AnarWiki/markdown/Whyalla_Glove_Factory_Work-In.md

The **Whyalla Glove Factory Work-In** was an episode of [workers'
control](Workers'_Self-Management "wikilink") in Whyalla, [South
Australia](Commonwealth_of_Australia "wikilink") from [1972 to
1973](Timeline_of_Libertarian_Socialism_in_Oceania "wikilink").

## Background

Twenty women machinists were faced with redundancy by the closure of the
factory late in 1972.

## Events

They challenged the company’s prerogative to withdraw its operations at
will and ten of them occupied the factory. When these women machinists
streamed into the manager’s office at the commencement of their sit-in,
the manager, J.E. Larven, was clearly shocked. Those involved attest
that Larven realized he had lost control of the situation.<sup>40</sup>

Peter Duncan, a Labor MP, attended this occupation on November 20, 1972,
in his role as counsel for the Miscellaneous Workers Union (MWU), which
represented the women. He told the South Australian Parliament that
Larven “completely lost control of himself and started punching people
in all directions…. \[He\] was a boxing instructor and he evidently
decided to use his prowess on the employees.”<sup>41</sup> The workers,
however, stood their ground—or, rather, sat on it. Barry Cavanagh, MWU
South Australian state secretary at the time whose wife’s nose was
broken by Larven, recalls:

While the manager, Larven, was going berserk, outside the factory the
workers streamed inside…. Larven eventually went and locked himself in
his office and made frantic phone calls…. Then the Ship Painters and
Dockers arrived with their secretary who had a particularly strong
record of militancy and mobilized members to demonstrate solidarity with
workers during their sit-in (He was a little bloke, but built like a
drop of water upside down)…. Larven had no more authority. In a show of
solidarity and material, all of a sudden a procession of Ship Painters
and Dockers streamed into the factory through the window later followed
by mattresses, guitars, food, T.V. sets, and other amenities to show
solidarity and give material support to the workers.<sup>42</sup>

The next morning, there were hundreds of unionists and onlookers
gathered in front of the building. When Larven arrived, he found the
pathway to the factory blocked. Police informed him that they would
escort him through, but

anything went wrong, they could not guarantee his safety. Larven decided
to get back into his car and go home.<sup>43</sup> At this point, about
a hundred members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union went
out on strike in sympathy, while an ad hoc committee of unionists at the
sit-in at the factory announced to the press that, in support of the
women machinists, they would attempt to close down all industry in
Whyalla.<sup>44</sup>

This occupation of the Whyalla Glove Factory aligned with the general
aims of the MWU, which was committed to militant strategies, including
converting sit-ins into workers’ cooperatives.<sup>45</sup> The MWU had
been moving leftward since the early 1960s, emblematic of the
radi-calization of unions occurring during this period. A former
Seaman’s Union official observed: “They were becoming far more
militant and serious about challenging the bosses and winning, and
therefore becoming more disliked… by employers.”<sup>46</sup>

Employer disdain for unions was echoed in the mainstream press,
encouraging the common perceptions of this time that unions were too
powerful and heavy-handed. Certainly, the reporting of this occupation
in the Adelaide <em>Advertiser</em> focused on the strong record of
militancy among workers in the Ship Painters union, implying the
violence was all theirs, with captions such as “Whyalla Unionists Invade
Factory.”<sup>47</sup> In contrast, an editorial in the normally
conservative Whyalla newspaper was surprisingly responsive to the extent
of local support for the women:

Even the most implacable opponents of direct action on the industrial
front can hardly quarrel with the motive behind the latest show of
protest by unionists in Whyalla. The sit-in at the James North
glove-making factory in Norrie Avenue, started

Gender issues were also at play in other ways. In establishing their
cooperative, the women’s aspirations to complete autonomy were not quite
fully realized, as they decided to appoint as manager a recently retired
foreman, Jim Gettings, for his experience and ability to service the
machinery and repair minor breakdowns. The women paid Gettings six times
what they themselves earned on average.<sup>52</sup> So a form of
patriarchal domination, however limited, persisted in the workplace.
Gettings did not have the normal managerial prerogatives, in that all
decisions affecting the cooperative had to be ratified by the workers.
He was “manager” in name only. His occasional attempts to persuade the
workers he should have the power to hire and fire without collective
approval were consistently denied. Likewise, when he sought more power
to discipline workers, it was insisted that all decisions be discussed
collectively. The women elected a committee of three to represent them
collectively, which had meetings with Gettings to discuss operations on
a day-to-day basis. All decisions concerning the cooperative were made
with worker consultation, and usually unanimous agreements were
reached.<sup>53</sup>

