taken the sack without a fight?
confrontation?
But which 'right' was so clearly on the side of the unions.
plants are full of outdated machinery.
workers have the strength involves defending those members who do struggle. Thi primary reasons for workers belonging to a union. TERRY Duffy'sexcuse for giving into Edwardes was the threat the Leyland boss made to close down the entire company if the strikes were made official.
*But - this is the oldest management trick in the book. Almost every time a major strike breaks out, the bosses offer some sort of similar threat.
.. But - even if Edwardes was serious, could he have got away with closing BL? Remember that not only do 100,000 people work at BL but at least that many again work in companies which are dependent for their survival on Leyland. Would Michael Edwardes really have got away with throwing that many people on the dole queue? Would hundreds of thousands of workers have •But — if Terry Duffy had told Edwardes that the AUEW did not accept the victimisation of its members, if he had reminded the BL boss that the TGWU was just waiting for a word from the AUEW to make the strike official and that the AUEW intended doing the same, would Edwardes have risked such a even if Edwardes had not backed down government have allowed Edwardes to invite such a confrontstion, which could have grown into immense proportions involving even wider ser tons of the trade union movement? Remember Jim Prior is about to announce his own plans for union 'reform', and he might not have welcomed such a struggle in *But - it is said that the government 'gives' BL millions and millions of pounds and that the Tory government was threatening that i would give no more if Edwardes gave in. The fact is that BL has been 'giver" nothing. The state owns BL and has also lent the company large sums. But on the money it has lent the government is getting high rates of interest - up to 15.5 per cent. The money is lent not to pay 'idle workers' but to invest in a company whose *But — mostof all, remember what trade unions are for. They are for fighting for higher wages and conditions for their members. A unic 7 is nt ›ded to ensure and power tr rest of the AUEW executive did not. In so doing they cook away one of the And that is what Terry Duffy should have told M hael Ewardes.
county passed the executive.
the active higher would the Tory of defending replace leadership?
emerges that interests A fight back. That offy and the to Duffy
OINT SHOP STEWARDS COMMITTEE