Page 179 - Mellinato, Giulio, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2022. Complex Gateways. Labour and Urban History of Maritime Port Cities: The Northern Adriaticin a Comparative Perspective. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 179
A Respected Profession After All: Work Structures and Self-Perceptions ...
49) that took up its work in February 1951. Its structures were and are
still essentially the same as those in 1934. Peter Bartsch, one of the for-
mer chairmen of the GHB, commented on this development as follows:
‘Perhaps it is fair to say that the body of the organism GHB was formed in
those years, but the spirit that suited it was only taken in after the end of
the war, and not suddenly, but gradually’ (1999, 49). With the distinction
between body and mind, i.e. the framework, convictions, and contents,
Bartsch actively takes up the founding of the GHB by the Nazi regime,
distances himself from it and emphasizes the democratic values of the
company. The main effort of this renewed institution that existed and ex-
ists alongside private companies was and is to reduce the casual character
of dock work. Besides this, it aimed to create steady employment condi-
tions, as the volume of work in the port was subject to significant fluctu-
ations, both long-term (e.g. due to cyclical demand) and short-term (due
to the irregular arrival of ships).
Above all, the GHB provided security for unskilled workers who were
not employed by a private company and were only requested when many
workers were needed. Through the GHB, in February 1948, a guaranteed
weekly income was established and paid also when there was no work to
be done. In the years to follow, the company took several further actions
to bring forward decasualization.3 A positive consequence of these struc-
tural developments for employers was the decline of the need and will-
ingness of employees to strike.
Since then, there have been three types of workers: those employed
by a private company, the workers employed by the GHB, and the tem-
porary, so-called unskilled workers, whose deployment continues to be
cause for discussion (Dietz 2011). As shown in the next section, the lat-
ter shaped the common perception of the freedom-loving, independent
worker for decades. However, the depictions hardly ever address the pre-
carious conditions (de Vries 2000, 707). With this image, constructed and
maintained in several media reports, numerous stereotypical associa-
tions are still interwoven today. It was not until 1967 that GHB workers
were equated in terms of employment legislation with workers of private
port companies (Helle 1960, 7). Furthermore, the latter were trained for
3 The port fund bears the so-called guaranteed wage for GHB workers, used to fi-
nance periods of low employment. This is achieved through handling charges,
which all private port companies collect in their invoices and pay to the GHB.
179
49) that took up its work in February 1951. Its structures were and are
still essentially the same as those in 1934. Peter Bartsch, one of the for-
mer chairmen of the GHB, commented on this development as follows:
‘Perhaps it is fair to say that the body of the organism GHB was formed in
those years, but the spirit that suited it was only taken in after the end of
the war, and not suddenly, but gradually’ (1999, 49). With the distinction
between body and mind, i.e. the framework, convictions, and contents,
Bartsch actively takes up the founding of the GHB by the Nazi regime,
distances himself from it and emphasizes the democratic values of the
company. The main effort of this renewed institution that existed and ex-
ists alongside private companies was and is to reduce the casual character
of dock work. Besides this, it aimed to create steady employment condi-
tions, as the volume of work in the port was subject to significant fluctu-
ations, both long-term (e.g. due to cyclical demand) and short-term (due
to the irregular arrival of ships).
Above all, the GHB provided security for unskilled workers who were
not employed by a private company and were only requested when many
workers were needed. Through the GHB, in February 1948, a guaranteed
weekly income was established and paid also when there was no work to
be done. In the years to follow, the company took several further actions
to bring forward decasualization.3 A positive consequence of these struc-
tural developments for employers was the decline of the need and will-
ingness of employees to strike.
Since then, there have been three types of workers: those employed
by a private company, the workers employed by the GHB, and the tem-
porary, so-called unskilled workers, whose deployment continues to be
cause for discussion (Dietz 2011). As shown in the next section, the lat-
ter shaped the common perception of the freedom-loving, independent
worker for decades. However, the depictions hardly ever address the pre-
carious conditions (de Vries 2000, 707). With this image, constructed and
maintained in several media reports, numerous stereotypical associa-
tions are still interwoven today. It was not until 1967 that GHB workers
were equated in terms of employment legislation with workers of private
port companies (Helle 1960, 7). Furthermore, the latter were trained for
3 The port fund bears the so-called guaranteed wage for GHB workers, used to fi-
nance periods of low employment. This is achieved through handling charges,
which all private port companies collect in their invoices and pay to the GHB.
179
