Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Interviewer – italic text
Interviewee – normal text
Transcription problem (inaudible/unclear) – text within [] is my guess of what was said in
the context of the conversation or “?”.
…born five miles from here, [?], and I worked at Bournville, and eh…I got a scholarship through
Bournville. Oh, I was apprenticed at Bournville, as a joiner, and eh…when I finished my
apprenticeship, I went away from the firm for two years, and then I went back. Then I won a
scholarship to Fircroft College, which was down…is now the Dame Cadbury Hall, but it was
Fircroft College then, and following that, I got a scholarship to Ruskin, and I went to Ruskin
College for 12 months. And then I got an extramural scholarship to Birmingham University,
Sociology [and] Citizenship. Then I was elected to the executive of the ASW, as far as I know,
the only man that went straight from the bench to the executive. The others go through a process
of District Organiser and what have you, which I never were.
[Brief interjection from interviewee’s wife omitted]
And em…then I became…President of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives,
which was a…federation [obviously], was a federation I think…19 unions [I believe].
Could you give me the years when you, first of all, were elected to the ASW and, secondly, when
you became President of the NFBTO?
That would be difficult.
F: I’ll tell you when it was. [Inaudible] 1943…
Eh?
F: Was it 1943?
What?
F: When you were elected to…?
Yes, about that I think, 1943, yes. Em…of course, the presidency of the ASW is one of threeyear periods, you see.
Yeah.
Now, I was President of the ASW first for three years, and then I think it were in 19… I was 17
years President of the NFBTO…1953…to 1970, during which period I was also on the Civil
Engineering Construction Conciliation Board, for 17 years also.
Was that as an ASW member?
Yes, representing the ASW, yeah.
So all of the unions would have had their own representatives on the CECC…?
Oh yes, yeah. And you see, the Federation, of course, was made up of representatives from
each of the unions, not all of them but most of the unions.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Yes. So, really, you went…during the War years, into full-time work with the ASW and you
stayed with them until 1970.
That’s right, yes.
And then did you retire immediately after the amalgamation or did you stay with them for…?
No. I very…I should say almost immediately after the amalgamation. I might have been there six
months or something like that.
[Recording cuts – refreshments]
…all trades, which was eventually achieved, and when that was achieved, when a carpenter got
the same money as a painter and a bricklayer, then…then I think the idea of the germ was there
for an amalgamation and discussions took place over quite a period with various organisations.
For instance, we…two of the organisations that didn’t amalgamate with the…UCATT were the
Woodcutting Machinists and the Furniture Workers, both of which worked in wood, so that it’s
rather surprising that they should take in bricklayers, painters, asphalters, and yet these two kept
apart. We also lost the plumbers to the AEWU – no, to the ETU. The plumbers went to the ETU.
That’s strange actually…
The Woodcutting Machinists amalgamated with the…with the Furnishing Workers, then become
[NOPTO].
Mm. That does seem strange because, in the early part of the ‘60s, when the Federation set up a
working party on amalgamation, George Smith is saying really the ASW is interested in
amalgamation with the cognate trades – we’re not really interested in the bricklayers, the painters
and so on…
That’s right, this is right.
What was it really that changed the situation, because after all, as you say, you ended up
amalgamating with the Painters?
Well, I would say that it was the…it was because of the…the…terms that were offered to the
Woodcutting Machinists and Furnishing Workers weren’t acceptable to them, and em, I think
there was a need for amalgamation. I think…the Federation then outlived its usefulness. It had
been a very useful instrument in em…unifying the efforts of the various organisations towards
one rate in the building industry, controlling wages and working conditions. It did quite a useful
job of work. As I say, when its job was completed and there was a level of wages throughout the
industry, then it became obvious to lots of people that here was a chance now to get one big
organisation because of the multitude of activities that could have been married, and were
eventually married, and then out of that came UCATT.
Yeah. The thing that puzzles me though is that, although there’d be one rate for, say, a bricklayer
and a carpenter, a lot of the furniture trades people were outside of the building industry as such,
weren’t they?
Yes.
They were affiliated to the Federation on a minority…
They negotiated their own wages.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Yeah. So, in a sense, there was an affinity with the trades which went into UCATT which didn’t
exist within the woodworking trades…
Oh yes, yes, that’s true, that’s true, yes.
