Shih-Hao Kang a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology
Chapter 4 St Petersburg dockers and their Organisations
Download 2.45 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Figure 4.1: The share of total volume of cargo carried in the Russian transport system (2002)
- 4.1 Russian seaport transportation
Chapter 4 St Petersburg dockers and their Organisations‘They forgot the wise folk saying: ‘‘When you spit on the collective－the collective wipes it dry, when the collective spits on you－you drown of it’’. A true brigade leader, group leaders and union leader in the hard moment should stand on the side of the collective and should be the first ready to take responsibility. For those who are on the opposite of the collective, the collective has no space for them!’ (Mamedov, chairperson of the council of brigade leaders of VSK)92 The case study of railway workers on the October Railway revealed a scene of the dominance of an individualised connection among the workers, as well as among the primary organisations of the alternative trade union. As another active alternative trade union in St Petersburg, the case study of local dockers seems to present a sharp contrast. Focusing on the same research question, the analysis presented in this chapter aims to compare the workplace relations at the seaport and the development of their trade union organisations with the previous conclusion. In the first section, a brief introduction about the development and current status of Russian commercial seaport transportation is presented, to describe the character of the managerial structure, and to provide a general characterisation of work organisation and dockers’ duties. The nature of ‘brigade’ work enables the dockers to express a relatively strong collective identity, especially within the single brigade. Even non-docker professions expressed their connection to such ‘brigade’ team work. The dockers commonly expected a stable and well-paid condition should be provided. During the fieldwork period of 2003-2004, the dockers had expressed more concern over the gap between the growth of wages and the inflation rate. The successful combination of the Russian Dockers’ Union’s (RPD) organisational structure and their efforts to win support among brigade leaders provided a convenient channel and terrain for the union activists. In the next chapter, the conflict at the seaport reflecting their increasing insecurity over the prospects of their work will be discussed.93 Figure 4.1: The share of total volume of cargo carried in the Russian transport system (2002) Source: JSC Russian Railways, Statistics of Russian Railways Company [Online]. Available from: http://www.rzd.ru/images/u_img.html?st_id=11575&he_id=374 [Accessed 01 January 2005] (Original in Russian, author translated).
4.1 Russian seaport transportation4.1.1 General backgroundCompared with Russian railway transportation, the Russian seaport sector reflects another type of role in the Russian transport system. This is a sector mostly serving export and import cargoes for foreign trade, with minor requirements for domestic trade, particularly providing the coastal regions in the North and East of Russia. The total tonnage of the Russian mercantile marine took seventh place in the world in 2003. Sea transport usually stood in third place in the total volume of cargo carried by all Russian transport sectors (See Figure 4.1). In soviet times, almost two-thirds of the cargoes carried by sea transport were concentrated in the big ports around the Black-Azov and Baltic Sea basins. Since the disintegration of the former USSR, the performance of Russian sea transportation in the period of transition since 1992 has confronted critical changes. For the new Russian state, the loss of several important ports, such as Odessa, Ilichev, Lizh, Hovotallin (mostly in Ukraine and the former Baltic countries of the Soviet Union), together with the economic depression and political instability led to a further decline of the sector. Since then the Far East basin has taken about half of the total tonnage of Russian sea transport. That is a result of the growing need for cargo transfer between Russia and countries around the Japanese sea. The big seaports like Vladivostok, Nakhodka, Vostochnii and Vanino therefore have an important role in cargo transportation demands. Apart from these ports, other main seaports include the ports of Murmansk, Kalingrad and Novorossiisk, which are important for specific purposes such as oil or the timber trade. Over recent years, the role of Russian seaports has increased corresponding to the fade-out of the economic crisis and the growth of foreign trade. Nevertheless, a constant challenge to the further development of Russian sea transportation has for a long time been that most of the vessels and port infrastructures are rather outdated and the port equipment needs further investment to modernise. Organisational and managerial structure Since the crisis of the soviet economic system led to a pro-market model in the early 1990s, the ownership, administration and management of Russian seaports have been developed towards a model similar to those at most European ports. The development of the port managerial structure and the composition of ownership have gone through several changes while the economy and policy of the country have been through a chaotic situation or uncertain power struggles. As happened in other Russian industrial units, the power struggles between the newly emerged companies and the governmental organs at each port have been conducted according to their own