Building in Russia
During September and October, 1962, members of the Eastern Counties Federation of Building Trades Employers visited Russia and made a fairly extensive study of their building methods. Resulting from this visit, they have published a very revealing pamphlet, Building in Russia. They say:
“We believe we are the first group of British builders to examine the structure and organisation of the Soviet construction industry, our report covers a wide field, with the emphasis on housing. We hope it gives a broad but accurate picture of what we saw in a tour of some 6,000 miles extending from Leningrad, through Moscow to Volgograd in the South”.
The British building trade unionist can, with this material, compare his wages and conditions with those of his brother in Russia.
In order to speed up housebuilding, emphasis has been placed on prefabricated factory built units, rather than the traditional brick-built house of this country. “The aim is to build compact residential areas with blocks of flats, 5,8 and 10 storey, densities being on average 150 persons per acre. Two room flats predominate . . .”
As the State owns and controls all capital for construction, area building Trusts are formed to decide upon design and the price of each contract. The chief of the Trust and his managers then negotiate with the Unions to determine site conditions. However, with a fixed price for each job there is a definite limit to the pay which can be offered! This has an all too familiar ring; haggling with the boss for terms that would hardly satisfy the militant on most British building sites. For example bonus earnings up to 50 per cent. of wages can apparently be earned with an efficient Trust. In comparison, British Union agreements have often settled for a minimum of 20 per cent. of earnings, but where union organisation is strong on the building site, bonuses nearer 100 per cent. and over are expected and negotiated.
The State apparently fixes the wages, determines the amount of bonus to be earned and insists on a 3.7 per cent. profit from all contracts finished at scheduled cost. When a profit is realised, an enterprise fund for the building worker within the Trust is formed, to be shared into workers’ bonuses, housing and holiday facilities; Living conditions of the unfortunates who work for an inefficient Trust clearly reveal the unequal equality of Soviet “Socialism.”
The standard of accommodation for the Russian working class is low compared with Britain’s New Towns’ traditional 2 and 3 bedroom terraced house. During 1964-1965, says the report, a suburb of Moscow will provide “90,000 people in flats, 10 per cent. of which will have one room, 60 per cent. 2, and 30 per cent. 3 rooms. Living rooms are used for sleeping in.”
To speed up house production, the Soviet Government have mass housing projects, with strictly narrow limits of layout and design. They say that the housing problem will be solved by 1970. One thing, however, which has resulted is monotonous city suburbs which are “depressing and oppressive despite open spaces.”
Building conditions for the wage earner under Soviet State and British private capitalism are so nearly alike that differences are hard to detect.
“For a 40 hour week, typical wage rates in Moscow range from £6 per week (minimum) for labourers, £12 carpenters, £16 bricklayers to £20 for a general foreman and £40 for a building Trust manager. Lost time due to bad weather qualifies for half pay, whilst overtime qualifies for double time.”
Building trade rates of pay in Britain are stated to be, at present, labourers £11 9s. and all skilled trades £12 7s. Soviet workers may pay less in rent which does not exceed 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the family income, but what they can purchase on commodities is small indeed. “Foodstuffs are two or three times dearer than in Britain, a poor quality suit costs £40, an overcoat £80 and a pair of shoes £15.”
Perhaps the most important difference between the two industries concerns strikes and tea breaks. Whereas the British trade unions clearly recognise the vital need to withdraw labour in times of dispute, and take refreshments and rest for dirty and arduous tasks, Soviet unions are denied these essential rights. The pamphlet drily comments “Tea breaks and strikes are not in the industrial vocabulary.”
All these comparisons show only too clearly that capitalism functions in the Soviet Union, with a working class living on a very poor standard. Although it was not the object they had in mind, the building employers’ pamphlet certainly exposes the claim that Socialism is enjoyed by building workers, or by any other workers, in Russia.
J. P.