Published in: British Universities Industrial Relations Association Newsletter, April 2011,

p5-7

Film Review: Made In Dagenham

Tim Sandle (timsandle@aol.com)

Made In Dagenham, directed by Nigel Cole, had a significant success at the cinema when it was
released in October 2010, has been released on DVD (April 2011). The film will be of interest to
members of BUIRA, not only an enjoyable, if somewhat stylised, period piece but probably
more so for the political, economic and cultural impact of the events surrounding the film.

The film concerns a strike by female machinists at the Ford factory in Dagenham in 1968 1. The
trigger for the action was a re-grading of occupations following a job evaluation exercise. The
women machinists were incensed not because Ford valued what they did so poorly but because it
upset previously established pay differentials between the role of the machinists (downgraded to
Grade B) and other workers within whom that had previously had parity (Grade C). In the film
the strike is led by Rita O’Grady (played by Sally Hawkins who shone as the lead in Mike
Leigh’s Happy Go Lucky). Although the evolution of the character of O’Grady from shy
machinist to passionate strike leader appears happen, incredulously, almost overnight, Hawkins’
performance is believable and the issues of the strike are clearly articulated. The character of
O’Grady is an invention of the film, in reality several different women were involved in leading
the dispute.

The film makes a number of interesting social observations, particularly concerning the sexist
attitudes towards the women by the Ford bosses and many in the trade union movement; and
about the interaction between the women and their families in an era where the man was
invariably seen as the breadwinner. The predominance of patriarchical attitudes in most of the
families portrayed is representative of the late 1960s, notwithstanding that the fiery nature of
many of the working class women offers some redress and indicates that some of the social and
cultural norms were slowly changing. What is most telling is the role of women in the middle
classes with the repression of the wife of one of the Ford bosses (played by Rosamund Pike), a
woman clearly more intelligent and socially aware than her husband, but trapped within middle
class social convention.

As a film the story is entertaining and the actors perform well, particularly an understated Bob
Hoskins as the shop steward of the National Union of Vehicle Builders. There are a number of
inaccuracies, some more important than others, put in place to allow the pace of the narrative to
flow and for dramatic effect. The women, for example, were not as young as the main
protagonists on screen2; the strike lasted for around three weeks3 whereas the film suggests that
the time out was for far longer; Barbara Castle, nicely portrayed by Miranda Richardson, played
1
The actual strike began on 7th June 1968 (and it lasted until the 28th of that month), although the date is
not mentioned in the film.
a key role in settling the dispute over tea with the strikers (not sherry or whiskey). However, the
dispute was not deftly resolved in one afternoon as the film suggests, although a settlement was
reached. The dispute also led to a Court of Inquiry chaired by Sir Jack Scamp being formed,
which sat after the women had returned to work. The court did not find in the women's favour4.

Politically the film was a prelude to the establishment of the Equal Pay Act of 1970. The aim of
the Act was that men and women should be paid the same wage for similar work. This was
something more straightforward where men and women did the same work but less clear where
clustering occurs whereby some jobs are performed predominantly by women and others by
men. Indeed there are many situations today whereby men and women undertaking similar roles
are paid very differently, invariably with men being paid more. At Ford the machinists, who
received 85% of the unskilled wage of men prior to the strike, ‘won’ an increase to 92% of the
wage earned by unskilled men5. Although the strikers gained an increase in pay it was still short
of the male earnings. It took another two years of the women to receive the same wage.

Whilst the film rightly triumphs the formation of the Equal Pay Act and the step in the right
direction towards gender equality (notwithstanding that women in 2010 still earn around 20%
less than men), to me the film glosses over the issue of social class. At Ford the women
machinists were categorised as unskilled labour and their issue was that they were paid less than
men in other occupations classified as unskilled. Whereas the key issue was, in fact, that few, if
any, of the jobs undertaken by ‘unskilled’ men and women were actually unskilled. The
overriding issue was in fact one of social class and the division of labour at work which carves
up workers and creates artificial differences between them.

Nevertheless for raising the issue of gender pay equality, coupled with some fine performances
and a strong script, Made In Dagenham is a film which should be watched and enjoyed by those
active in the labour movement. It serves to remind us of our radical roots and of how far there is
still to go.

Reference:

2
Greer, G. ' We do not hear of women rocking the corporate boat now', The Guardian, 2nd October 2010.
3
Benyon, H. 'Working for Ford', 1973, London: Allen Lane, p168
4
Report of a Court of Inquiry under Sir Jack Scamp into a dispute concerning sewing machinists
employed by the Ford Motor Company Ltd. Author: Jack Scamp, published by HMSO, 1968.
5
Hyman, R. 'Industrial Conflict and the Political Economy: Trends of the Sixties and Prospects for the
Seventies', Socialist Register, Vo. 10., p138. It should be noted that some reminiscences of workers
involved in the dispute put the pay of the machinists at 87% at that of the male workers. See, for example,
Boland, R. 'Ford machinists’ strike, 1968: an inspiring demand for women’s rights', Socialist Worker,
Issue 2,104. 7th June 2008
Sandle, T. (2011): 'Film Review: Made In Dagenham', British Universities Industrial
Relations Association Newsletter, April 2011, p6-7