THE recent coverage about reviving shipbuilding on the Clyde (“Billionaire planning major new shipyard on the Clyde”, The Herald, July 22, and Letters, July 27) has stirred a lot of memories. Although the employers’ perception may have been that wages were affecting the Clyde’s competitiveness, one must not forget those who built the vessels and the conditions under which they worked.

There is no doubt, building and outfitting ships was a primitive business. As Ken Smith noted (“Industry hit by stormy waters has new hope”, The Herald July 22) the workers’ loos were rather basic; so too were the working conditions.

For example, in the engine room the working environment was akin to Dante’s Inferno. The noise was, at times, deafening (“Don’t worry son, you’ll get used to it” was the precursor to industrial deafness). The air was a rich mix of expletives, asbestos dust, fibreglass particles, magnesia powder, hot slag from burners’ torches and smoke from welding equipment. This cocktail was clearly visible on those occasions when the sun’s rays pierced the atmosphere.

Illumination by 110 volt temporary lighting produced an inferior form of light, partially concealing obstacles. The tank top (bilge) was littered with assorted waste and liquids perhaps best left undescribed. Simple safety equipment, other than industrial goggles, was provided by the user.

Lunch was frequently eaten in a draughty, dim lit workshop (there was a canteen), hands were washed (if at all) using “black soap”. Washing facilities of any description, other than a cold water tap, were virtually non-existent.

During my apprenticeship the working week reduced from 44 to 40 hours per week. A first year apprentice’s wage was £2.12s.2d per week, five years later a journeyman earned about £13 for a “bare” week.

In the late 1960s I moved abroad, where I found the terms and conditions of employment very different. Many employers provided overalls, safety boots (and other equipment as required), personal lockers, morning and afternoon tea breaks, modern toilets, showers, hand-washing facilities, washing up time and one was suitably remunerated.

Reflecting upon a successful career I would say that in the “good old days” the women and men working in the shipbuilding industry were regarded as little more than clock numbers. The fact that shipbuilders could not or would not modernise their facilities does not excuse their apparent disregard for the working conditions of their workers.

Furthermore the notion that wage rates were “forced on employers” does not alter the view that shipbuilding workers in the 1960s were underpaid.

Shipbuilding workers were not superannuated but that, of course, is another matter.

Ian F Mackay,

5 Smillie Place, Kilmarnock.