners, one who went on strike, and one who was a scab. The Miner's strike started off as non organised - I believe the catalyst was several miners in Yorkshire downing tools and staring the national strike (I think the reason was proposals to close 17 pits in Yorkshire). This went on for over a year, and of course during this time, domestic coal production tailed off massively. The reasons for the closure was at the time it was cheaper to import coal from Australia, than dig out domestically.
However, what followed effectively killed off an industry, made thousands unemployed, and decimated many towns countrywide. The Government at the time took on the unions and crushed the industry.
Therefore, I was wondering, that if the pits had closed, and a national strike had not been forced, would we still have a sizeable coal industry? Would we have a smaller network of pits, but still a reasonable operating capacity, which in time could compete commercially against the heavily subsidised foreign imported coal?
We have an ageing population of nuclear power stations, oil is expensive, wind power is hardly sufficient, and so the only viable alternative to power the country in the long term is more nuclear power stations until a renewable source can be made to generate the power we need. In time it will come, just as nuclear fusion is bound to.
But if we still had a viable network of operational pits, then perhaps being held to ransom over gas supplies would not be the problem it currently is. There are even plans to reopen pits.
With what is going on with UNITE and BA, I considered the following - 5 years ago I would have considered BA to be a quality product, a good airline to fly with.
Now - they have proved to be unreliable because of the strike action, and if I'm honest, I would never actually want to fly with them. I'm sure my views are pretty well represented amongst most people, and so BA are in the position where the continued striking could kill their business.
The bitterest strike that I have any memory of was the Miner's strike. I listened to a great debate on Jeremy Vine about 6 weeks ago, where they interviewed 2 ex miners, one who went on strike, and one who was a scab. The Miner's strike started off as non organised - I believe the catalyst was several miners in Yorkshire downing tools and staring the national strike (I think the reason was proposals to close 17 pits in Yorkshire). This went on for over a year, and of course during this time, domestic coal production tailed off massively. The reasons for the closure was at the time it was cheaper to import coal from Australia, than dig out domestically.
However, what followed effectively killed off an industry, made thousands unemployed, and decimated many towns countrywide. The Government at the time took on the unions and crushed the industry.
Therefore, I was wondering, that if the pits had closed, and a national strike had not been forced, would we still have a sizeable coal industry? Would we have a smaller network of pits, but still a reasonable operating capacity, which in time could compete commercially against the heavily subsidised foreign imported coal?
We have an ageing population of nuclear power stations, oil is expensive, wind power is hardly sufficient, and so the only viable alternative to power the country in the long term is more nuclear power stations until a renewable source can be made to generate the power we need. In time it will come, just as nuclear fusion is bound to.
But if we still had a viable network of operational pits, then perhaps being held to ransom over gas supplies would not be the problem it currently is. There are even plans to reopen pits.
Without the unions the industry would have been able to modernise, something that HAD to happen, given the levels of subsidy the industry was getting from the tax payers.
Yes there would still have been pit closures, but not the decimation that happened because of Scargill & co's stupidity
What happened to coal production in the UK, is seen worldwide as a very good example of what happens when the unions stop representing their members best interests and try to manage organisations they have no idea about.
Yes there would still have been pit closures, but not the decimation that happened because of Scargill & co's stupidity
What happened to coal production in the UK, is seen worldwide as a very good example of what happens when the unions stop representing their members best interests and try to manage organisations they have no idea about.
The major effect of the Miners strike was to end the power of the unions. It soon became apparent that, if the miners couldn't win against the Tories, nobody else was going to. Given the personalities of the major players (Thatcher and Scargill), a confrontation was on the cards as soon as Joe Gormley stepped down.
There were a number of reasons that unions generally won strikes prior to the mid-1980s. Unions were a breed apart when it came to taking legal action against them (dealt with by the government), weak management and workers being in a monopolistic position - usually nationalised industries. Up until the 1980s if you wanted coal then you got it from the National Coal Board - nobody else was flogging the stuff so this gave the unions a strong position.
When there is competition the unions are not so powerful. That is why, in my view, the BA strike will fail. Nobody is forced to use BA, there are plenty of other carriers, continuing the strike programme will encourage traffic to go elsewhere.
There is a historical precedent. The ASLEF strike in 1955 saw huge amounts of freight traffic move from rail to road, and it never came back.
There were a number of reasons that unions generally won strikes prior to the mid-1980s. Unions were a breed apart when it came to taking legal action against them (dealt with by the government), weak management and workers being in a monopolistic position - usually nationalised industries. Up until the 1980s if you wanted coal then you got it from the National Coal Board - nobody else was flogging the stuff so this gave the unions a strong position.
When there is competition the unions are not so powerful. That is why, in my view, the BA strike will fail. Nobody is forced to use BA, there are plenty of other carriers, continuing the strike programme will encourage traffic to go elsewhere.
