Las entrañas del poder ASIR E INCORPORAR - Canetti Elias

Out of the pursuit to improve working conditions came a closer between unions and employers from the post-war period. This was not only caused by their working relationship in the

government’s corporatist fora but also due to the practicalities of the day. For unions, they saw the employers as a critical component in the development of the safety committee; it was hoped that a closer union would result in employers associations putting more pressure on their

membership to establish more safety committees and also the promotion of best practice.784_For employers, despite their reservations about trade unions’ pursuit of danger money and

compensation, employers indicated that, ‘No safety policy in the works could be fully

cooperative and effective unless it received the full support of the workpeople concerned... trade unions assist... in creating create the right atmosphere’.785_{Throughout the 1960s, the union} between organised labour and capital grew stronger with each joint conference. Relative to other disputes between unions and employers, their joint conferences revealed a congenial and

complementary approach to accident prevention.786

Additionally, unions and employers welcomed safety officers as a crucial ally of accident

prevention, particularly in the operation of safety committees. The presence of the safety officer

783_{Sandra Dawson, Philip Poynter & David Stevens, ‘Safety Specialists in Industry: Roles, Constraints and}

Opportunities’ (1984) 5 JOB 4 p253, p257; Ministry of Labour, ‘Institution of Industrial Safety Officers / Witness Examination - Committee on Safety and Health at Work / Minutes of Evidence’ 5 July 1971 (Archive no: Lab 104/52) TNA – Kew Gardens; Ministry of Labour, ‘British Safety Council / Witness Examination - Committee on Safety and Health at Work / Minutes of Evidence’ 6 May 1971 (Archive no: Lab 96/46) TNA – Kew Gardens; James Tye, Management Introduction to Total Loss Control (British Safety Council 1970)

784_{‘Note of Proceedings at an Informal Meeting between the Representatives of the TUC and the BEC held at 36}

Smith Square SW1’ 11 August 1964 (Archive no: MSS.292B/146.19/2) MRC - University of Warwick p1 - 2

785_{BEC, ‘British Employers’ Confederation Report on the Industrial Safety Committee at Eastbourne’ May 1957}

(Archive no. MSS.13//3/2/C 1220) MRC - University of Warwick p6

786_{BEC, ‘British Employers’ Confederation Report on the Industrial Safety Committee at Eastbourne’ May 1957}

on such committees was projected to reduce the accident rate and ease the pressure that the Ministry of Labour was placing on unions and employers.787 Both groups depicted an officer that would ‘not be distracted by other duties and could stimulate positive accident prevention by safety inspection, followed by action and advice to the works engineer or production manager… even with the best of legislation… a safety officer was an essential service to industry’.788

There may have been another reason for the enthusiastic acceptance of the safety officers, the safety officer was seen as a malleable component of accident prevention.789 The safety officer was not seen as a threat to the dominance of organised labour and capital, even the formation of safety associations was just seen as a means to facilitate ‘national – cooperation amongst themselves’.790 For trade unions, the safety officer was a tool that could aid the safety work of trade union representatives.791_{There is little evidence of conflicting interests during this period} because the safety officer’s primary focus was safety; even though he looked after the interests of the employers, he looked after the safety interests of the employer, not the financial, safety was his only focus. In fact, his remuneration was reliant on keeping accidents rates low and his membership to safety associations reinforced professional standards. Thus, there was limited evidence of union distrust, like that which existed with the medical profession.792_Employers

787_{BEC, ‘The North East Council for Industry Safety in Collaboration with the British Employers’ Confederation,}

The Trade Union Congress and H.M. Factory Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour / Conference Report / Seaburn Hall Sunderland’ 28 April 1965 (Archive No: MSS.292C/145.8/2) MRC - University of Warwick

788_{BEC, ‘The North East Council for Industry Safety in Collaboration with the British Employers’ Confederation,}

789_{Gordon Atherley, ‘Strategies in Health and Safety at Work’ (1975) 54 PE 1 p52}

790_{BEC, ‘The North East Council for Industry Safety in Collaboration with the British Employers’ Confederation,}

791_{BEC, ‘The North East Council for Industry Safety in Collaboration with the British Employers’ Confederation,}

792_{British Medical Journal, ‘Industry and Health’ (1964) 2 BMJ 5423 p1479; Andrew Meiklejohn, ‘Sixty Years of}

organisations expressed similar sentiments of congeniality and even set up working parties to examine the best possible way that safety professionals could serve employers.793

