IMGpapers 1976–79

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1976–79

Wage policy dispute

· Red Weekly No. 187, 17 February 1977 · p. 9 of the scan · 554 words

The scan: rw-no187-feb-17-1977.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 5-7 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 9 of the scan

Galdener recenty Leylang vars Tor PowerTa call mere y from any InHOUIOH seems more DaniC walser index In Red Weekly (3 February arou report from TW O resolutions Dassec ov Hover SAOE stewards which, you say, 'chart a different way forward' to the 'SecuSenior Stewards and gle, nese resolutions are cerain. 'different', but I'm surprised that Red Weekly considers them as the As well as accepting, and seekineso exeno. coroorate oareain on la -oit, accept me loss or tear wades uneer me coca contact TOT substantial increase and offer no way forward combat the effects of future in this respect the hover wa citerent trom ine policies put forward by Red Weekl (including those put forward on th Rich Palser waut under the headina No More Wage Cuts' than it is different from the policies of the Communist Party and members of Leyland Ad Hoc Committee.

Vondel anu oul forwau d puile on wages which is repeated by Rich * An across-the-board increase * Wages to be tied to rises in the costor ivine. usine a cos orvine calculated ine tract These policies are not drawn up they are surely intended to be acted ubon oy tne workine class . Io De olonttorov militants as danor al principled programme of socialist policies? If Red Weekly is to play a serious role in the workers strug T mUs always present its olicies cieanvane consistenty In this case , comrade Editors, F believe it is your responsibility to policies proposed by the Rover snoo stewaros neir policy tor a substantal increase from 1 August 1977 to all grades... to take account of the rise in the cost previous 12 months sharply contradicis mne oorcies ourtorwara Dy the Red Weekly, as I have outlined Besides tailing along behind th diversionary path laid by the munst rarty un warts. the novel reso uton aiso access Leviano s position on lay-offs. Charlie Gallagher say Stre is y.

favour of of the widely voiced shop floor demand for staff status - i.e quarantee• annuar caminos reg araless or sickness orlav-ons yet he supports the resoluton which • the retention of penalty carentay orl agiconious Ler medela somboreexsn penalty clauses in any quarter, a maximum of 4 hours payment at 80 per cent grade rate for r any lay-off resulting from action in Leyland Cars;

•No payment for lay-off resulting trom any action inside the plant or related group of factories (e.g.

naoTora Cuce DIanE FoUE mCS awa No payment in the event of short time working To accept such restrictions clearly exposes Gallagher's practical staff COmmItTICH! WITTIG status. mne ony tesincton on start earnings is when they themselves take strike action pose such a polly, Wii chade mo. How Red Weekly fail to anus unal ceylanu WOrners(ane responsieilvtorme inadivortne eniployers to run the industry without successive lay-offs?

* We have received other corresp. ondence on me hover stewards wages policy wich we will print next week with a reply from Rich Palser - EDS In a recent issue of Red Weekly [3

----- pull-quotes -----

judge every use of legal methods from the criterion of

ing, the Rover resolutions accept accept all existing penalty clauses

Weekly has consistently taken a stand against the Social

forall workers to recover the loss of real wages under stages 1 and 2

← Reject participationWhy not Troops Out" →

Something wrong on this page?