scenarios. In general, the ownership of the port territory and basic infrastructure normally belongs to the Russian state, under the control of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian federal government; while the ownership and management of each port has normally been transferred to independent companies (most ports have registered as Open Joint Stock Companies). The Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation assigns several establishments to take charge of the various transport sections. These establishments also underwent the structural reform agenda of Russian governmental organisations since the early 2000s. For the seaport section, the main ruling organ is the Federal Agency of Sea and River Transport, and the juridical ownership was finally integrated into the independent enterprise ‘ROSMORPORT’ in 2002. The Federal State Unitary Enterprise ‘ROSMORPORT’ was established according to the decree ‘On the Development of the State Administration System for Commercial Sea and Specialized Ports’ of the Russian government, issued on 25 September 2002. The enterprise is designed as a department subordinate to the Ministry of Transport but behaves as a commercial organisation with independent status and its own balance. The enterprise currently has 25 branches in various Russian ports. In principle, ROSMOPORT is to perform the executive coordinating role, subordinate to the order and instructions of both the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Property Relations (Ministry of Property Relations of the Russian Federation and now Federal Agency for the Management of Federal Property). According to the Charter of ‘ROSMOPORT’, the main aim of the enterprise is to satisfy the public requirements from its activity and profits. In particular, for the creation, maintenance, operation and development of the settled state properties, such as the property complex, the security of navigation, and fulfilment of work in mercantile and specialised seaports, as well as the accomplishment of the federal targeted programme for sea transport all taken charge by the new establishment. The structure of the sub-ministerial establishment ‘Department of Sea and River Activity’ of the Ministry of Transport also owns its managerial division in the Russian seaport industry. The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Property Relations have the authority to nominate the leadership of ROSMORPORT. The establishment of ROSMOPORT can be seen as an indication of the tendency of the Russian government’s reform direction. And the interest coordination between the state’s activities and the others is still uncertain, since most seaports have established their own juridical ownership by forming various joint stock companies since 1992. To avoid the immediate interest conflict between different governmental bodies or between the state and the private stockholders, the role of the Russian state is carefully assigned as only being in charge of strategic development projects. Apart from the federal-ministerial governing organ, the Association of Commercial Sea Ports (ASOP), another influential organisation, has also endeavoured to play a decisive role during the transformation of the Russian economy, especially to act to maintain port operations against the unstable political background. The role of the Association in resolving a number of problems that have been raised in the marine field has grown during the period of transition to a market economy, as well as over the collapse of the USSR and the associated changes in relationships within the industry and the status of ports. Hence the ASOP was the only body which had an influence on marine business in the economic area of the former USSR, despite the fact that the Association does not officially have any real superior governing power, but presents a special association of ‘employers’. A new tendency derives from the fact that construction companies have started to come into port operative management, bringing further changes to the composition and condition of the organisation of port work. To look at the managerial structure at port level, we need to distinguish the character of the Port authority and main port business investors. The mode of interrelations of port management and ownership authority at each seaport is not only determined by the main characteristics of performance of the seaport but also by the related structure of ownership. For example, when a seaport is connected to inner land by railway transport then the involvement of railway operations also requires a representative from the Russian railway company (RZD) to be part of the port’s board of directors. Moreover, if the main functions of a seaport are more than those simple function ports such as fishing, timber or fuel transferring ports (terminals), main stevedore companies at the port normally can take over ownership of the port operation. Here we can see the relatively ‘ideal’ development of the structure of the St Petersburg Seaport as it has gained a more important role as well as being expected to maintain its great potential within the sea transport industry. Directory: russia russia -> 852 The year when the timeline of the Primary Chronicle starts russia -> Airborne Troops (vdv) russia -> To me this is all the cards I would read (if necessary) in my 2nc russia -> Syllabus form russia -> Russian, us military planes in near miss over Syria russia -> 10: 00am–5: 00pm Participant List russia -> Russia’s Strategy in the Arctic: Cooperation, not confrontation Download 2.45 Mb. Share with your friends:
|