Collective agreements as a factor of labor regulation in industry during the NEP period (based on the materials of the Vladimir Province)

Yumatova Elena Aleksandrovna PhD in History Associate Professor; Department of Social Sciences and Humanities; Vladimir Branch of Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 59a Gorky Street, Vladimir, Vladimir Region, 600017, Russia yumatova-ea@ranepa.ru

The experience of modern Russian legislation in the field of social and labor relations shows that the activities of trade union organizations as associations for the protection of workers' rights and interests are aimed at regulating relations with employers and government authorities at various levels. The main document regulating this procedure is a collective agreement or agreement. In case of disputes or conflicts between the parties, trade unions have the right to organize meetings and strikes in accordance with the federal law (Federal Law No. 444-FZ dated December 22, 2014, Articles 13-14). In particular, this kind of practice became widespread in 2019, when paramedics and ambulance drivers from Moscow, Novgorod and other regions, with the support of the trade union, proposed a salary increase. However, this issue has not been resolved due to the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic ^[32], which required the involvement of additional labor resources to provide medical care to the population.

Today, understanding the powers of trade union organizations is an important element for analyzing their effective work to protect the rights of employees before employers. In this regard, the task of studying the period of the new economic policy (NEP), which laid the foundations of social and labor relations in an economy with the participation of public and private capital, is of scientific interest. The study of the experience of trade unions in industrial enterprises of the Vladimir province is indicative in this context.

The first steps towards studying the tasks, functions and activities of trade union organizations date back to the 1920s. These were mostly works of a journalistic nature - speeches by party, state and trade union leaders. Given the ambiguous socio-political situation, there is a noticeable interest in presenting topics on the areas of the trade union movement and their position in the national management system ^{[25, 58]}. The issues of the tariff and economic direction of trade unions, including their role in concluding collective agreements, were given attention in the writings of witnesses to the events of the 1920s ^{[1, 3]}. The analysis of quantitative indicators involved in the trade union movement in various industries was presented by L.A. Magaziper ^[39]. The problem of unemployment in production was identified by I. Gindin ^[6].

In the period of the 1930s - 1950s.. With the change of political preferences in the interpretation of the NEP, discussions about the role of trade unions in public administration began to be perceived negatively, rejecting the platform of the "workers' opposition" ^[5]. There are works of a generalizing nature based on a wider range of sources, which characterize the organization of management and management of the national economy ^[41].

Since the 1960s, when the discussion of economic measures on a national scale intensified, it became timely to study the experience of the time of the NEP. There was an understanding that the 1920s were the preparatory stage for the mono-layered economy. An important stage in the study of the topic was the publication of sources on the trade union movement ^[51]. Scientific interest was aroused by the activities of industrial meetings at enterprises, their functions in management ^[34].

The work of A.A. Matyugin ^[40] is devoted to the analysis of changes in the industrial working environment in the early 1920s - socio–economic incentives, including financial remuneration. In general, the idea of the control of the party and state leadership over the trade unions continued to prevail ^[50].

There was an interest in this problem at the regional level - on the basis of archival materials, the specifics of the situation of workers of enterprises of the Vladimir province during the reconstruction period, including their participation in the trade union movement, were determined ^{[22, 23]}. The activities of the trade unions of the Upper Volga region, as subordinated to party attitudes in the second half of the 1920s, are presented in the works of E.M. Sozinov ^[55].

The interest in the regional aspect of the study of new economic policy and its manifestations is particularly characteristic in the period from the late 1990s to the present. Research works on the analysis of forms and methods of workers' organization, generalization of the experience of trade union organizations in socio-economic, cultural and educational areas based on new archival materials are highlighted. The activity of trade union organizations is presented in an industry cross-section, in industrial sectors and at individual enterprises ^{[59, 63]}.

New aspects in the study of the professional movement during the period of the new economic policy have become noticeable: 1) the legal basis of their functions as representatives of workers' interests before state bodies; 2) the problem of workers' participation in production management (collective bargaining, employment of the unemployed); 3) worker activism in protecting workers' rights in cases of non-fulfillment of their duties by trade union committees; 4) analysis of their transition from an independent representative body of workers to a subordinate one the position of the party and state leadership^{[26, 38, 49, 60]}.