So, was there sort of an awareness of this as a problem in the mid-‘60s when these questions
were being discussed?
I think so, yes, I think so, because, em, the woodcutting machinists not only worked in joiners’
shops and in furnishing shops, and in wood mills, you see, and there was a different rate of
wages for all those people.
Yeah, whereas all your members would have been getting the one rate, by this time…
Yes. Well, we say only one rate. Of course, what happened, as soon as the one rate was
established, there was a move by the joiners, many years ago – they got a penny an hour extra
for using used material. For instance, concrete shuttering, the timber was used many times, and
so they got a penny an hour for using material, but they gave that away for a tool allowance, you
see, because the joiner carries the biggest, most expensive set of tools in the industry. Well, of
course, as soon as the joiners got a tool allowance [laughing], everybody else wanted a tool
allowance, you see, even to the painters getting a tool allowance, you see, and so the whole thing
was all knocked cock-eyed again! I think the tool allowances are still in operation. I don’t think
they’ve been given away – at least I haven’t heard any…I’ve had no notice of them being given
away.
Coming back to this question of the ASWM, I wonder if you can tell me what it was in…in the
negotiations, what it was in the agreement that was, I think, even drawn up, wasn’t it, between the
two organisations, which the Woodworking Machinists didn’t like?
I couldn’t…
What was the problem?
I don’t know. We met them on several occasions and eh, as far as I can remember, got very
close to…but suddenly, the Woodcutting Machinists and em…Furniture Workers – you see, the
Furniture Workers, the woodwork side amalgamated with the soft bedding side, and that was
all…and then, for some reason, these two got together, the Woodcutting Machinists, and the
other crowd went forward with their amalgamation into…UCATT.
Yeah.
And the plumbers of course, they were wooed, but eh…they went to…the…
The electricians…
Electricians. And that’s about all I can tell you I think.
Do you think that the conditions of the officials of the various unions affected people’s attitudes? I
mean, the ASW was…
Oh, I think that’s quite possible [laughing], you see. It made…it made a difference to…many of
the officials that came in with amalgamation, they immediately got a substantial increase in
wages, and also the benefits of a very sound pension scheme, so that must have had some
effect, and this must have been taken into consideration by Tomkins and his executive and must
have…Charlie what’s-his-name and his executive, the Woodcutting Machinists. But you see, we
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
had…they brought in the ABT and the Asphalt Workers, Bricklayers, Painters…[I don’t the
others], but…
Yeah, there was [ASTRO] I think as well…
Yes, that’s right, oh, that’s right, the slaters and tilers.
But in the mid-‘60s, I think the TUC tried to draw all of the woodworking unions together – didn’t it
hold meetings em…?
This was…I think this was the initial move.
Yeah.
This was an attempt to em…I suppose it really was probably not…not generally known this, but it
was an attempt to build, em, a new…a new structure, industry by industry structure. Like, after
the War, a team of experts went from here, from the TUC, to Germany to show them how to build
their trade unions, and they did it on an industrial basis, you see, and during our toings and
froings to Europe, we met people from the German unions, and we went to their office in
Frankfurt – a magnificent affair, and of course, this, again, was something that affected this move
to…to try to…as you say, for the TUC to get all the woodworking unions together. This…it’s
bound to have had an effect, and an effect on our thinking about the whole problem.
So all of the push from your side was towards the woodworking unions. I think the bricklayers
seem to have been…bricklayers and the painters seem to have been very keen on amalgamation
at a general level, that is all of the unions involved in the building trade.
This was it, I think. This was it, I think.
I feel that there’s…looking through the documents, a certain hesitancy on the part of the ASW
people to get involved initially with these other…with the trowel trades…
Yes, it didn’t seem natural, in the first instance, you see.
Yes, yeah.
In spite of the fact that, for years, we’d been working to get a…a level right throughout the
industry, there was…even then, there was a…I think there was a bit of toffee-nose, you know,
about the joiner being the eh…[?] men – used to refer to them as the [?] men, you see, and these
chaps had got dirt all over their trousers and everything.
Yeah, the Woodworkers certainly had a different kind of status, didn’t they?
Aristocrats…aristocrats…
Yes.
Well, they were the highest paid, for a long time. Now, I bet the plumbers are.