Though there was not any central ‘housing’ for non – governmental organisations to come together, regular conferences and meetings between industrial groups provided ‘temporary lodging’ for discussions to take place. Such gatherings offered industry groups interested in accident prevention an opportunity to formulate a coherent and cooperative vision of accident prevention. By the mid-1950s, there were at least 60 industries covered by agreements which allowed for some considerations of the safety, health and welfare of employees.794_{This was} fertile ground to codify and develop practices and create a more cohesive, concentrated and collaborative project. Just as state practice attuned itself to the problems of accidents and ill – health through experience, so did its non - governmental counterparts. The industrial space filled with new organisations eager to build on the gains made and rectify previous mistakes.795 Moreover, a succession of governments ‘intensified the pressure’ on industry to ‘develop better safety organisation and practice’.796

Though non – governmental efforts were dynamic and ground-breaking, even the ‘greatest optimist’ was forced to admit that there was significant variance over what to do and how to do it.797 However, there was just enough accord to bring about the spread of safety committees in the 1960s. The safety committee was a symbolic and genuine representation of various groups working in unison to prevent accidents independent of government.798 They were set up,

793_{BEC, ‘British Employers Confederation Annual Report 1963’ 1963 (Archive no: HD6663) TUCLC - London}

Metropolitan University p9

794_{John Williams, Accidents and Ill – Health at Work (Staples Press 1960)}

795_{Ministry of Labour, ‘British Safety Council / Witness Examination - Committee on Safety and Health at Work /}

Minutes of Evidence’ 6 May 1971 (Archive no: Lab 96/46) TNA – Kew Gardens

796_{‘Industry (Prevention of Accidents)’ HC vol 707 cc775-84 (25 February 1965)}

CBI and TUC, ‘Report of Joint TUC/BEC Conference on the Prevention of Industrial Accidents 1962 held at Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1 1962’ (Archive No: HD 7273) TUCLC - London Metropolitan University p7

797_{Sandra Dawson and others, Safety at Work: The Limits of Self-Regulation (Cambridge University Press 1988)}

p205

798_{BEC, ‘The North East Council for Industry Safety in Collaboration with the British Employers’ Confederation,}

maintained on an individual, regional, national basis without government support. Safety committees were a testament of what industry could do if left to its own devices. Without the aid of factory regulation, safety committees spread across various industries; by the early 1960s, the Cement Makers Federation reported that numerous committees were put into operation.799 Electric Cable Makers Federation noted that every large company in their sector had either safety committees or discussion panels.800_{The Glass Manufacturers’ Federation relayed that matters} relating to safety are considered by the National Joint Council for the Glass Container Industry and that most works have joint safety committees.801_{In the years leading up to the appointment} of the Robens Committee, the safety committee became standard industry practice.802

The spread of safety committees gave credence to the belief that factory regulation was not the only impetus for industry to address the accident problem. Moreover, once cooperation was established, accidents would decrease because it was assumed that most safety endeavours failed through weaknesses in communications and the lack of individuals taking responsibility.803_The acknowledgement of which was reflected in the Chief Inspector’s Annual Reports and the last

factories acts; Factories Act 1959, Factories Act of 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. These acts represented the ‘old world’ of government prescription meeting

the ‘new world’ of non – state activity. In a sense, these factories acts were paradoxes; they were the last attempts of government seeking to govern the workplace, at the same time offering non – state actors significant roles in accident prevention. Arguably, the latter aspect spoke to the volume and ordinariness of non – state accident prevention activity.

799_{TUC, ‘Accident Prevention Information Received from the British Employers’ Confederation on Joint Safety}

Activity of its Member Organisations in Certain Industries’ 1963 (Archive no: MSS.292B146.19/2) MRC - University of Warwick p1

800_{TUC, ‘Accident Prevention Information Received from the British Employers’ Confederation on Joint Safety}

Activity of its Member Organisations in Certain Industries’ 1963 (Archive no: MSS.292B146.19/2) MRC - University of Warwick p1 - 2

801_{TUC, ‘Accident Prevention Information Received from the British Employers’ Confederation on Joint Safety}

Activity of its Member Organisations in Certain Industries’ 1963 (Archive no: MSS.292B146.19/2) MRC - University of Warwick p3

802_{J.W. Leopold and P.B. Beaumont, ‘Joint Health and Safety Committees in the United Kingdom: Participation}

and Effectiveness - A Conflict?’ (1982) 3 EID p266. 267

803_{BEC, ‘The North East Council for Industry Safety in Collaboration with the British Employers’ Confederation,}

In document Canetti Elias - Masa y Poder (página 159-173)