Port employment took a hit, but individual workers did no worse than unskilled men in general, write Zouheir El-Sahli and Richard Upwar

El-Sahli, Zouheir

Upward, Richard

LSE Research Online

Dockworkers	and	the	introduction	of	containers	inUK	shipping	in	the	late	1960’sThe	introduction	of	containers	in	UK	shipping	in	the	late	1960s	suddenly	and	profoundly	changed	the	labourmarket	for	dock	workers.	Containers	require	far	fewer	workers	to	load	and	unload	cargo,	and	therefore	theygreatly	reduced	the	employment	of	dock-workers	(also	known	as	stevedores	or	longshoremen).Containerisation	had	other	impacts	on	UK	ports	as	well.	Port	activity	became	much	more	concentrated	in	a	fewlocations,	rather	than	being	distributed	widely	around	Britain.	Containers	required	deep-water	ports	andintegrated	road	and	rail	networks.	Many	older	ports	(such	as	the	Port	of	London)	were	unsuited	to	the	newtechnology	and	declined,	while	new	ports	expanded	in	more	suitable	locations	such	as	Felixstowe.	Figure	1tracks	employment	in	the	port	industry	and	in	dock	workers’	occupations	in	Great	Britain	between	1961	and	2011.Employment	in	both	the	industry	and	the	occupation	collapsed	in	the	wake	of	the	containerisation	of	British	ports.Figure	1.	Employment	in	port	industries	and	dock	worker	occupations	1961-2011	in	Great	BritainLSE Business Review: Dockworkers and the introduction of containers in UK shipping in the late 1960’s Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-11-10Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/10/dockworkers-and-the-introduction-of-containers-in-uk-shipping-in-the-late-1960s/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/While	this	preliminary	evidence	suggests	that	this	technological	change	had	severe	consequences	foremployment	in	the	industry	and	for	stevedores	in	particular,	it	does	not	tell	us	what	actually	happened	to	theworkers	involved.	Did	they	find	work	in	other	occupations	or	industries?	Did	they	enter	long-term	unemployment?Or	did	the	industry	simply	stop	hiring	new	workers	and	shrink	by	a	process	of	attrition?	In	our	recent	paper,	weinvestigate	how	dock	workers	and	workers	in	port-related	industries	adjusted	to	this	technological	change	in	boththe	short	and	the	long	run.District-level	evidenceWe	first	identified	major	ports	in	England	and	Wales	in	1967	and	the	local	authorities	where	they	were	located(Scottish	ports	were	excluded	from	the	study).	We	then	measured	employment	and	unemployment	in	each	localauthority	district	of	England	and	Wales	and	showed	that	districts	which	contained	major	ports	in	1971	did	worsethan	districts	which	did	not	contain	ports	in	the	years	following	containerisation.For	example,	employment	in	port	districts	was	higher	than	non-port	districts	in	1971,	but	20	years	later	it	wassignificantly	lower,	and	remains	lower	even	40	years	later.	Labour	markets	which	contained	ports	in	1971	faredworse	than	other	labour	markets,	and	this	difference	has	persisted	for	many	years.	In	addition,	bothmanufacturing	and	transport	employment	in	port	districts	shrank	relative	to	non-port	districts	over	this	period.Individual-level	evidenceWe	then	considered	how	individual	workers	in	these	districts	fared.	Perhaps	employment	fell	in	port	districtsbecause	individuals	moved	to	new	jobs	in	other	(non-port)	areas.	To	answer	this	question,	we	followed	a	sampleof	workers	from	1971	until	2011	and	compared	the	labour	market	outcomes	of	dock	workers	with	similar	workersin	other	occupations	and	industries.	To	do	this,	we	matched	individuals	across	carefully	defined	treatment	andcontrol	groups	according	to	pre-selected	characteristics	such	as	age,	marital	status,	and	skill	level.LSE Business Review: Dockworkers and the introduction of containers in UK shipping in the late 1960’s Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-11-10Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/10/dockworkers-and-the-introduction-of-containers-in-uk-shipping-in-the-late-1960s/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/We	defined	three	mutually	exclusive	treatment	and	control	groups	based	on	occupation	(being	a	stevedore	ornot),	industry	(port	vs.	non-port	and	non-transport	industries),	and	location	(port	vs.	non-port	districts).	