There is a historical precedent. The ASLEF strike in 1955 saw huge amounts of freight traffic move from rail to road, and it never came back.
It's a shame really as if the mines were allowed to modernise and lower production costs, we would still be a pretty big coal producer.
What people seem to forget is that the UK still has huge coal reserves, the problem now is because the pits were closed, filled in or flooded and the infrastructure was removed, it would be uneconomic to reopen them. It also doesn't help that a lot of old sites have been flattened and housing or industrial estates built on top of them.
We could be self sufficient regarding power generation, but the economics of it mean this will probably never happen.
What people seem to forget is that the UK still has huge coal reserves, the problem now is because the pits were closed, filled in or flooded and the infrastructure was removed, it would be uneconomic to reopen them. It also doesn't help that a lot of old sites have been flattened and housing or industrial estates built on top of them.
We could be self sufficient regarding power generation, but the economics of it mean this will probably never happen.
I'd be the owner of my house by now.
Thatcher achieved her aim of beating Scargill and halting the loss of revenue, but at an enormous cost to those communities and possibly our ability to provide power for the UK independantly.
Don't forget, Thatcher also dreamt up MMGW as a weapon at this time too.
Thatcher achieved her aim of beating Scargill and halting the loss of revenue, but at an enormous cost to those communities and possibly our ability to provide power for the UK independantly.
Don't forget, Thatcher also dreamt up MMGW as a weapon at this time too.
Edited by The real Apache on Saturday 5th June 11:37
Frederick said:
The real Apache said:
Don't forget, Thatcher also dreamt up MMGW as a weapon at this time too.
That's one thing I've never heard attributed to her... can you provide evidence?(Not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I've never once heard)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jun/30/...
It was shocking at the time because just a few years earlier most people believed we were heading toward another ice age.
Frederick said:
The real Apache said:
Don't forget, Thatcher also dreamt up MMGW as a weapon at this time too.
That's one thing I've never heard attributed to her... can you provide evidence?(Not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I've never once heard)
I'll have a read up!Also have a read up on this excellent Beeb article about Arthur:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3499611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3499611.stm
Beeb said:
The miners' strikes and power black-outs of the 1970s had left governments fearful of taking on the NUM. Under the wily leadership of their previous president, Joe Gormley, the union had become used to securing impressive pay increases.
By the time Mr Scargill took the helm, miners were among the highest-paid industrial workers in the country and they were often asked to support other groups fighting for higher wages.
The dispute was about Scargill, as much as it was about Thatcher .. i think a clash was inenvitable, not too dissimilar to the dispute between Unite and BA today .. my dad worked both as a shop steward and management in the power industry in the 1970s, and even he admits that the unions held too much power in those days.By the time Mr Scargill took the helm, miners were among the highest-paid industrial workers in the country and they were often asked to support other groups fighting for higher wages.
Edited by fido on Saturday 5th June 14:05
BA will be killed off unless UNITE wise up and do it bloody quickly, same as mines, as a few have said there would be more mines now had the Unions not striked not less.
QED Unions are bad for the country.
Just look at our great car industry, ahh yes Unions f
ked that up too.
Should be majority of members not just of those that vote re strike action, good on Cameron for thinking about this as an idea, crush the unions or expect another winter of discontent (esp public sector types).
QED Unions are bad for the country.
Just look at our great car industry, ahh yes Unions f
ked that up too.Should be majority of members not just of those that vote re strike action, good on Cameron for thinking about this as an idea, crush the unions or expect another winter of discontent (esp public sector types).
rs1952 said:
There is a historical precedent. The ASLEF strike in 1955 saw huge amounts of freight traffic move from rail to road, and it never came back.
Slightly OT, but during the ash problems, my company discovered that about half of our imports could be brought in by sea - and save us 50% of our freight costs.So, in future our air freight will be only half of what it was. I'm sure that many other companies will be doing the same thing.
The strike works in a similiar way.
Don
--
fido said:
The dispute was about Scargill, as much as it was about Thatcher .. i think a clash was inenvitable, not too dissimilar to the dispute between Unite and BA today .. my dad worked both as a shop steward and management in the power industry in the 1970s, and even he admits that the unions held too much power in those days.
Setting the politics aside, UK coal faced a number of practical and financial issues that made things difficult.
Apart from a small number of mines the quality of Uk coal is, frankly, not that great with high ash content, high sulphur and worst of all high chlorine. These make the use of such coal problematical in conventional subcritical PF boilers with the need for expensive FGD kit on flue gas and high fireside corrosion rates on s/h & r/h tubes plus where the coal was esp dirty on waterwall tubes too.
Then considering the increased problems when trying to burn such coal in supercritical and ultrasupercritical boilers the pressure part materials were and to some extent still are not available.
Thus it was becoming increasingly necessary to mix UK coal with relatively clean coal from overseas.
That then brought in the price issue as imported coal was much cheaper. Indeed it can be argued that much of the case for deep water bulk port investments for imported coal were about putting pressure on UK coal to get its prices down.