A number of topics related to the activities of trade union organizations in the 1920s have not been fully studied and require additional research. In this work, based on the use of comparative-evaluative and problem-chronological scientific methods, an analysis of the activities of trade unions to protect the interests of workers in industrial enterprises of the Vladimir province during the period under review (drafting collective agreements, participating in the analysis of conflict situations between workers and the administration of enterprises, organizing strikes) is carried out; industry indicators and changes in different sectors are presented. industry.

The basis for the change in the position of trade unions during the NEP years was the legislative framework, which justified the active participation of the party leadership in the current work of trade unions and the formation of its composition (especially the highest elected candidates). There was a gradual elimination of them from the management of the national economy, which was confirmed by ignoring the tasks of the CPSU decisions on sending trade union delegates to government and economically significant positions ^{[35, p. 603-611]}. Starting in 1922, the management of tariff policy was transferred from the trade unions to the CNT (hereinafter referred to as the People's Commissariat of Labor).

The situation of trade unions in the state has been discussed in the public field since 1920. On the one hand, the "Workers' Opposition" of such party representatives as A.G. Shlyapnikov, A.M. Kollontai and S.P. Medvedev defended the leading role of trade unions in the management of the national economy (to appoint candidates to senior positions). It was proposed to strengthen control over the activities of government representatives by the workers, including nominating the latter party for its renewal. The main body was to be the All-Russian Congress of Manufacturers united in Trade Unions. (At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (b), the platform of the "workers' opposition" was recognized as anti-party) ^{[28, p.150]}.

On the other hand, in the program "Platform of Ten" V.I. Lenin, in the context of the strengthening of the party leadership on a national scale, the main levers of management of the national economy were transferred exclusively to the state apparatus. At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (b) held in March 1921, a resolution "On the role and tasks of trade unions" was adopted, according to which trade union organizations were given the place of an observer participant in the formation of economic bodies, economic plans, and labor standards ^{[35, pp. 534-549]}. These measures outlined a course to reduce the weight of trade unions in the country's political and economic decisions, giving priority to the party leadership in these matters.

There have been changes in the composition of trade union organizations. Thus, at the XI Congress of the Russian Communist Party (b), it was determined to identify those who disagree with party decisions. A resolution of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party(b) dated January 14, 1922, determined the subordinate position of trade unions when political factions began to form among them ^{[28, p.152]}.

The formation of the leadership of trade unions (the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions (hereinafter, the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions), the provincial councils of Trade unions (hereinafter, the GSPU), and the county trade bureaus) has undergone changes. The Presidium of the All-Union Central Trade Union was elected by the All-Union Central Trade Union Congress (formerly the Congress of branch trade unions) ^{[28, p.161]}. Electability was limited, being replaced by the nomination of former managers.

The trade unions were assigned the role of a participant, not a leader, in government agencies and business entities. Since 1922, their function of setting wages has been replaced by its regulation. In accordance with the Labor Code of 1922, the main task of trade unions was to protect workers' rights: concluding collective agreements with the employer, monitoring labor standards, providing material and cultural services ^{[7, p.51]}. (There were 2 types of collective agreements - general and local. The first were concluded between the Central Committee of the branch trade unions and the economic leadership of the relevant branch in the country and in individual regions; the second were local trade union organizations with the relevant economic body). Production commissions of trade union committees were set up at the enterprises to discuss problems of labor organization, including saving raw materials.

The changes in the leadership positions of trade union organizations in the state and political framework by 1922 and the subsequent consequences will be considered using the example of the activities of their branches in industrial enterprises of the Vladimir province.

The indicators of the number of employees involved in trade union ranks in the Vladimir province reflected the characteristic features of work in connection with the transition to economic foundations in work. Thus, by 1922 (96,010 people), compared with the previous year (154,524 people), their decline by 38% was noticeable, which was due to the transfer of professional assets to voluntary membership (since 1923, membership fees were collected monthly on an individual basis in the amount of 2% of an employee's salary). It was only by 1925 that the 1921 figure was restored, reaching 152,895 people. Further, the increase in the composition continued (in 1926 – 180.155 and in 1927 – 179.557) ^{[57, p.95]}.