Mm. What sort of effect did the increase in building activity during the 1960s have on people’s
thinking? There was, you know, the Labour Government promising so many houses per year,
there was all this speculation in land, and lots of office-building…
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
I don’t think that em…this increased activity had anything to do with the…moulding the… It must
have, I suppose must have had some impact on the thinking, but nothing that I could consciously
put my finger on.
Mm. No, what surprises me about that period is that you get so much more going on – there
must have been an increased security really for the building worker, at the same time as you get
union memberships going down.
Yes.
And this was obviously worrying people…
Well, of course, yes, well, of course, there was a lot of speculative building, and em, we hadn’t
got…we hadn’t got sufficient organising strength to tackle all the jobs all over the place, you see,
and of course it…it was a conscious effort to be a member of a trade union when I was…when I
first joined, you see. There was many more out than in. And of course, now, it’s more difficult to
be out than in.
Yes. But it does seem that, during the ‘60s, membership was actually declining…
Oh, it was, definitely. I suppose it’s em…only within the last 10 years that that’s been arrested
and turned the other way. This of course…a lot to do with this is the labour-only… You see,
the…they made a terrific struggle did the ASW, and the building trade unions, through the
Federation, against labour-only, and finally, I think mainly through the efforts of the bricklayers
and the joiners, they got it outlawed, and then of course it was easier to organise.
It’s still not entirely stamped out, is it?
Oh no, no! It will never be entirely stamped out, I don’t think. But eh, there’s a lot less of it now
than there was! You see, the big firms used this for…as a form of cheap labour. I mean, eh, it
was a question of a chap saying, well, I can’t provide any material, but you give me these halfdozen houses and I’ll put the floors in for so much, and then they’d say, well, you…I’ll put the
skirting board in, I’ll put the roof on, and they got little gangs then going about, you see, and of
course they paid no tax. But even then, it was a long time to get the Government to do anything
about it, and only when they found out how much tax they were losing did they make an effort to
stamp it out. Well, it hasn’t been stamped out, but it’s certainly been…very greatly reduced.
The other thing about that period, I suppose, that strikes me, looking through the documents, is
the blurring in the lines of demarcation between the trades.
Yes. Now, this would – I suppose this was one of the greatest drawbacks, was the fact that the
[?] strike at Liverpool, you see, when the joiners said they…and, for weeks, work was held up
because nobody could drill the holes and that sort of thing. Nonsense, you see! But, if you…you
get a plumber to do the plumbing in a house, but he couldn’t put the water cistern up until a joiner
had put a pad on the wall, and it’s only a couple of plugs and a couple of nails [for a pan], but a
plumber mustn’t do that, you see, and this was the sort of thing which was niggling and greatly
disturbing, you know. Because you would have a strike if they saw somebody…hold the job up.
But this, I think, could…I think there’s a greater coordination now, but of course, I’ve been out of
the trade now for six years.
Yeah. No, I was wondering whether perhaps the…I don’t know, the increased use of concrete,
the changing sort of technology in the ‘60s…
Yeah.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
And there’s a lot of talk about the industrialisation of the building industry, you know, on-site
assembly, this kind of thing…
Oh yes. Oh yes, yes, yes.
And I wondered if this really affected the trades in breaking down the demarcation…
It helped very much. It helped very much, did industrialisation of the industry, when they started
to build tower-blocks and that sort of thing, and industrial building. And of course, we went over
to France and went round some of these buildings, and then came back and discussed it with the
employers, you see. But then, of course, [?] interchangeability, eh, and it was a difficult one, [at
the start], but eventually, it got broken down considerably. So, you’ve got to have a building trade
craftsman now, you see, trained in several of the…
Yeah. It must have been very difficult because the old craft skills would have, to some extent,
been obsolete…
Yes, oh yes, yes, eh…power tools, for instance…a great change over the industry… I mean, you
used to carry £30 or £40 worth of tools about in a [box].
When did the trend towards that stop? When did people begin, you know, not to need their own
tools so much anymore?
Well, of course there was…there was a move afoot, years and years ago, to get the joiners, all
the joiners, to take the tools home and tell the company he’d got to provide them. Of course, it
was a…it meant…it was a tremendous job, carrying your tools about, a big box of tools. They still
do it, to a certain degree, but a lot of the tools are now provided by the employer – power tools
and that sort of thing.
