Roger remembers…….
Remember the T.M.’s Dispute of 1979? I’ve forgotten what the issues were, but the Union backed the T.M.s, so we all became involved. I recall producing cardboard lapel badges with logos like, “Support Your Local T.M.”, etc.
It came to a climax in November when the Association of Broadcasting Staff called strikes. However, they gave permission for two studios to be exempted, on compassionate grounds. At T.V. Centre, on 19th November, the “Blue Peter” programme was allowed to continue, because they were broadcasting an appeal in aid of Cambodia. The following day, at T.V. Theatre, the “Crackerjack” programme was performed for the benefit of the schoolchildren in the studio audience, but was not recorded.
The Management’s heavy-handed response was to lock everyone out, all very quaint and 19th Century. They sacked all those who had been on strike and, with characteristic incompetence, they also sacked those who had NOT been on strike.
My primary objection to the lock-out was that, whenever the BBC transmitted a blank screen or a ‘Tom and Jerry’, etc., they broadcast an announcement saying something like, “We are unable to bring you the scheduled programme. This is due to industrial action by members of the Association of Broadcasting Staff.” A total lie! Most of those programmes had been cancelled by BBC Management, who had sacked all the people needed to make them! But, no doubt they felt that trampling their own staff underfoot was far more important than providing a service to the Licence-Fee Payers.
This recently rediscovered photocopy of a handwritten letter tells my part in the story. I failed to date it, but it seems to have been my reply to a memo from Personnel dated 4th March 1980. It is a reminder of a time when there were 19 crews; numerous studios including TV Theatre and the Greenwood; Allocations was on the 4th Floor and Personnel hadn’t rebranded themselves as ‘Human Resources’ or ‘BBC People’ or whatever. And it demonstrates that there were blundering incompetents in BBC Management, even before the coming of John Birt.
(notes below)
——————————————————
Room 4024 T.C.
extn. 2921
Dear Nina, (1)
Thank you for coming to see me yesterday. Sorry I was too busy to have a proper chat.
Further to the enclosed letter, I would just like to re-stress the point made during my recent interview, that neither I, nor any member of my Camera Crew, withdrew their labour during last November’s Inter-Management (2) dispute. Our absence from work during this period was entirely the result of being “taken off the payroll” by deliberate B.B.C. policy.
The details of the case are as follows: –
On Tuesday 20th November, at 16.30 p.m., we were working on “Crackerjack” at Television Theatre – when a Union Representative (3) asked us to withdraw our labour. We objected to this on the grounds that a live audience, mostly children, were travelling to see the show. It would be too late to cancel them now, and they would be bitterly disappointed. We persuaded the Union to consider this as a “Special Case” and allow us to work normally as a “Good Will Gesture”. I understand that the Video-Tape Department at Television Centre did not record the programme – but this did not affect the work of the Camera and Sound Crews at Television Theatre. We worked normally both during the show and the derig that followed. (I calculate, from your figures, however, that you do not intend to pay us for that period.)
The following Friday we reported for duty as usual, at the Greenwood Theatre. We had been on duty for about a quarter of an hour, when a VISION Manager (4) informed us that our Goodwill Gesture was to be repaid with summary dismissal. (One might have been less offended had a Manager from our own section conveyed the news.)
He read a set speech to the effect that we had withdrawn our labour (which was a fib) and that we were consequently deemed to be in breach of contract, (Please forward that part of my contract which says that I must NOT work normally) the B.B.C., therefore, demanded assurances from myself and my Union (A second fib. In fact we were neither asked for, nor given any opportunity, to give any such assurances) (5) and that we had been taken off the payroll three days previously (i.e. our sacking had been back-dated to 16.30 on the Tuesday. Curiously, a CAMERA Manager (6), who had been with us at the time, had not been aware of this. Obviously we would not have turned up on the Friday had we known that we had already been locked-out for three days. Equally obviously, the fact that a Manager was waiting for us, with a list of our names, indicates that we were expected to turn up).
When we pointed out that we had not withdrawn our labour, he simply read out the whole set speech again. Unlike the Union Representative, he seemed to have no authority to make any decision. (In some organisations, decision-making is a fundamental requirement of Management. In the B.B.C. it is evidently frowned upon.)
When we explained that we were quite willing to continue working normally (We would have ignored the Management’s lock-out instruction, just as we had successfully avoided the Union’s strike instruction.) he told us that the production had already been cancelled by the Management – even though they knew that we would be reporting for normal duty. (He also told us that there was no food in the canteen, which was a third fib. The breakfast was very nice!)
I realise, of course, that the whole incident could be a brilliant piece of biting satire – suggesting, perhaps, that Crew 6 working normally are indistinguishable from anyone else being on strike! If so, I would hate you to think that I don’t enjoy a joke at my own expense (Ho, jolly, ho.) However, I suspect that the humour was unintentional, and that the whole situation is just one of those pieces of B.B.C. bureaucratic buffoonery that we have all grown to know and love.
During the days that followed Crew 6 remained ready and available for work, but 6 of our scheduled programmes were cancelled due to the Management’s lock-out policy. If this ratio is typical of the 19 crews, it means that a maximum of 19 programmes could have been sunk by Union action, and about 114 programmes were scuttled by Management reaction. Assuming that the Management’s sole purpose in life is the disruption and prevention of programme-making, one has to credit them with an impressive score! (It all seems to prove my belief that there is a Trotskyite cell in Central Management. Certainly, with a bureaucracy like this, we don’t need a militant Union. They brought Television Centre to a standstill far more effectively that Arthur Scargill and a few thousand flying pickets could have done. Is there really a Red under the Bett?) (7)
I hope I have described the situation in a style befitting its silliness.
Best Wishes,
Roger Bunce.
——————————————
Notes:
1: Our friendly and popular Personnel Officer, Nina Shields.
2: In official communications, and for purposes of official irritation, I always insisted on referring to the “Inter-Management” dispute, since the Technical Managers were in dispute with other layers of Management. At the time, many industries were plagued by Inter-Union disputes. The BBC was perhaps unique in being brought to a halt by an Inter-Management dispute.
3: Dave Mutton – the award-winning Senior Cameraman of Crew 14.
4: Bill Poole.
5: The pretence was that we had failed to give an undertaking to “work normally” in future. Had such an assurance actually been asked for, we would happily have signed up to it. My definition of “working normally” would include any participation in legitimate industrial action. And, in maths, “normal” means at right-angles. Since Cameramen work standing-up, they always work normally!
6: I can’t remember who this was, but evidently one of the Camera Managers was keeping an eye on us during the “Crackerjack” production. I’d like to believe that no Camera Manager was willing to perform the actual sacking, because they had too much integrity!
7: “the Bett” is a reference to Michael Bett, the BBC’s Director of Personnel, 1977-81, who bore a curious resemblance to Doctor No. He was widely credited with having provoked the dispute, and introducing the ultra-reactionary lock-out policy. One of those career bureaucrats who never stayed in any one organisation for too long, he is alleged to have caused a trail of similar disputes wherever he went. He would become Sir Michael Bett C.B.E
In August 1980, after threats of legal action, both from individuals and from the Union, the Management relented. The pay deducted from the “Blue Peter” and “Crackerjack” crews was refunded. A couple of surviving memos show that they even managed to cock that up! Michael Bett left the B.B.C. the following year.