Information on the number of trade union members in the industry profile in 1927 is shown in Figure 1^{[57, p.96]}.

Fig. 1. The number of trade union members in the industry profile in 1927.

It should be noted that textile workers occupied a leading position in regulating the working and living conditions of workers. In 1923 - 52,196 people, in 1924 – 55,772, in 1925 – 66,482, in 1926 – 76,766. By 1927, the maximum number involved in the trade union movement was involved in state–owned enterprises (99% of the total number), and the minimum - in private enterprises (correspondingly 1%) ^{[48, p.11]}.

The strengthening of political influence in the trade unions of the Vladimir province was evidenced by their composition at all levels ^{[18, l.20]}. At the provincial level, the GSPC plenum included 48 party members out of 63 elected (1924 figures) ^{[21, l.89; 24, p.3]}; at the county level, 121 county trade union bureaus were in the CPSU(b) and the Komsomol out of 188 people (1926 data) ^{[29, p. 19-21]}. The boards of the factory committees were involved in this process. So, in September 1927, the factory committee at the Kovrov wool Spinning factory (leased from Rabukhin and Averbukh) consisted of half party members. Its chairman was a worker with a lower education, Georgy Petrovich Borisov, who joined the trade union in 1921, and in 1924 joined the CPSU(b) ^{[14, l. 17]}.

Gradually, there was a convergence of party and trade union interests. Moreover, this situation of restricting the entry of non-party members and workers into the management of the trade union network led to the fact that the interests of workers in enterprises began to be infringed on locally. For example, in January 1923, carpenter workers at the Sobinsky factory "Communist Avant-garde" appealed to the trade union committee with a statement that their employers – contractors paid them 200 rubles a month instead of the required 700 rubles ^{[52, p.2]}. The trade union was inactive. Another example, in June 1922, at a meeting of the factory committee of the former Belov factory, it was decided to dismiss an employee who stole 6 ears of yarn from production. Having found out her extremely poor financial situation, the factory committee commuted its punishment – they handed over her half-month ration to the starving fund, and the worker was condemned to starvation and to a new theft ^{[56, p.3]}. The following example confirms the abuses of the trade union body. In February 1922, the secretary of the Urshel cell of the Russian Communist Party (b) received a statement from S.F. Zhutikov, a worker at the peat mines. He reported that the peat committee, under pain of dismissal, forced him to sign a handout for 30 poods of oats, whereas he received 15 poods ^{[43, p. 2]}.

There has been an unfair attitude of trade union workers towards their duties. In June 1922, workers at the Nikologorsky manufactory in the Vyaznikovsky district sent a complaint to the district branch of the textile workers' union. It explained that a collective agreement was not concluded with them due to the fault of representatives from the trade union who arrived at the enterprise drunk ^{[53, p. 2]}.

The Vladimir GSPU has determined that strengthening the democratic principle in the election of trade union leadership – increasing workers on the boards - will solve a systemic problem. In this regard, candidates were elected individually, rather than by a list at general meetings. As a result, the percentage of workers in the new factory committees increased - if in 1926 there were 50.3% of them, then in 1927 – 61.7%. However, the party contingent decreased slightly, from 31.3% to 30.8% ^{[29, p.40]}.

The role of trade union bodies in the economic and state life of Vladimir province was limited. There was a lack of planning in this case, candidates were not systematically prepared. Often, individual economic bodies did not coordinate candidates with trade unions for administrative and economic posts. There were few union candidates put forward. Thus, in 1926, the textile workers' trade union provided 40 people with administrative and economic work, in 1927 - 36 ^{[47, p.39; 48, p. 29]}.

There was a noticeable increase in the number of candidates from trade unions to city and village councils. So, in 1926, there were 1,326 people (82.2% of the total composition of city and village councils), then in 1927 – 1.861 (87,9%) ^{[17, L.1; 29, p.42]}. The representative office's resource provided an opportunity to solve the workers' pressing problems.

In the context of the limited participation of trade unions in political and public administration, and the strengthening of party influence in the trade union apparatus, the main task was to ensure the protection of the interests of industrial workers in enterprises of various forms of ownership (this was confirmed by the decision of the XIII Vladimir Provincial Party Conference) ^{[48, p.6; 12, ll.1-2]}.

