Nation on Board. Lynn Schler
Читать онлайн книгу.
in Lagos. This conciliation was followed by several years of limited contact. But in 1952, the two sides formed a local board with representation from the union, the shipping companies, and local government to monitor the recruitment and supply of seamen working out of Lagos.73 The board was to establish and maintain a register of seamen, and West African ratings were to be recruited only from those whose names were on the register. Both parties agreed that all matters pertaining to Nigerian seamen should be decided in Lagos. Cooperation began in earnest in 1954, when representatives of the Nigerian Union of Seamen met with Tom Yates of the National Seamen’s Union in Britain, and the British union helped to negotiate an effective working relationship between the Nigerian seamen and the British shipping lines.74
The change in the shipping companies’ position toward the Nigerian seamen’s union was in line with an overall shift in colonial policy toward African labor unions in the post–World War II period. A wave of strikes across the continent forced colonial governments and business interests to make some concessions in their stance toward organized labor. But while recognizing the need for reform, Fred Cooper has argued that governments and employers “wanted to confine the labor question to a set of institutions and practices familiar to them from the industrial relations experience of the metropole: to treat labor as [separate] from politics. The threat of a labor crisis becoming unbound—linked to people other than waged workers . . . made governments especially willing to pay the costs of resolving labor issues [through recognized unions].”75
In the case of the Nigerian Union of Seamen, the shipping company fully engaged with the union following a formal request from the colonial Labour Department in Lagos in 1952. While reluctant to comply at first, officials in the shipping company ultimately came to the conclusion that cooperation with the union would be the most efficient means for dealing with labor disputes. The local agent wrote, “Whilst we are still far from satisfied that the present officers of the Union are responsible and trustworthy persons, there has of late admittedly been a marked improvement in their demeanor and attitude, and the resumptions of Meetings of the Board would provide a means of negotiation preferable to attempts by the Union to send deputations on the slightest pretext.”76 To ensure that the union would not be any source of real agitation, the shipping company nurtured good relations with union officers and provided them with special benefits that would ultimately prevent these officers from agitating for the union. This could be seen in 1956, when the general secretary of the union, Franco Olugbake, wrote to the managing director of Elder Dempster to inquire about a new job with better pay at the United Africa Company. He wrote:
I have no alternative but to continue to hang on to my present employment—the seamen. What was more, I can not help but to keep the job, even though the salary is anything but compatible with my status in life. My Executive, knowing full well that my efforts to land another job seem gloomy, they tied me to all sort of conditions. For instance, my Executive pressed on me to agitate for the question of overtime, etc. I had to do this reluctantly. I had to write a memo covering overtime, Sundays as sea and holidays—you will probably see it.77
In developing a close relationship with the union leadership, Elder Dempster hoped to ensure that unrest among seamen remained at a minimum.
Thus, the decision to engage with the Nigerian Union of Seamen was a calculated attempt at making limited yet controlled concessions to Nigerian seamen, but did not represent any fundamental shift in the shipping companies’ views on seamen’s rights, and the whole endeavor was undertaken with a frustrated yearning for the good old prewar days when African seamen had not yet awoken to claim their rights. As one Elder Dempster official wrote in 1959, “We have looked through the rules of the Nigerian Union of Seamen. . . . It is a shocking document and much of what the Union appears to be aiming to do could not possibly be accepted by the [shipping] lines. I am referring to ship committees and so forth. I suppose in the old days there would have been someone in Nigeria who would have told the Unions not to be silly in framing rules of this kind, but I do not know whether there is anyone bold enough or authoritative enough to do so at the present time.”78
The document this official was referring to was the Rules of the Union, formulated and submitted to the shipping companies in 1959. These rules were aimed at regulating the internal workings of the union, and formalized procedures such as elections, dues collection, and the running of general assemblies. The union’s rules also made it a priority to maintain harmony among seamen and reduce incidents of tribalism, corruption, and conflict. But the detailed document was largely focused on a long set of demands and ideological positions taken by the union toward the shipping companies. The Rules of the Union called for improved working conditions, salary increases, the payment of overtime, and the upgrade of accommodations on board ships. The issue of hiring and recruitment was also raised, with the union calling for the institution of a closed shop. This demand was totally unacceptable to officials at Elder Dempster, who insisted that shipping companies reserved the right to select seamen according to personal ability and availability, regardless of their union membership.79 The shipping companies were also strongly opposed to crews organizing representative bodies on ships. The union had proposed electing a “ship’s committee” on board each vessel that would “settle all minor matters or disputes between European crews and African crews on board ships; settle all minor matters or disputes between the representatives of the shipping companies and the African crews on board ships; and try to settle all minor matters or disputes between one African and another or one group of African crews and another group.”80 This proposition was preposterous to the officials at Elder Dempster, who argued that the hierarchy of the ship was based on an established chain of command, with the captain the ultimate commander, and this would not be compromised by the establishment of elected seamen’s committees.
The most fundamental point of contention between the shipping companies and the seamen’s union emerged around allegations of racism. The existence of racism on ships was clearly acknowledged in the union’s rules, which demanded that “the committee should see to it that the African crews are not misused or unduly insulted because of the colour of their skin, which is a common practice on board ships.”81 This was an issue of immense sensitivity among officials at Elder Dempster, and they categorically rejected any allegations of racism on board their ships. They refused to even engage in any dialogue around the subject, and consequently would take no steps to stop it. Thus, while the shipping company had begrudgingly recognized the union, the ways in which they dealt with the explosive issue of racism on board demonstrates that the shipping company still hoped to limit and frame the terms of debate between shipping company officials and union representatives. For Elder Dempster, the issue of racial discrimination or prejudice was completely off-limits, and officials went to great efforts to strike the allegations from the lists of complaints and demands made by the union.
For seamen and their representatives, racism was a pervasive and inescapable feature of life on board colonial vessels. One seaman interviewed said, “On the British ships, you may be lucky to meet a nonracist. Your right is recognized and is given to you, but they don’t mingle easily.”82 Time and again, the issue was raised by union leadership in meetings and correspondence with Elder Dempster officials. Thus, in a letter written by union officer Akpan Monday in 1958, it was reported that “Africans are ill-treated by the English seamen with whom they work and ‘their so-called superior officers.’” He described several incidents when African crewmen were beaten by gangs of English seamen, and claimed that these incidents were reported but nothing was done about them. “In each case, the culprits went free without even receiving a warning.” Akpan provided vivid descriptions of racial violence against black seamen on several voyages and the lack of response from officers on board:
On the Aureol’s last trip, an English sailor threw hot water on the back of Mr. S. Ikpi, an African greaser. When Ikpi turned around and asked why, he was attacked by five other English sailors. When he ran to the Engine room for help, the officer said he was busy and could not come. Another African seaman was called a “bastard nigger” by the chief store keeper. When he reported this to the chief steward, the chief steward defended the store keeper. . . . This goes to show that whatever the black man says, right or wrong, he is always wrong in the eyes of the white man who is always prepared to defend his white brothers.83