Abstract
The group organization of work in the British coal mining industry brought to the workers involved significant levels of autonomy; the ability to define the social relations of work; high levels of control over the labor process; and a strong and lasting commitment - to the group. This autonomy was to survive a series of managerial attacks, in the form of changed payment systems and the introduction of new technologies, and was not finally lost until the imposition of full automation that included surveillance systems that made the labor process transparent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The cycle of production on a “long wall” face is as follows: the first cycle is to “undercut” the face, to allow the coal to be “fired” down using explosives; the second cycle is to fill the loose coal away on a conveyor belt (this cycle requires the largest number of miners); the third cycle involves “pulling” the face conveyor and ancillary equipment forward to allow another complete cycle to begin. Normally, one complete cycle would be achieved every 24 h, and would move the face forward between 5 and 6 ft.
The “mini” represented the minimum rate paid to face workers who were “on the market” but not placed. To be reduced to receiving this minimum level of wage brought the group down to the level of those not worthy of a place in a group. Those face workers finding themselves out of contract when a face is exhausted would be the first achieve a new contract, as a team, or to be picked up by another team.
Ex-gratia payments were also made for interruptions in production due to mechanical breakdown, or shortages of materials. These negotiations would more likely be with junior management (deputy or overman) for smaller financial adjustments, though these “spot” negotiations were still prone to conflict.
These supervisors would include: “Deputies” (usually 2 per face) who were previously responsible for health and safety only, but who were given greater responsibility for production and manpower deployment, under the NPLA agreement, and an “Overmen” in overall charge, who was responsible to the “Undermanager.”
Under the AIS scheme national negotiations set basic grades for all sections of the workforce. i.e. production workers, that is the face groups would receive a 100 % bonus, based on their own output. Underground ancillary workers would receive either 65 % or 50 % (of the colliery average) depending on how near you were to the point of production. Surface workers would receive 40 % of the colliery average. Colliery managers and all white collar staff received bonus payments based on the area average.
The main sub-systems of MINOS were FIDO (Face Information Digested On-line) IMPACT (In-built Machine Performance and Condition Testing) and MIDAS (Machine Information Display and Automated System). Further systems are also available, for instance, FACE (Face Advance Control Equipment).
Supervisory, Control, and Data Acquisition Systems (SCADA) makes use of fiber optic cables to integrate the multiple sources of data into one common architectural system of control over all surface and underground mining operations.
The National Coal Board was privatized in 1987 and the main producer of coal in the UK is UK Coal.
References
Beynon, H., & Austrin, T. (1994). Masters and servants. London: Rivers Oram.
Bullock, J. (1976). Bowers row. Bradford: EP.
Burns, A., Newby, M., & Winterton, J. (1985). The restructuring of the British coal industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 9, 93–110.
Chandler, K. W. (1978). MINOS – A computer system for control at collieries. 2ND. International Conference on Centralised Control Systems, London, quoted in Burns et al. (1985).
Dennis, N., Henriques, F., & Slaughter, C. (1956). Coal is our life. London: Eyre & Spottiswood.
Douglas, D. (1972). Pit life in Co. Durham. History workshop pamphlet. Oxford: Ruskin College.
Fincham, R., & Rhodes, P. S. (1999). Principles of organizational behaviour (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber and Faber.
Gibbon, P., & Bromley, S. (1990). From an institution to a business? Changes in the British coal industry, 1985–9. Economy and Society, 19, 151–160.
Handy, L. J. (1981). Wages policy in the British coalmining industry: A study of national wage bargaining. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herbst, P. G. (1962). Autonomous group functioning. London: Tavistock.
Howell, D. (1989). The Politics of the NUM: A Lancaster view. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. London: Chapman Hall.
Myers, C., & Davids, K. (1991). Knowing and doing: Different dimensions of skill at work. MRC/ESRC Social and Applied Psychology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Penn, R., & Simpson, R. (1986). The development of skilled work in the British coal mining industry, 1870–1985. Industrial Relations Journal, 17, 339–349.
Stephenson, C., & Wray, D. (2005). Cultural regeneration in post-industrial mining communities: the New Herrington miners banner partnership. Capital & Class, 87, 175–199.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some sociological and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
Trist, E. L., Higgen, G. W., Murray, H., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London: Tavistock.
UK Coal. (2005). Supervisory, control, and data acquisition systems (SCADA) for surface and underground application at deep mines. Framework Document.
Williamson, W. (1982). Class, culture and community. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Winterton, J. (1981). The trend of strikes in British coal mining, 1949–1979. Industrial Relations Journal, 12, 10–19.
Wood, S. (1990). Tacit skills, the Japanese management model and new technology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 169–190.
Wray, D. (2009). The relevance of community unionism: the case of the Durham Miners Association. Labor Studies Journal, 34, 507–518.
Wray, D., & Allsop, D. (2011). Damaged by democracy: the case of the National Union of Mineworkers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 147–161.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allsop, D., Wray, D. The Rise and Fall of Autonomous Group Working in the British Coal Mining Industry. Employ Respons Rights J 24, 219–232 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-012-9198-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-012-9198-2