Forexample,	in	order	to	have	a	meaningful	comparison	group	for	stevedores,	one	has	to	choose	a	pool	of	workerswho	are	comparable	to	the	stevedores	in	the	nature	of	their	work	but	who	were	somewhat	insulated	from	thetechnological	change.	After	we	define	the	treatment	and	control	groups,	we	compare	employment,unemployment,	inactivity	and	death	rates	at	10-year	intervals.	The	data	comes	from	The	Office	for	NationalStatistics	(ONS)	Longitudinal	Study	(LS)	which	follows	a	sample	of	approximately	1	per	cent	of	the	totalpopulation	in	England	and	Wales	over	a	period	of	40	years	(1971-2011).We	find	that	subsequent	differences	in	labour	market	outcomes	are	in	fact	rather	small,	insignificantly	differentfrom	zero	and	even	in	some	cases	positive.	Positive	differences	are	most	notable	in	1981,	at	which	pointstevedores	were	protected	from	redundancy	by	the	National	Dock	Labour	Scheme	(NDLS).	For	example,	we	findthat	stevedores	were	more	likely	to	be	employed	in	1981	compared	to	their	matched	counterparts.	The	NDLSwas	abolished	by	the	Thatcher	Tory	government	in	1989.	But	even	after	employment	protection	was	removed,there	weren’t	large	differences	in	labour	market	outcomes	between	dock	workers	and	similar	unskilled	men	whowere	not	dock	workers.	In	fact,	we	find	that	stevedores	were	more	likely	to	keep	their	occupation	in	1991	followingthe	abolishment	of	the	NDLS	than	workers	in	the	control	group.This	result	should	be	interpreted	in	the	light	of	the	unique	industrial	relations	policies	which	existed	for	thisparticular	group	of	workers	at	the	time	of	the	introduction	of	containers.	Dock	workers	were	insulated	fromredundancy	for	almost	20	years.	This	had	consequences	for	the	development	of	new	ports	in	the	UK,	such	thatport	activity	shifted	and	concentrated	in	entirely	new	locations.	It	should	also	be	recognised	that	the	comparisongroup	(unskilled	men	who	were	not	dock-workers)	experienced	very	poor	labour	market	outcomes	from	the	1970sonwards,	and	so	we	conclude	that	rather	than	doing	“well”,	dock	workers	did	“no	worse”	than	unskilled	men	ingeneral.♣♣♣Notes:This	blog	post	is	based	on	the	authors’	paper	Off	the	Waterfront:	The	Long-Run	Impact	of	TechnologicalChange	on	Dockworkers,	British	Journal	of	Industrial	Relations,	June	2017The	post	gives	the	views	of	its	authors,	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.Featured	image	credit:	Loading,	by	skeeze,	under	a	CC0	licenceWhen	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	Policy.Zouheir	El-Sahli	is	an	Assistant	Professor	in	Economics	at	Leiden	University	in	the	Netherlands.Previously,	he	held	research	positions	at	Lund	University	in	Sweden	and	Aix-Marseille	University	inFrance.	He	holds	a	PhD	in	Economics	from	the	University	of	Nottingham,	the	United	Kingdom.		Richard	Upward	is	a	Professor	of	Labour	Economics	at	the	University	of	Nottingham	and	aresearch	Fellow	of	the	Nottingham	Centre	for	Globalisation	and	Economic	Policy	(GEP)	Hecompleted	his	PhD	at	the	University	of	Manchester	and	has	held	research	positions	at	theUniversities	of	Bristol,	Manchester	and	Nottingham.	LSE Business Review: Dockworkers and the introduction of containers in UK shipping in the late 1960’s Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-11-10Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/10/dockworkers-and-the-introduction-of-containers-in-uk-shipping-in-the-late-1960s/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Dockworkers and the introduction of containers in UK shipping in the late 1960’s

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online