Yeah. So I suppose, really, it’s when power tools were introduced…
Yes, that was the move towards it, yes.
When would that be – about the end of the Second World War time or a bit later?
Later, I should think. Yes, later. When…with the intensification of building, and they started to
play about with all sorts of new materials and new processes.
And I suppose you begin to get people who are perhaps specialist in new areas. You were
mentioning concrete…you know, shuttering…
Oh yes, yes, yes. You see, we had to reach a special agreement with the employers over
concrete shuttering, because anybody was doing concrete shuttering and, in actual fact, it’s a
very important process. The result was that they were putting concrete shutters up but the damn
things were collapsing, you see! And then you had to…we had to move towards the concreteshutterer, and even some of our own people said, “Right, well, I’m taking that job on,” and of
course, in any case, it can be priced.
Yes.
This can be made a piecework job. So, the shutterers were getting more than the skilled
craftsmen, [?] again.
So did you have many members in shuttering or was it really T&G work?
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Well, no, I should think…I should think most of it, in the initial stages, was done by our people, for
the extra money. Then I think these…these other chaps, they got a hammer and a saw, they
could see how the job was done, so they went in, shuttering, you see.
So did that cause problems, I mean over who’s going to get that new work?
Well, there was so much work to be done.
Yeah.
Otherwise, it probably wouldn’t have happened. I mean, there would have been a…a direct move
against it, except the fact there was so much work to be done. This demarcation problem was a
terrific problem.
Well, as was the other question which you just referred to, which was the payment on piece
rate…
Yeah.
Because you accepted that from, what, 1947 I suppose…
Yes, payment by results… But of course, you know [laughing], it’s alright to say we introduced it
– it was there. Because, if I went on a job and I was doing the flooring, the gaffer would come in
and say, “I could get kids to do this bloody job in half the time you’re doing it, and you’re sacked!”
This was payment by results in reverse, you see.
Yeah.
And when things were short, this was the sort of thing that happened – you got kicked off a job
because you weren’t working fast enough, or because somebody else at the gate would come in
and do it cheaper.
Yes, it was really enforced, wasn’t it, in the War, I mean, I suppose from about ’41, ’42…
Yeah.
Yeah, so it meant that the national rate which you were negotiating as a union wasn’t really the
important rate on site…
Well, no, I think it…to a large degree, it was a very solid foundation, but I think there were lots of
offshoots, lots of people handling… Of course, there was a competition for the skilled man,
employers competing for skilled men.
I’ll come back then to the question of the other unions that were around. The Transport &
General Workers was organising only building labourers, wasn’t it, for a long while?
Yeah. They weren’t part of the Federation of course.
Yes.
And em, I think it was the bricklayers…who started to organise the bricklayers’ labourers into their
organisation, so the Transport & General Workers said, well, if you’re going to organise labourers,
we’re going to organise skilled men. Then, you see, there was another union…what happened to
the plasterers?
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Well, they went into the Transport & General.
That’s it! They went – that’s right. This was another argument, you see [laughing]. They went in
the Transport & General. They were a skilled craft, and they were talking with us, amalgamation
with the…but they went in the Transport & General Workers out of pique I think!
Why out of pique? Did they not find satisfactory terms?
I think the General Secretary of the Plasterers didn’t get on very well with the ASW and the
Amalgamation Committee.
Yeah.
So, they sold out to the Transport & General, which gave the Transport & General a bigger [thing]
– we have craftsmen, we already have a branch of craftsmen in…!
Yes, yeah. That must have been very worrying for you, as an organisation, because you get a
monster like the T&G saying we’re going to start organising in your industry…
Yes.
Well, it’s, I suppose, that was incentive, was it, for you to…?
Well, there were lots of rows about it, you see, and how they’ve got on recently, I don’t know. I
know that the Transport & General still organise craftsmen, and I know that craftsmen
[laughing]… Of course, what will happen, I would imagine, eventually, is that we shall organise
all the labourers that work in the building industry, if the Transport & General Workers will stand
for it, which I doubt very much. But this is the problem that’s with them now, I suppose.
Yeah. So were there talks between George Smith and Jack Jones about this question, in the
late-‘60s?
Not that I’m aware of. Not that I’m aware of.
