Soviet working class

n. le r-

WJ e Mh DN

Ris

I RS URE USS URE he

i

WORLD ~

ii

‘‘Making us work more days is not the way to fulfill the plan,’ said another. ‘‘Fewer days off just means we’ ll have less energy and less desire to work at the plant’’.

Another surprise. The dissenting workers quickly found spokesmen of their own, people who were notasso- ciated with the trade union hierar- chy. One of these who became some- thing of a media figure was big Lev Makarov, 48, a foundry worker at the plant who, during the ensuing conflict seems to have played a tough but thoughtful role.

Some 10 per cent of the plant’s 600 departments rejected the man- agement timetable outright. There emerged a consensus for an alternate timetable with only eight ‘‘Dirty Sat- urdays’’. Others endorsed management’s timetable, with 15 working Saturdays, only after fierce debate. Appeals to authority, habit, to the exigency of the plan and the pride of trade suffused the discus- sion. For example, in the heat of discussion, one worker who sup- ported management’s position ap- parently charged that those who were calling for fewer working Saturdays could ‘‘no longer call themselves Soviet engine-builders’’.

Although what had happened so far was quite unprecedented, no one seems to have been alarmed at this stage. Management, seeing its time- table overwhelmingly accepted in section-meetings then brought it, unchanged, tothe council of the work collective. This is a new type of body, composed of representatives directly elected by all the employees of the enterprise. However, it has worked out at the Yaroslavl enter- prise that the head of management, Vitaly Doletsky, is also chairman of the council. The council of the work collective endorsed management’s timetable, with 15 Saturdays, and that is when the trouble broke out.

New form of democracy

After the day shift, on Friday December 11, alarge group of work- ers marched to the head office, car- rying placards in favour of the eight Saturdays scheme, and demanded a meeting with Doletsky. He wasn’t available, nor was the chairman of the trade union committee, or the plant’s party secretary. The next day a much larger crowd of workers gathered, and their representatives were able to meet with the director. Together they decided to call a con- ference of the work collective to decide the issue.

This form of democracy is quite new for Soviet workers. In fact, for most it is still a largely untried ex- periment. It’s import is that the entire workforce of an enterprise not only elects a council to oversee day-to- day matters -- its jurisdiction is eve- rything that goes on or has to do with the enterprise -- but also, in extraor- dinary circumstances, workers may call for a general assembly of the entire work collective. In the Yaroslavl case, where the work col- lective is too huge to meet, a confer- ence composed of delegates directly elected by workers in their sections was arranged to address the time- table question.

In preparation for the confer- ence, management finally presented its best case in an open and public manner. It published all of the rele- vant figures about breakdowns, time losses. supply disruptions, etc., and

madea strong pitch for endorsing the 15 working Saturdays, ineveryone’s interest, to meet the unavoidable demands of production. ‘‘Should the management have argued its case in this way, right from the beginning, there might have been no conflict,”’ notes Sotsialistichesskaya Industria.

The proponents of eight Satur- days, with Lev Makarov prominent among them, held their meetings at the plant gates every day, to agitate for their point of view.

Atthe conference, December 18, some 700 delegates hotly debated both sides of the issue for more than four hours. Interestingly, Lev Maka- rov was given a place on the presid- ium, though he had no official posi- tion or claim to sit there. In the end, a vote was taken in which 359 dele- gates supported management’s posi- tion for 15 working Saturdays, 296 opposed it, and five abstained. In the course of the meeting a compromise had been agreed to, in which man- agement promised a timetable with no more than eight working Satur- days in 1989.

Anew militant spirit

After the meeting, Makarov told a Moscow News reporter: ‘‘No less than the director we are interested in the fulfilment of the plan and meeting our contractual committments. On this depends our earnings and our children’s security. We have no beefs with management in this re- spect. But what should be done to achieve this? Why does everything hinge on working Saturdays? The managementsays itneeds them inthe event of breakdowns, but these are not inevitable. Instead of eliminating the causes of them, it seems easier to make the workers work Saturdays’.

The outcome of this dispute, in an apparently goodwilled accommoda- tion of management, may seem anti- climactic to Western readers. But in the Soviet context what happened and how it was handled are earth- shaking news. Although it occurred in specific circumstances, Over a particular issue -- “‘Dirty Satur- days’’ -- the episode contains many elements that are universal and which are bound to turn up again and again in the coming months as the Soviet economy converts to new conditions and the democratization begins to take hold:

First, there is a newly militant spirit emerging among workers as they respond to the atmosphere of perestroika and feel their way down channels of democratic input that have opened up for them. Their expectations are obviously growing

and, among some, there is clear .

impatience with old ways, old slo- gans and old demands upon them. They can no longer be taken for granted.

Second, both management and the trade unions in Yaroslavl reacted tothe situation in exactly the old way, trying to steamroll the timetable through, expecting all committees to rubberstamp it ‘‘for the good of the plan’’. To its credit, management smartened up as storm clouds gath- ered, and made a good effort to play by new, democratic rules. The plant trade union organization, however, appears to have been virtually side- lined. Nothing illustrates this better than the fact that an official nobody, but popular workers’ choice, Lev Makarov, emerged as the one who argued uncompromisingly from the

workers’ corner.

Atthe latest trade unioncongress, Mikhail Gorbachev accused Soviet trade union leaders of frequently ‘‘dancing cheek to cheek with man- agement’’ in arranging industrial affairs. Indeed, trade union leaders in general seem to stress their admin- istrative functions and appear strangely uncomprehending of the new conditions that are developing under their noses.

Third, the issue was resolved through a conference of the work collective and not by any traditional

means. This is tremendously hopeful because it suggests that direct de- mocracy can work in Soviet facto- ries, and that it can overcome prob- lems that used to simmer and fester.

Finally, the response of the Soviet media may be the most important new reality of all. Had it happened even just a year ago, the Yaroslav] dispute would have been hushed up, glossed over, and treated as if it were a blotch on the face of socialism. Now, reporters rushed to the scene, interviewed workers and manage- ment, and published all the argu- ments and the events in detail. In the process not only the workers of Yaroslavl but the entire country re- ceived an education.

“‘there

is a new, militant spirit emerging among workers...”’

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 13, 1988 e 9