Clearly, authority relations between shop-floor workers and “management”
in the Whyalla Cooperative were not as repressive as those in the
capitalist enterprise of James North Glove Factory’s former owner James
North. The “surplus control” beyond that necessitated by the cooperative
production of use-values, which the capitalist typically assumes, was
absent. In the cooperative, such surplus control was eliminated along
with the capitalist/owner, and the workers no longer needed to suffer
the repressive authority relations as under James North. In principle
they could set their own speed of production, rates of pay, conditions,
and so on,

without the watchful eye of “the boss.”<sup>54</sup> Particularly
revealing was the fact that, according to the women, in the cooperative
the “manager” often helped with the cutting, after which a worker
completed the sewing.<sup>55</sup> In contrast, when Gettings was named
manager of the new private company, his attitude and manner changed
dramatically. He became authoritarian and demanded to be called “Mr.
Gettings.” However, none of the women took any notice, and they
continued to call him Jim.<sup>56</sup>

In the Whyalla Cooperative, as at the Sydney Opera House, productivity
was improved by cooperative work practices. On the shop floor, there
existed collective authority and a commitment to collective production.
If an individual worker was not pulling her weight, instead of being
reprimanded by an authoritarian manager, the whole group would talk to
her and, according to one interviewee, “give encouragement rather than
abuse or threats.”<sup>57</sup> Interestingly, Gettings conceded there
was greater “conscientiousness” in the cooperative; when private
ownership resumed, he observed, “They didn’t care. They played up—always
going to the toilet, arguing, complaining.”<sup>58</sup>

Interviews with the women confirm Gettings’s opinion that they worked
better and more cheerfully before the reprivatization. Although the
existence of a male manager meant that gender inequity diminished
somewhat the pleasurable experience of workers’ control, the women all
described the atmosphere during the period of the Whyalla Cooperative as
cordial and casual. Morale was high. For instance, whenever a production
run was completed and the truck arrived to pick up goods for
transporting to Adelaide, they would have a small party to
celebrate.<sup>59</sup>

The reason for this contentment was that work practices were
refreshingly altered and creative responses encouraged. Diversifying
from glove production to other items such as surgical gowns, the
ingenuity of the workers was given free rein, and they successfully
standardized production as they learned how to make each new item
required. The allocation of tasks in the cooperative was very different
from that in the private firm. For example, when new attachments arrived
for special hemming work, it was assumed that whoever wanted to learn
and perform the new operation could do so. If more than one expressed
interest, workers would rotate the work, which provided learning
opportunities and also breaks from the monotony of
repetition.<sup>60</sup>

Moreover, because the workers on the shop floor were in control,
conflicts rarely occurred. Nancy Baines was elected “supervisor” among
them, but, as she explained, “You can’t ‘supervise’ people who are their
own bosses,” because “you can’t give them orders.” She recalled the role
of supervisor became more akin to “organizer and quality control”; she
would deliver the materials to each machinist, inspect the work for
flaws, and help out when an operator was having problems with the
work.<sup>61</sup>

Interviews with the cooperative members confirm the gratifying nature of
the experience: One stated, “In James North I took pride in the gloves
which I made but nobody else’s…. In the cooperative I took pride in the
whole organisation.”<sup>62</sup> For another woman, her involvement in
the cooperative spoiled her thereafter for wage labor. She declined to
work after private ownership was resumed by Spencer Gulf Clothing,
because it was not a cooperative. She said, “I don’t want a bridge
between my wages and the product. The company is the middle-man and you
can’t see any profit unless it is a cooperative—and therefore, for me,
there is no incentive to work for the SGC or any other
company.”<sup>63</sup>

## Events

## Results

## See Also

  - [Work-In](Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Harco Work-In](Harco_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Clutha Development Mine
    Work-In](Clutha_Development_Mine_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Sydney Opera House Work-In](Sydney_Opera_House_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Wyong Plaza Work-In](Wyong_Plaza_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Nymboida Mine Work-In](Nymboida_Mine_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Coal Cliff Work-In](Coal_Cliff_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Sanyo Television Factory
    Work-In](Sanyo_Television_Factory_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Union Carbide Work-In](Union_Carbide_Work-In "wikilink")
  - [Department of Social Security
    Work-In](Department_of_Social_Security_Work-In "wikilink")

## References

<references />