Just that I noticed in the minutes of an executive committee meeting in 1966, em, that then you’re
writing to Jack Jones and saying, well, of course, there is this problem of organising craft workers
and it’s the first time that this question has arisen with the T&G and we’ll have to meet you and
talk about it, you see.
Oh, that’s quite possible, yes.
So I wondered if perhaps there were discussions around that time…
Could quite possibly have been.
…direct with the T&G… There was never any question though of amalgamation with the T&G, I
mean not for a union like the ASW?
Eh, not that I’m aware of. If there was, it never came to my notice.
Who do you think the people were who were most involved in the question really of
amalgamation, out of your own executive?
Oh, I think they all were.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
They all were…
Oh yes, I think so. They would…as soon as em…people like Jack [Strange], Sam [McKelvie],
Sam [?], were replaced, there was a greater urge for a get-together then, when the old boys…
Because this craft union, this craft basis for…this em…toffee-nosed approach was a difficult one
to get over.
Yeah. So you think maybe changing personnel on the executive had some influence?
I think it probably, eh, speeded the thing up… Yes, I think so.
Who would be the new people who came in about that time then, in the ‘60s?
Ah…
I know I’m asking a lot of your memory!
Jimmy [Heapy], eh…Jack Marshall, em, Bert Wilkinson… This was after the death of Stan
Taylor, Norman Kennedy and George [Binham].
So that would have been you three, and then there were…there was six or seven altogether?
Seven.
Seven of you altogether – so does that include George Smith?
No. He’s the General Secretary.
Sorry, he’s the General Secretary – he’s separate from that seven.
Yes.
So, the others would have been yourself…?
Yeah, Martin Youngs, em, [Heapy], em…Wilkinson, Marshall…
Yes, we’ve got – that’s Jimmy [Heapy], Jack Marshall, Bert Wilkinson, yourself, Martin Youngs..
That’s right.
And Williamson you said?
No, not Williamson.
Wilkinson.
You’ve got him twice.
I’ve got Wilkinson twice, yes.
There’s another one from somewhere.
Doesn’t matter – I can check that anyway from the documents.
Yes.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
I was just interested as to the people who you thought were maybe encouraging amalgamation or
perhaps had just got a more modern, you know, attitude towards…
Yeah, I think, yeah, I think they saw the problems that were confronting the industry clearer than
the older generation, and the necessity to get together. I think they saw it quite clearly and the
others were a bit, as I say, old-fashioned, case-hardened craftsmen.
Yeah. How about George Smith – do you think he was very keen on the amalgamation?
Oh yes, yes. I would say that he was the leading light.
Though, initially, he…well, certainly, in the early-‘60s, I find him saying, in the meetings and so
on, we’re in favour of amalgamation with the cognate trades, we want to go in with the other
woodworkers…
Yeah.
Do you think, at some point, he changed his view on the question of amalgamation?
No, I think…I think he probably saw that, eh, the structure of the Federation had been responsible
for such a long time for negotiation within the industry that, although, in the initial stages, he
thought about the cognate trades, I think he realised that em…what would inevitably happen
would be a get-together of the main trades in the industry.
Yes, and I suppose the attitude of those unions towards you, towards the ASW, would have
influenced him, because the painters were very keen on coming in with…
Yes. They would have an influence, yes. Ah yeah, probably yes, he probably suddenly realised
that cognate trades were alright if you could get them together, but if you can’t, then you have to
do this other thing.
What was the feeling after the plasterers went into the T&G? Was it general horror?!
Well, very great surprise I think [laughing], but as I say, I think…it was pique I think.
Yeah. Do you think they got a better deal from the T&G than they could have got from you?
I don’t think so, no. No, I don’t think so. No, I don’t think anybody could have got a better deal
than the ASW one.
No, I wondered if, just from the point of view of maybe their General Secretary or their own fulltime officials…
[Several I think had] bad feeling.
Mm.
You see, we had…the ASW had many demarcation disputes with the plasterers, over
plasterboarding, and this creating bad feeling. They were always going to the Federation
committee on demarcation, these two, the ASW and the plasterers.
But in a sense, that would have meant it would be a good thing for them to get together, because
then, if they’d had the one card…
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Yes, yeah, that would have been the thing to do, of course. This, of course, is one thing that
amalgamation of the building trade has done: it’s greatly reduced the demarcation questions.
Because he’s in our organisation anyway, so why shouldn’t he knock a nail in?