To train trade union organizers, provincial vocational courses, courses in certain branches of work (club, physical education, library), and trade union clubs were organized at enterprises ^{[20, l.51; 54, p.20]}.

In this direction, the legal basis was the collective agreement, which was valid for 1 year. It defines the conditions on the part of the working collective in relation to the administration of the enterprise (hiring, dismissal, wages, work standards, rest, labor protection, apprenticeship) ^{[16, ll.7-8]}.

In the Vladimir province in 1923, 146 industrial collective agreements were registered with state–owned enterprises (there were 544 of them on a provincial scale), employing 81,000 people; 169 – with private enterprises (174 in total), employing 2,000 people; 50 - with cooperative enterprises (55 in total), which employed 1,700 people ^{[44, p. 33]}.

The tariff agreement was developed in addition to the collective agreement, and a tariff agreement was drawn up that was valid for a period of 3 months. It was personalized for the employee with the content of information about his position, rank in the tariff schedule, salary level for the day and month ^{[19, l.3]}. For example, in July 1925, the Kovrov district committee of the Metalworkers' Union concluded a tariff agreement with Fatyanov, the tenant of the Brass-Foil plant. The rate of the 1st category (in accordance with the 17-bit tariff schedule) was set at 16 p. 75 K. ^{[13, l.5]}

The essence of the trade union's tariff-rationing work was to equalize wages with the average in the Central Industrial Region among industry unions. The Vladimir Provincial Council of Trade Unions, together with the relevant departments of the State Agricultural Committee, set a monthly minimum living wage, which determined the rate of the 1st category of the worker of the 17-digit tariff scale. For example, in October 1921, it was equal to 480 thousand non-denominated rubles. This amount consisted of the cost of the food ration (22.5 pounds of rye flour, 3.75 pounds of cereals, 10.5 pounds of potatoes, 5 pounds of vegetables, 0.63 pounds of fat, 3.75 pounds of meat, 3 bottles of milk, 0.5 pounds of sugar), expenses for clothing, shoes, housing services, and family maintenance ^{[11, l.7-vol.]}.

Salaries were equalized by industry, taking into account the employment of employees in different sectors. For example, due to an increase in the level of earnings at state-owned textile enterprises, the Vladimir Trust in 1928 forced the factory trade union committee at the wool spinning factory (leased from Rabukhin and Averbukh in Kovrov) to amend the collective agreement for 1929: it was planned to increase the salaries of workers and employees of the factory by 10% ^{[18, L.3]}.

Despite the general growth in individual industries in wages, its higher level remained in the private (leased) industry. Let's compare the figures in the provincial textile industry at the rate of the 1st category. The rates of the 1st category in the private and state industry of the Vladimir province in 1923-1928 are shown in Table 2. If in 1923 in the public sector it was 6.88 kopecks (in gold rubles), in the private sector it was 10 rubles. 29 kopecks, then in 1928: 17 rubles. 10 kopecks and 23 rubles, respectively ^{[45, p.60; 46, p.47-48; 47, p.70; 48, p.40-41]}.

The provisions of the collective agreement were included in the internal regulations and placed directly in the production premises. They defined: the schedule of working hours and rest for workers and employees; conditions for a reduced schedule in hazardous production, exemption from work on holidays, and safety regulations ^{[16, pp.17-19]}. For example, in May and October 1927, Rabukhin and Averbukh, tenants of a factory in Kovrov, were ordered by the factory committee to clear the yard of debris, put tubs of water in case of fire, repair the red corner, install furniture and a telephone in the premises of the factory committee ^{[14, l.13; 18, l.3]}. In case of non-compliance, the trade union involved the relevant state labor protection authorities.

Trade union organizations in industrial enterprises - factory committees were financially provided by the administration of the enterprise in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement - maintenance of premises, provision of transport, wages to employees of the factory committee ^{[16, l.5]}. In turn, the trade unions allocated certain amounts to factory committees, cultural purposes, and rest homes. However, there have been cases where trade union organizations have allowed deductions in excess of acceptable standards from employers. In this regard, in 1926, the GSP banned such illegal operations ^{[29, pp.52-53]}.

