Day 301 - 15 Nov 96 - Page 42

     
     1        country, but we have heard information from a lot of
     2        different countries, and that seems to be roughly the same
     3        everywhere in the McDonald's system.  That is indicative of
     4        the underlying resistance to any collective rights and
     5        ability to organise for the workers at McDonald's.
     6
     7        Mr. Nicholson did admit -- actually, he said, I think on
     8        day 120, page 14, line 28, he had changed his view by this
     9        point, he admitted that if everyone in the store joined a
    10        union McDonald's would still not negotiate with it, having
    11        said the opposite previously.  But then he recognised "if
    12        of course there was a massive national drive", and a "very
    13        large proportion of McDonald's employees joined a union",
    14        took industrial action, McDonald's "might be left with no
    15        sure alternative but to negotiate".
    16
    17        I think that is what you put to him, actually.  So that
    18        McDonald's could be forced to recognise unions, but only if
    19        there was huge pressure on them or indeed legal protection
    20        such as exists in a few countries.  Some legal protection.
         There is never really proper legal protection.  And that
    22        was on day 120, page 13, line 42.
    23
    24        You know, for the ordinary workers in a local store, it
    25        seems pretty much an unrealistic expectation that they
    26        could organise a national programme of industrial action
    27        nationwide to force the company to the negotiating table,
    28        bearing in mind the hostility that exists in all the stores
    29        to any kind of very basic organisational activity.
    30
    31        Then indeed, when there was any interest and attempt to
    32        organise it in any way, shape or form that we have heard
    33        about, for example, Hackney 1985, Eastham 1986 and
    34        Liverpool 1988, down goes Mr. Nicholson, the head of
    35        security and head of personnel, sometimes accompanied by
    36        other management grades or other security officials, to
    37        "explain our point of view" to meetings of staff organised
    38        by the company.
    39
    40        This can be seen as a bit of parallel with Mr. Stein's
         jetting around the world to wherever there is any attempt
    42        to get union rights.  So there we have a kind of systemic
    43        approach.  On this was on day 120, pages 6, 7 and 18.
    44        There was a whole section about this.  And on day 116,
    45        pages 37 and 36.
    46
    47        For example, at Hackney, he agreed "they wanted to
    48        represented by a union".  This is day 120, page 8, line
    49        24.  But were surprised when few spoke out.  It may have
    50        been all the meetings, it may have been Hackney.  I have
    51        not got the full details here and I am trying to save time
    52        by not going to the actual transcript of his evidence.
    53
    54        When a vote was taken - this may have been the Liverpool
    55        one, I am not sure - when a vote was taken, few put up
    56        their hands, quite sensibly, because they probably would
    57        have been out the door a week or two later if they had have
    58        done.  And whether they had been put out the door, they
    59        certainly might have believed they would have been put out
    60        the door, and without a union to protect them they would