Yes. What sort of role do you think that the Federation played in the amalgamation? Do you think
the Federation encouraged it or…?
Well, I think it was realised that the Federation had… It had either got to be the Federation [as]
and amalgamated [union], or it had got to be that the Federation, with its membership of the
National Joint Council, 40-strong or something, 20 on either side, either that had got to be pushed
on one side and you’d got to organise on an industrial basis, I mean negotiate on an industrial
basis, and so I think this is what happened.
How did Harry Weaver feel about this, because obviously, for him…?
Well, he was at the end of his time, you see.
Yeah.
I think, in the initial stages, he might have looked a bit askance, but I think he…he came to the
conclusion, like everybody else did, that this move was inevitable. It was a cumbersome
structure, you see, was the…was the Fed, but it served a very useful purpose.
Yeah. Well, some people have said that old Dick Coppock was the architect of the amalgamation
in a way because he was….well, he pushed really for the…
It can be said. It can be said, because he did…he drew the trades together, in the Federation,
and obviously this, as I say, this machine was a bit cumbersome, and it became necessary for the
trades to get closer together, so why shouldn’t one union take over the negotiations? I should
say he was the architect, the unwilling – no, the unknowing architect. I mean, if he’d have
continued, he would have fought [like hell against] an amalgamation, unless he was going to be
the General Secretary.
Undoubtedly, yes.
You see…and he was 70 before he turned it in!
Yeah. I wonder if that affected things in the very early days when the Federation was formed.
You know, Dick Coppock came in then and…
Well, of course the Federation was formed much before my time [laughing].
Oh yes, I realise that, yeah. I wonder if you can remember – it’s perhaps a bit detailed, but in
1968, the President… Were you President in ’68 of the ASW – was that you?
Em…I couldn’t tell you that. It was early on I was President. You see, as I say, it was on a rota
basis, and the President took the conference, you see, and I was three years President.
F: They started those conferences about the [?], do you remember? There was a London
conference and a… The districts hadn’t started – that was the year they started that, in 1968.
So I did…
F: These sort of conferences- they had a London conference but I don’t know whether the…
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Regional conferences…
F: Yes, that’s right, the regional conferences started in [1968].
It was just that I came across a reference in the presidential address in the 1968 Annual Delegate
Conference where he says, em, the negotiations have been taking place with the AUBTW and
the Painters and so on, and he says that various difficulties have arisen. Now, this would really
have been just prior to the amalgamation, 1968 – it’s only two years before the painters go in with
the woodworkers, and I wondered what difficulties were actually taking place at that stage.
Demarcation[?], but you’ve got… This was the 1968 presidential address, to Conference?
Yes, that’s right, yes.
Well, [he] ought to have taken note of who was in the chair at the Conference. Was it Martin, was
it Youngs..?
I’ve got a feeling it was Marshall actually but…
Marshall?
Yeah. I could be wrong.
Yes, it could have been. It could be him, yeah.
I just wondered what those difficulties were which he would have been referring to, since it was
obviously being made general knowledge that there were difficulties through the things that he
said.
Search me…
Yeah. The other thing that is interesting in all of this I suppose is the politics of the situation in
that the ASW is, well, I suppose middle of the road, if you like - it’s not a left-wing union. The
AUBTW did have quite a number of CP members, didn’t it, directly involved in their executive and
so on?
Yeah.
I wondered if there was any feeling that, you know, perhaps you didn’t want to get together with
them for the political reasons…
I don’t know that…it could possibility have influenced, but not to my knowledge. Two came onto
the…two came onto the executive when the executive was extended.
Yeah.
This was in my last year – Williams and em…Darcy. But I wouldn’t think that that influenced
discussions at all, because I think the idea now is the natural wastage of the executive council to
get it back down to seven.
Yeah. Well, I think it’s back down now, isn’t it?
I don’t know. I’m not up-to-date in these affairs [now]. It could possibly be. I know Martin and
Youngs have gone and I don’t know who’s replaced them. I know I was replaced by a
Communist.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
F: [Inaudible]
I don’t know.
F: [?]
Did he? Oh well, I don’t know!
Well, I know they had an election in December because there was someone called Charlie Kelly
was elected.
Kelly…don’t know him. Well, it’s six years, you see, since I had anything to do with them.
