In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Signs of the ‘Times’Peter Jenkins
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Stop Press 
by Eric Jacobs.
Deutsch, 166 pp., £6.95, November 1980, 0 233 97286 2
Show More
Show More

We live in a society which has learnt to take trade-unionism for granted. We extend to it the kind of tolerance which we give to the Churches in the name of religious freedom, even when the priesthood has grown corrupt and the ritual debased. We are all trade-unionists now. We speak the language of trade-unionism; our manners are trade-union manners. We are scarcely able to blink when hospital consultants engage in what they please to call ‘industrial action’, as if that euphemism were sufficient to justify the extortions of their professional power. Middle-class professionals – bank managers, for example – hire trade-union mercenaries – Mr Clive Jenkins, for example – in the same way as they hire tax accountants. Trade-unionism is an approved form of behaviour: group venality, providing it is called trade-unionism, is therefore permissible. We do try to draw a line where life and death is involved, but the hypocrisies involved in ‘industrial action’ by hospital staffs, ambulance men and the like are cloaked in a vocabulary of brotherhood and solidarity drawn from a more heroic age. We try to draw another line, or some of us are inclined to, where creative activity is involved. It is in itself shocking that we are likely to be more shocked if a concert or play is prevented than if an entire motor-car factory is stopped. We understand well enough when a miner stops mining, but less well when an electrician pulls the plug on a film unit or a scene-shifter won’t shift. These, perhaps, are the last bastions of our resistance to the trade-union ethic.

Newspapers are a borderline case. They are neither art nor a matter of life or death. The newspaper industry is plainly an industry, with clanking machinery and a product, and trade-unionism has a long history in this quarter. Yet until quite recently newspaper workers rarely went on strike, and not only because they were handsomely bought off by indulgent and piratical employers; still less were they accustomed to sabotage production by, for example, tossing scraps of metal into the presses so as to break the paper. People who write for newspapers and the people who try to manage and market them find this kind of behaviour difficult to account for: they are bewildered that immensely highly-paid workers are so alienated from the common enterprise, apparently sharing little or none of their satisfaction at getting a good paper onto the streets. To be sure, Fleet Street trade-unionism is an extreme case, closer in some respects to the criminal rackets of the East End of London than to bona-fide trade-unionism as approved by the TUC. Nevertheless, the impending demise of the Times is a disconcerting event – more so than would be the final collapse of, say, British Leyland. What can it mean? Is this some warning satire or parable? England without the Times! Can the temple of the Establishment survive the crumbling of its pillar?

There may have been a tendency, as Eric Jacobs suggests in his chronicle of the 11-month shut-down which brought about the present disaster, for the boardroom protagonists to regard the affair in the light of one of Mr William Rees-Mogg’s editorials. However, we should be careful about regarding the fall of the Times in this fashion, or as a paradigm of the state of Britain. The national newspaper industry has many exceptional features. It is the last remaining manufacturing industry to be located in the heart of London. Long vehicles laden with outsize toilet rolls back down 18th-century alleys; old buildings shake with the rattle of ancient machinery, and only the absence of steam suggests that the 20th century has come to pass. This industry is mostly concentrated in the no-man’s-land on the western fringes of the City which marks the old class dividing-line between East and West London. Fleet Street’s work-force is drawn predominantly from the East End, where ‘the print’ remains predominantly an hereditary trade (closed to women), with a casual tradition similar to that which so long persisted in the other great industry of East London, the docks. Earnings in ‘the print’ are prodigious. The average is put at over £200 a week, and a good few compositors have annual earnings in the £20 to £25,000-a-year range. Yet there are few visible signs of embourgeoisement. Print workers proverbially own cabs or greengroceries, and there is said to be a man at the Sunday Times who runs an executive airline in his ample spare time: yet they do their drinking in the grottiest of pubs and eat fried food in steamy caffes as if untouched by their remarkable affluence.

Fleet Street is particularly vulnerable to industrial disruption. Production takes place against the clock with trains to catch, and whereas a car not made today can be made tomorrow, an undelivered newspaper is without value. On the one side, there is a predatory tradition of casual work, and on the other side a tradition of employer profligacy. The old press lords are a dead breed, but many newspapers are today owned by oil-rich conglomerates (with North Sea licences to print newspapers) who seem a no less fair touch. Newspaper printing is insulated from foreign competition and in the hands of a trade-union monopoly. Jacobs correctly starts with Caxton in his account of the development of printing trade-unionism. He is able to identify a characteristic restrictive practice in the year 1587 and to trace the compositors’ piece-work scales back to an agreement of 1785.

The craft unions – the National Graphical Association (NGA) and the Society of Lithographic Artists and Designers (SLADE) – exercise their power through a total control over entry to the trade. They are in charge of the supply of labour; they are in all but name the employer who contracts skilled labour to the publishers of newspapers. They have managed to preserve their craft integrity, the source of their monopoly power, in the face of technological change. For example, when the linotype machine came in in 1889, the compositors, who had hitherto set type by hand or tweezer, managed to extend their monopoly to the operation of the machines. When in 1894 it was agreed that display advertisements could be set in specialised houses, it was agreed that compositors in the newspaper houses should be paid as if they had set them. The non-craft, or general, trade unions exercise their power in a different way. Whereas the craft unions are tightly-controlled and centralised, the power of the non-craft unions is founded on their chapels, or office branches. Jacobs records that there were no fewer than 65 chapels at the Grays Inn Road headquarters of Times Newspapers in 1978 – 65 chapels for some 4,250 employees. Chapel power is wielded through a system of permanent pricing or running negotiation. Each and every change in working practice, however trivial, is liable to be made the excuse for a renegotiation of rates or conditions; collective bargaining becomes a bazaar-like haggle. Two traditions, and two cultures, converge in Fleet Street trade-unionism: ancient craft custom and practice and East London extortion and racketeering.