However in the price stakes much is blamed on the miners and British Coal but economically they had an absolute mountain to climb some of which was down to geological conditions.
They got their price down, after a lot of effort to about 1.5-1.8 gbp per gigajoule iirc from top of my head, yet the world price at the time was around 1 gbp per gigajoule . I've been to a Queensland mine where they mine coal for 1gbp per tonne and one tonne is roughly equal to around 22 gigajoules.
Not just a mountain to climb then but the entire Himalayas.
Then, couple that with what I've said above re the technical difficulties of using the coal and electricity would have been even more expensive, especially with the deregulation and cheap to build CCGT stations.
King coal was always going to be stuffed. You can argue about the timing was a result of politics but it was somewhat inevitable without deliberate intervention and maintenance of state monopolies imho.
Having said all that I believe that to some extent the UK coal industry has been largely a victim of geology and people who knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Apart from a small number of mines the quality of Uk coal is, frankly, not that great with high ash content, high sulphur and worst of all high chlorine. These make the use of such coal problematical in conventional subcritical PF boilers with the need for expensive FGD kit on flue gas and high fireside corrosion rates on s/h & r/h tubes plus where the coal was esp dirty on waterwall tubes too.
Then considering the increased problems when trying to burn such coal in supercritical and ultrasupercritical boilers the pressure part materials were and to some extent still are not available.
Thus it was becoming increasingly necessary to mix UK coal with relatively clean coal from overseas.
That then brought in the price issue as imported coal was much cheaper. Indeed it can be argued that much of the case for deep water bulk port investments for imported coal were about putting pressure on UK coal to get its prices down.
However in the price stakes much is blamed on the miners and British Coal but economically they had an absolute mountain to climb some of which was down to geological conditions.
They got their price down, after a lot of effort to about 1.5-1.8 gbp per gigajoule iirc from top of my head, yet the world price at the time was around 1 gbp per gigajoule . I've been to a Queensland mine where they mine coal for 1gbp per tonne and one tonne is roughly equal to around 22 gigajoules.
Not just a mountain to climb then but the entire Himalayas.
Then, couple that with what I've said above re the technical difficulties of using the coal and electricity would have been even more expensive, especially with the deregulation and cheap to build CCGT stations.
King coal was always going to be stuffed. You can argue about the timing was a result of politics but it was somewhat inevitable without deliberate intervention and maintenance of state monopolies imho.
Having said all that I believe that to some extent the UK coal industry has been largely a victim of geology and people who knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
rs1952 said:
There is a historical precedent. The ASLEF strike in 1955 saw huge amounts of freight traffic move from rail to road, and it never came back.
Simple Union bashing doesn't hold water with the Railways.The Aslef strike lasted two weeks 1955. A strike over pay differentials called almost immediately after Eden's Conservative victory at a General Election. Brought British industry to a standstill very quickly and forced a government climbdown. British Transport Commission settled their small pay claim.
Beeching then destroyed the railways, not the Union.
The Stedeford Report made available in the public domain in 1991 under the Thirty Years Rule.
It clearly showed what a cock-up the government had made of the railways and how the railways had been grossly mismanaged by civil servants who did not know what they were doing. Beeching and Stedeford had frequent disagreements. Marples was hoping for a rather different sort of report, one which showed the railways in a bad light and which would enable him to push road building. Marples stayed in office record five years to make absolutely certain that the report never surfaced. What was published became known as the Beeching Report which bore no relation to Stedeford's earlier report.
Marples was the champion of, and in fact a member of, the British Roads Federation, the organisation that was started in 1931 in response to a government plan to put all long haul freight onto rail at the ridiculously low and uneconomic rates that rail was forced to charge by law. The BRF, comprised not only the haulage industry, but bus & coach operators, motor manufacturers, oil companies, road contractors, and AA and RAC. Because of the subsequent pressure they exerted, the 1932 Transport Act only licenced freight operators but did not restrict what they could carry or the distances they could carry it. Between 1932 and 1939 BRF became very powerful then the war intervened. After the war they reformed and were the driving force that got Marples in place. During that government well over half the MPs had jobs in the motor, freight or associated industries. The rest, as they say, is history.
I suggest you read David Henshaw's The Great Railway Conspiracy.
Edited by dandarez on Saturday 5th June 15:49
The real Apache said:
My experience of Network Rail tells me little has changed, the whole Industry is stuffed
What makes you say that? Passenger reliability is at all time highs, freight traffic has increased massively, all the politicians are championing rail, Manchester - London in little over 2 hours. Network Rail has transformed the industry. Now if Dr Beeching's axe had been a bit blunter, there would have been better local connections to further improve the levels of service seen today. If this is in deference to the recent strike that did not quite happen, then as far as I am concerned, Bob Crow sees himself as a new Scargill. However, he is clearly out for himself, not the good of the industry.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff