the real figure will probably be nearer double that.
The latest DIan has Robinson and the rest of the Leyland stewards movement, and it is this opposition which has led to the sacking of Robinson. more indirect sense, it was that Kenilworth vote which prepared for the sacking.
The vote at that meeting accepted the logic of what Edwardes did when he demanded the latest round of sackings, and Robinson's vote at the Kenilworth maste responsible. argued opposition was Edwardes has now punished such irresponsıbility with the dismissal of Robinson.
in anollel way, allowed for the success, temporary though it may be, that Edwardes has had in carrying through the victimisation. For at Kenilworth the Leyland shop stewards movement presented itself, bound hand and foot, to the company management.
It gave in to a management strategy which had incorporated the leadership of the trade union movement into plans to movement and lose its members' jobs. Workers' interests It would be an exaggeration to say. that the union leadership represented at Kenilworth had agreed to become certainly lost its ability to act independently on the sole basis of workers' interests.
Kenilworth may have been the low point, but the process had started three years with the publication of the Ryder report into British Leyland. Ryder promised a bright future for the Leyland workers, politicians at the time were only too happy to emphasise Prime Minister Harold Wilson declared: "We are confident that if the recommendations of the (Ryder) report are implemented it will lead to no loss of jobs and that the Leyland workforce ... In the 1980s will be as great as it is today.' The Ryder report was part of a government rescue of Leyland which involved the company being run by the state-owned National Enterprise Board.
As with the Ryder report, great things were promised with the creation of the NEB. The 1974 Labour Party manifesto vowed: 'It will for the first time provide an instrument for exercising control in the area of profitable manufacturing industry. It offers the opportunity to pursue new paths in job creating.
Dream In pursuit of this dream, a whole host of trade union leaders were placed on the board of the NEB. Among them was Hugh Scanlon, Duffy's predecessor as president of the AUEW. It was 'participation' at the 'participation' in the another carrot offered by union leadership at Leyland.
Among the foremost participation was Derek Robinson said: 'If we make Leyland successful it will be a political victory. It will prove that working people LAYC been opposed by But in a deeper, if that indeed Michael the Kenilworth meeting weaken that a company union, but it previous v La future which board, succeed. highest level, while Leyland context was Ryder to the trade to this In 1976 he got guts and bi of members victimised for union activity.
sell-outs the determination to run industry.' That was rather an exaggerated vision of the participation scheme introduced by the Ryder report. There wasn't even provision for workers' representatives to be placed and the provisions that it did involved a watering-down of the traditional functions of trade unions.
Frank Chapter, a division organiser of the AUEW, put it this way: 'Radical workers' attitudes are needed participation within the new British Leyland is to *Participation means that we'll now involved decision-making responsibility that brings. Employee representatives will no longer have to answer just to their members. Their actions will also have to be acceptable to the public.' In shorthand, what Chapter was saying was that the trade union leadership at Leyland was now in the business of serving two masters. On the one hand was their members, on the other 'the public'.
But what exactly was 'the public"? assumption was that because Leyland had been nationalised it was now to be run in the interests of the public'; that no longer would it be run in. the interests of its owners, and that accordingly mahagement attitudes towards the workforce would change.
That looks somewhat criterion by which Leyland was run under the auspices of the NEB was the same criterion by which it was run under private ownership. Edwardes put it in his recent letter promising nis "recovery plan', the aim was to ensure that TERRY Duffy, president of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, and the rest of his union's executive, reneged last week on a founding principle of trade unionism — defence By ordering to go back to work those of its members at British Leyland who had been on strike over the sacking of Leyland convenor Derek Robinson, Duffy made one of the biggest union movement this good the Leyland make changes in employee warned be the revealed.
The changes this big the members.
sick today. The voluntarily by Leyland and As by the company was 'operating at a profit'.
The trade union leadership inside and outside Leyland was reluctant to acknowledge that it was : capitalist principle participation was meant to serve.
Did it willingly On the contrary, Communist Party members in particular were quick to promote and to praise the new arrangement. Ironically, one of the men when sacked Adams, said the following of a participation subcommittee on plans for the new Mini which involved new working practices:
experience, before in has so much information Almost everything that we requested was made available.
'Obviously the company was very keen to get our co-operation. I think it is fair to say that it is only in cases where trade unions have been faced with confrontations or plant closures that they have indicated they are willing to talk about 'And we did it willingly and voluntarily,' Adams added, 'convinced that we were acting in best interests of the company Indeed, much was done willingly the trade union the Halona. especially AÚEW - leadership outside. The most obvious example concerned the continual struggle waged toolmakers and other craft Leyland over their own rates of pay. Robinson's witnessed for years. occurrences the sell-out was not unprepare neither was it an isolated incident.