The most fascinating chapters of Stop Press are the earlier ones in which the author takes us behind the scenes of the newspaper industry and on an introductory trip into the impenetrable sub-culture of the print. More of this might have been in order, because the blow-by-blow chronicle of the fatal shut-down has an inevitability about it which sometimes makes for less than gripping reading. In 1978, the Times Newspapers management set out to regain its lost managerial prerogatives. Jacobs gives us some idea of the extent to which the unions, or rather the chapels, had taken over. By 1978, Grays Inn Road housed ‘an extraordinary number of people working full-time as shop-stewards with their own offices and telephones and sometimes a secretary too, all paid for by the company’. It was the unions who ‘hired people, allocated work, determined shifts and holidays, and even totted up their earnings at the end of the week’. Management was, in part, itself to blame for this state of affairs. The marriage between the Times and Sunday Times had turned out an unhappy match; the move of the Times from Printing House Square to the Grays Inn Road had aggravated matters and led to disorderly union leap-frogging; in order to print the Sunday Times, with its much larger run, casual workers made up the bulk of the Saturday-night shift and they had small loyalty to the company; the management was divided within itself, the Thompson Organisation rich and remote.

As an employee of the Sunday Times, Jacobs is in some difficulty as the quasi-official chronicler of the Times close-down, and his account of it does not live up to the standards of Sunday Times investigative reporting. However, as with the histories of the popes, we don’t have to read much between the lines to realise how disastrously the business was mismanaged.

There was no coherence of purpose from the outset. Crucially, and disastrously, it was never wholly clear whether the so-called ‘key-stroking’ issue was as central to management’s concerns as the proposals for improving efficiency and ending disruption. The ‘key-stroking’ issue was the one which threatened the very existence of the NGA. As Jacobs points out, there was nothing very new about photo-composition (although it had still not come to Fleet Street), but there was something quite revolutionary, from the NGA’s point of view, about computerised photo-composition. This meant that reporters would come back from the pub and sit down at display units, and that girls in the small-ad department would tap words onto their little television screens and – at the press of a button – a computer, and not a card-carrying printer, would translate their impulses into type. The craft monopoly would be breached; it would before long mean the end of printing as a trade. The existence of the NGA was the issue, not the 45 per cent job loss (by natural wastage) which would result from the management’s proposals. For the other unions, however, the issue was chapel power. The management’s proposals to increase efficiency meant, for example, doing something about the over-manning which enabled ghost workers signing on as ‘Mickey Mouse’ and the like to collect additional pay packets for unworked Saturday-night shifts. The proposed disputes procedure meant reasserting a somewhat paternal code of discipline against the jungle power of the shop floor. The chapels weren’t likely to take kindly to that either, but it did not have the same kind of life-or-death character which the ‘key-stroking’ issue had for the NGA.

Management misjudged the power of the printing unions. It misjudged the willingness and ability of their national leaders to co-operate at the centre. It underestimated the power of the unions to absorb their locked-out members in other Fleet Street offices, or – in the case of the craft unions – to afford to pay them ample benefit. In the end, it was Times Newspapers, losing £2 million a week through the shut-down, which became desperate to resume publication, the unions who could afford to take their time and drive a hard bargain. Management followed an initial overkill with premature concessions; above all, it made the classic error of going into an industrial battle from which it had no plan of retreat. Jacobs’s detailed account of all this makes sad reading, and reminds one of the cautionary epitaph:

Here lies the body of Farmer Day
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right, dead right, the whole way along,
But he’s just as dead as if he was wrong.

Since the Times and its sister publications returned to the streets in November 1979, its losses have grown still larger, its industrial relations no better, and the efficiency of its production seems not to have improved one bit. The Sunday Times continued to be plagued by wilful disruption in the machine room. The second Lord Thomson decided to sell. It remains to be seen whether the Times can be saved, and if so, whether its problems can be solved. Stop Press makes these lamentable subsequent developments seem inevitable. For all management’s mismanagements, it was union power and chapel power which killed the Times. According to the author, ‘the structure of union power was the only thing to emerge clearly enhanced from the Times shutdown.’ If that is right, it sounds to me like a death warrant for the Times, if not yet for Fleet Street.

Fleet Street is not typical of British industry and we should beware of drawing a generalised moral from the debacle of the Times shutdown. We should be clear, nevertheless, about its nature. The destruction of the Times by the unions is no aberration, not a case-study in unenlightened self-interest, not at all: the NGA behaved perfectly rationally in putting its craft future above the survival of the Times; the chapels behaved equally rationally in clinging to their power and upholding their highly lucrative restrictive practices. The casual workers who benefit from the rackets in the Sunday Times machine room were right, from their own point of view, to mine that Klondyke for as long as it might last. The hereditary members of the aristocracy called ‘the print’ had no reason to abandon their tithes or surrender their position for the sake of one newspaper. Trade-union bureaucracies, local as well as national, have good reasons for defending their power and privileges even at the expense of their members’ interests, and certainly over and above the interests of any newspaper. We find the destruction of the Times a shocking affair because we regard a newspaper as being something more than a commercial product and associate it with the leading of a civilised life. Moreover, we are brought up to regard the Times as a peculiarly august and venerable institution, a part of England itself. Yet the people who have brought the Times to the verge of destruction are not politically-motivated wreckers, but men with substantial interests at stake who are behaving in a way which we would find unremarkable were they commodity dealers cornering markets, barristers or architects upholding the restrictive practices of their professions, or civil servants defending the privileges of their caste. In that sense, the fall of the Times is an authentic British tragedy.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.