Mm. You’ve not kept in touch with any of the other people at all?
No. I’ve been too busy with my Labour Party work.
Yeah. Yes, I know. It comes…comes as quite a lot.
F: [?] Kelly has taken…has taken em…Wilkinson’s place.
Well, I don’t know Kelly. No, I don’t know him. Aberdeen…woodworker… No, don’t know him.
F: Incidentally, it must have been before 1966 when you were made President of the
[international], because you’ve been retired… It was 1969, when you retired?
’70.
F: 1970, you retired. That’s eight years ago. And [?]. [?] doing the [?] for six years.
That doesn’t really matter…not really important.
F: Yeah, four years, four years, because you’ve been [?] for four years, so you must have been
made President before that. I know that I wasn’t with you – you rang me up. You were in the
[East] somewhere with Dick Coppock.
Yeah, well…
F: You rang me up to tell me that you’d been made President [of the international].
[It could have been before.]
What sort of man was Dick Coppock?
Oh, dynamic.
Was he?
Oh yeah, a character…
He’s got a huge reputation, I think.
Oh, he earned it too. Yes, he was a great…he was a great fellow. He should have gone earlier
than he did of course, but there you are. He was on the…he was the Chairman of the London
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
County Council, had his picture painted and hung in the entrance hall of County Hall. Oh, he was
a great character.
Had he been a member of the Communist Party in his youth?
Who?
Dick Coppock.
No, I shouldn’t think so, no. No.
I wondered because I’ve seen some accounts which said that he was quite left-wing when he
was…when he first started.
Well, he could be left or right wing, just how the wind was blowing! He was a great actor too.
You don’t think really then that the politics played an important part in the negotiations at all?
No, I don’t think so, no.
It was more the sort of tactical day-to-day…
Yeah. There might have been slight impact, but it was very, very slight. No, I think it was that
people saw the necessity for the change.
How about the membership? Did you find some areas were perhaps in favour of amalgamation
and some against?
Yes. The old…the old joiners didn’t want to join up with anybody. After all, they were the cream
of the Earth and… Oh no, it was a…it created many difficulties. We had to have the regional
conferences to explain the necessity. You see, they didn’t think a painter ought to have as much
money as a carpenter, for a start, or a plasterer…a bricklayer either, for that matter, and this had
to be broken down.
Were there some areas which were in favour of the amalgamation? Would you find say Liverpool
or London, that…?
Yeah, I should…I couldn’t define them, but I should think that, almost certainly, it would be that
out in country districts, they wouldn’t like it, but I should think in the big conurbations, they might.
I think…it’s probably age groups that were for or against, you see. The younger people coming in
could see that it was inevitable, but the old people wanted to just keep the craft union going, you
see. They’d have gone back to the [?] if they could!
[?]
This old chap here would have gone back to the [?]. Him…he wouldn’t have had…he wouldn’t
have stood for amalgamation!
Who’s this?
He’s a [laughing] chap that…the only work he ever did was church work, and he was a fine joiner
and you wouldn’t expect him to be in favour with amalgamation with the bloody painter, would
you?! He’s just getting his medal there. [Wee Dennis] wouldn’t be in favour of amalgamation.
That’s the District Secretary.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Yeah.
You know him, do you?
No, I don’t think so. Who’s that?
What’s his name….? Barlow, Ken Barlow. He’s a left-winger I think.
No, I met the Secretary…I expect he covers this area, the full-time official should I say, [Irwin]?
That’s one of them.
[Irwin], yes – he came along to a meeting on Direct Works in Coventry.
Yeah.
And he’s also been up to the University and talked to the students, so I’ve met him once or twice.
But I don’t really know any of the others in this area.
Oh, there’s em…I don’t know…Matthews, [Irwin]… [Erwin]?
Yes.
Yeah, and there’s em…Barlow is the Secretary. What’s that chap that lives up the top of the hill,
his name, the organiser?
F: Oh em…em…Gibson.
Gibson. But’s it’s [Irwin], you’ve met.
Mm. Yes, I think he must cover Coventry, you know.
Possibly.
I think that explains why…
Yeah, possibly.
How do you think the amalgamation was actually effected? Do you think it was…was the merger
fairly straightforward after all the talks that would have taken place?
Yes. Yeah. It was a slow process, but em…and a difficult one. It was a question of marrying
different sorts of rules and that sort of thing. It was a slow process. And a difficult one at times of
course, with the…marrying the various rule books.
What were the main differences between the rule books, would you say?
I really wouldn’t know. The only rule book I ever took any notice of was the ASW rule book.
Yeah. Was it a question of money, of contributions and so on?
All this, yeah. That was a great difficulty. And benefits too, you see… As a matter of fact, I
think…one rule – ah, this was nothing to do with amalgamation. This was something to do with
our own finances when, some years ago, we decided not to have any intake into number one
section, which carries with it a superannuation. We stopped that, and I should think, by the end
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
of my…by the time I’m dead, there’ll be no further payment out of the superannuation fund – that
will be gone. But that wasn’t to do…that wasn’t to do with amalgamation. This was because of
a…a serious look at our financial position years ago. Of course, there was great variance in the
contributions and the benefits of the various organisations.
How many sections did the ASW have at the time of the amalgamation?
Number one and number two, number three, number four, number…five, I think.
Five sections…
Yeah.
And they would have been…like the number one section would have been the…?
One section would be the people with superannuation, and entry to that was stopped – I don’t
remember the exact year, but some years ago, that was stopped, so that we said that, in so long,
there’ll be no superannuation fund, nothing to pay out of the superannuation fund. But I don’t
remember the year…
There wasn’t a women’s section as such, was there, within the ASW?
Not then, but there is now.
Yes.
At the time of amalgamation, I think… You’ll have to check on that. I think probably there was.
Yeah. My impression was that they had a few women members but that, generally, they didn’t
like to recruit women because of course they weren’t the craft workers.
I think that’s probably right.
Yeah.
Yes, I should think that’s probably right.
Would that have been a problem, because, I mean, I know NAFTO, for example, had unskilled
sections and did recruit women into their organisation – would that have been a difficulty in talks
with NAFTO?
Well, even if it was, it was overcome. It was overcome and then women were accepted. We
couldn’t imagine them carrying bricks up onto the scaffold or anything like that, but eh…there was
a rate…there was a rate agreed for women workers. As I say, I’m completely out of touch now.
There was never serious discussion then between the ASW and NAFTO – it was always
between, the main discussion, between the Woodcutting Machinists and the ASW?
Oh, and NAFTO.
And NAFTO…
Oh yeah, yeah. Yeah, there was great hopes that we should get them in I think, at one time.
Interviewed c.1978 by Janet Druker, then a PhD student at the University of Warwick
Interview – J Mills
Transcribed by Alison McPherson, alison.mcpherson@premiertyping.com, www.premiertyping.com
Well, I think that covers the specific questions that I had down actually. I don’t know if you had
any further points that you felt were important, either about the period generally or about
amalgamation?
No.
How do you think it affected the individual officials? You said earlier on that you thought
the…some officials benefited considerably…
They did, yes.
What about the ASW people – did they feel they were going to be held back because of the levels
prevailing…?
I don’t think so, no, I don’t think so. In the interests of this unanimity, I think they…really
realised… Well, you couldn’t possibly, under the Transfer of Engagement Order, kept them down
at the level they were at.
Yes.
They had to come up to the rates paid in the new organisation, which were higher, in every case.
Under the Transfer of Engagements, there was no instrument of amalgamation as such, was
there?
No, this was the instrument.
The Transfer of Engagement is the instrument, yeah.
Is the instrument that was used, yeah.
Yeah.
Well, you see, submissions had to be made to the Registrar General, you see, and [it was only]
under these terms that this amalgamation could be effected.
Yeah. The law was changed in 1964 to facilitate amalgamation. Was the ASW involved at all in
campaigning for that legal change?
I wouldn’t…I wouldn’t like to answer that – I don’t know. I don’t know.
It’s interesting that, before both of the amalgamations, em, the amalgamation which formed the
ASW in 1920/21, and then the formation of UCATT, both of them were preceded by a legal
change: 1917 was the alteration to the law; and then again in 1964.
Oh, that’s…yes, that’s quite…yes.
And it seems, in both cases, that perhaps discussions were inhibited because the law was so
difficult to comply with for a big union that you wouldn’t get the…this kind of talks taking place.
Quite possible, yes.
Fine. Well, I think if we leave it at that – thank you very much.
[End of recording]