The funds received from monthly voluntary contributions from members of the trade union (since 1923 – 2% of the employee's salary) were in special funds (cultural, strike and for the unemployed) and were spent on areas of trade union work.

In accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement, the housing conditions of the employees were examined by the trade union. The employer was responsible, since for the services provided (provision of an apartment, heating, lighting, plumbing) he deducted from the wages of the working collective ^{[16, l.8]}. In many cases, the living conditions required improvements. For example, peat workers lived in dilapidated barracks without lighting with shared bunks for sleeping ^{[62, p.2]}. Workers in the metalworking industry made their homes in factory premises - on the stove of a steam boiler, in a common gatehouse ^{[4, p.2]}.

As a rule, the inspection of working conditions was concentrated in labor protection commissions – departments of factory committees. Together with the state inspections of the Provincial Labor Department, they conducted regular inspections of enterprises to identify violations. For example, in 1923/1924, they were carried out at 35 factories (25 were in the public sector and 4 in the private sector) in the textile industry of the Vladimir province. The effectiveness of inspections at enterprises is evidenced by the practice of correcting identified violations. For example, in 1923/1924, 26 fans and 539 fences were installed in 29 surveyed state-owned enterprises, and 3 fences were installed in one private enterprise ^{[45, p.101]}.

Due to the expansion of production and an increase in the share of the workforce, the issue of overcrowding in residential areas has also arisen. Thus, logging workers settled in houses of 30-40 people at a rate of 6-8 people ^{[31, p.2]}. Another example, in 1924, there were 117,613 textile workers and their family members. Of these, 40,912 people lived in factory premises. Each worker accounted for 4.05 sq. m. (the legal norm was 8 sq. m.). The rest of the workers rented private apartments or peasant houses ^{[33, p.2]}.

To increase the living space of workers employed in state-owned industry, the textile workers' union organized a fund to improve the living conditions of workers. It was formed from 10% deductions from the profits of the trusts. From 1922 to 1926, 5,207,122 rubles (66.4% of the total fund) were spent on housing construction. As a result, during this time in the province, the housing area of textile workers increased by 32.752 square meters.m. ^{[57, p.99]}. The funds of the fund for improving the life of workers could be used to organize social facilities – canteens, baths, baths, laundries, clubs, schools, hospitals. Funds were allocated for the maintenance of kindergartens, loans to housing cooperatives, and loans to workers.

The regulation of the working and living conditions of workers in state-owned enterprises was complicated by difficulties in the leadership of trade union bodies. An example is the work of the factory committee at the Ya.M. Sverdlov Kameshkovsky Spinning and Weaving Factory in 1925. Despite some successes (the training of 276 illiterate workers at the educational center, the opening of clubs in the club and the library), attendance at general meetings was low, and there was no work among young people ^{[27, p.2]}. Another example is that in March 1924, at the serpovaya factory No. 1 in the Ulybyshevskaya volost, significant shortcomings emerged in the cultural and educational work of the trade union. Lebedeva, the head of the club, did not come to work and was busy with personal matters. There was no library, sports and political clubs ^{[61, p.2]}.

There were cases when trade union committees delayed the opening of red corners or explained their closure by the hooliganism of visitors ^{[36, p.7]}. Thus, the role of trade unions in the lives of workers was limited only to their formal presence.

Regulation of the working and living conditions of workers in private enterprises was weaker than in State-owned enterprises. This was explained by the weakness of leadership and instruction from higher union bodies (lack of meetings with trade union staff, rare surveys of their work); unskilled work of trade union activists in private enterprises. The situation was complicated by the fact that trade union organizations were financially dependent on private entrepreneurs, in particular, they paid for the work of committee employees at the enterprise ^{[16, pp. 4-5]}. As a result, employers' arbitrariness spread. For example, in June 1922, the factory committee at the knitting factory in Vladimir, rented by Herman, repeatedly appealed to his employer with a demand to pay two months of wage arrears. As a result, all the workers were fired ^{[2, p. 2]}.

In case of repeated violations of the terms of the collective agreement, strikes were organized on the initiative of trade unions at the local level. This is evidenced by the annual statistics. In 1923, 17 strikes were registered in the Vladimir province, conducted by workers at state-owned enterprises. of which, the participants of 2 enterprises belonged to the laborers' union, 6 - miners, 1- textile workers, 4 - builders, 2 - chemists, 2 - Narpita. They were caused by low wages, problems with the supply of workwear, and production standards. Let's compare that on June 5-25, 1923, a strike was held at the Burtsevo brick factory with the participation of 50 workers who demanded a salary increase. However, the administration offered to work on the same terms ^{[8, l.3]}. Another example is the dissatisfaction with the administration of the Vladsilikat brick factory No. 1 about the conclusion of a collective agreement that established piece rates, which led to a strike of 104 workers (the builders' union) in the period June 14-18, 1923. The workers' demand was satisfied, and a new collective agreement was concluded with the participation of the workers ^{[8, l.3]}.

In 1924, the number of strikes increased compared to the previous year, reaching 20. Of these, 11 strikes occurred at 9 State-owned and 2 at private enterprises. They were caused by late payment of wages and their low level, overestimation of production standards per worker. In three cases, the requirements were not met at state-owned enterprises (salary increases, severance pay without warnings, reduction in production rates) ^{[9, l.8]}.

In 1925, 11 strikes were registered with the participation of the trade union of textile workers, builders, chemists, food workers and woodworkers. In 5 cases, they were organized at State–owned enterprises and 6 at private ones. Requirements were not met at 3 private enterprises (wages were not paid, their level was not increased) and one state enterprise (piecework rates were not reduced). So, from March 28 to May 4, 1925, a strike was held at the Trud private textile factory with the participation of 131 people. The demand for payment of wages for three months was not satisfied. Another example, on May 8-9, 1925, a strike was held at the plant named after him. Zudova in the Velikodvorye of Gus-Khrustalny district with the participation of 196 people (a total of 1,108 workers worked at the enterprise). They demanded a reduction in production rates, which was transferred for consideration to the Gus-Khrustalny Combine, to which this enterprise was subordinate (author's calculations) ^{[10, l. 2]}.

In 1926, strikes at textile enterprises became more frequent. Of these, 32 were in state–owned enterprises and 1 in private enterprises. The reasons for them were the delay in payment of wages, a packed working day and unsatisfactory working conditions. The administration of the enterprises partially fulfilled the requirements or rejected them ^{[21, ll. 19-19-ob]}.

Thus, the unions could not fully protect the interests of the workers during the strikes. The requirements regarding the increase of wages and working conditions were partially fulfilled by the administration of enterprises, and the reduction of working hours was rejected.

In such an environment, there was a need for organizations that were conducted without the consent of trade unions. For example. On June 3, 1926, 320 miners (33% of all workers at the Melenkov peat processing plants belonging to the 2nd Flax Industry) demanded a reduction in production standards, a working day from 10 hours to 9 hours, and repairs to racing tracks. As a result, the administration reduced the working hours ^{[8, l.2-2ob.]}.

The trade unions were not able to fully comply with the terms of the collective agreements. One of the reasons for this was their development without the participation of teams of workers: They were of a general nature and were formally discussed during the discussion at the general meetings. As a result, attendance at general meetings decreased to 30% in January 1928 ^{[18, L.18]}.

In general, based on the legislation of the NEP period, the status of trade unions was limited to the functions of representation in state authorities at all levels. Accordingly, there were no levers of influence in the management. Their main focus in their work was to protect the rights of workers in production by drafting collective agreements and monitoring their implementation by the company's administration and hired employees. The experience of the Vladimir province showed that there were general trends and features in trade union work: party influence on the formation of the staff (a gradual decrease in the proportion of workers), material dependence on the administration of enterprises, the drafting of collective agreements with and without a broad representation of the working collective (which led to the formality of taking into account the interests of workers). There has been a tendency to resolve issues of collective agreements through the practice of strikes by local trade union committees. However, due to shortcomings in the formation of the trade union apparatus and the inability to fully protect the interests of workers before the administration of enterprises, there was a proliferation of strikes without the participation of trade union representatives.