What happened at Leyland last week ha been signaled by any number of warning sig over the past five years.
To protest and organise against the sacki of Derek Robinson is vital; but to appreciate ho and why it happened is the best insuran against a repetition. GEOFF BELL reports which Many other strike.
management This is further testified Jack our fought so been The drive an unfortunate _ LI and leadership at the Edwardes. workers at But like all SUI attitude was summed up by what he said duri toolmakers' strike in February and March 1 "The worst thing that can happen to B Leyland and the country is for groups of wo to think that they have the God-given rig take sectional action in defence of their conditions. We can't afford a toolroom stri The expression of such sentiments shows had used Robin participation philosophy to its own advar . by an article Robi wrote in The Times in February 1978:
«The trade unions understand as clearly s Edwardes that productivity must be raised level of our international competilors ...
hard to recover that comp position after the unofficial and damaging ! by some toolmakers in March...
'We have taken an unprecedented initiat try and improve output and quality.' productivity meant anything which came in its way tended denounced. A productivity and parity agree of December 1978 was enthusiastically back Robinson. The anti-Communist witch hunt being launched against Robinson and other Robi denounced those who opposed this agreeme 'the lunatic left, the Trots and their henchm We are prepared to be reasonable' Included in this 'we' was Len Brindle, chairperson of the combine, and another ‹ disciplined two weeks ago Just before his formai 'war Brindle wrote indignantly:
'Over the last two years we have nego
agreements with the company that give British Leyland management mobility and flexibility; change of working practice agreements; virtual elimination of inter-union rows on who-does'We have clearly defined agreements on productivity that go. far employer of labour within the (car) industry in Great Britain. So how can myself and convenors like me throughout saboteurs?' Scaffolding The protest is a justified one, Brindle does not appear to appreciate is that his and others' notions of an identity of interest with management meant scaffolding from which any who broke from such an identity of themselves hung.
Not that it was just a case of the individual views of Robinson, Brindle, or other trade union representatives within Leyland. They reflected a philosophy which gained wide acceptance in the abour movement. The threats which Edwardes now makes against anyone who strikes at British Leyland are merely a repetition of what others have said before.
In March Secretary, Eric Varley, who offered himself as a management mouthpiece: I want all workers at Leyland, including those on anofficial strike, to be quite clear that their employment and the future of their company is row in their hands. They can kill it or they can save it. They have no one else to blame or thank.' walk-out beyond any other BL be accused of being but what had erected a interests could find 1977 it was I abour's Industry Varley went on to call for 'an early return to work, higher levels of output and a radical improvement in industrial relations'.
Similarly the threats that Tory Industry Secretary Keith Joseph made over the Robinson that public money withdrawn if the strike continued warning taken from another Varley script when the Labour minister said this February:
*BL cannot sustain a long strike, nor could the government sustain a long strike on the basis of providing public funds."
The 'public funds' directed through Leyland were channelled the National Board and on that body Hugh Scanlon fully backed the Varley line. put it in August 1978, Scanion had trequently (DON'T WE HAVE GREAT TRADE UNION their fullest part Toolmakers mean? For the AUEW one of their disputes.
confined to Leyland;
its successor to Scanlon, November 1977.
record of Scanlon, management.
propaganda to its emerged successful.
Scanlon, adding, vote for me And because Wright.
Nonsense the productivity leadership report itself said, reason for the low changed would Enterprise As the Financial Times HIS MEMBERS! and passionately appealed to his members to play making the state-owned financed rescue (of Leyland) a suceess'.
But what did making a 'success' of Leyland it was most interpreted in the spring of 1977 when the union executive voted for a resolution which effectively allowed Leyland to sack the toolmakers during The consequences of such actions were not they affected the entire Broad Left in the AUEW. For instance, those who voted for the toolmakers' sacking was. Les Dixon, a member of the Communist Party. When the time came for the Broad Left to put up and Bob Wright was chosen, it was Dixon who was the key-note speaker at a Broad Left national assembly in The subsequent defeat of Wright and the election of Terry Duffy owes much to the dismal Dixon and others Broad Left in the years preceding the election At Leyland and elsewhere they had sought to outlaw trade union militancy and to preach the value to their members of "participation' with It was hardly surprising that when Scanion's successor was eventually elected, it was Terry Duffy, who had merely taken the Broad Left logical conclusion, 'Responsibility' Dixon, and Brindlee had in the years before denounced strikers and 'Trots', and had demanded 'responsibility' from Therefore, Terry Duffy was the Broad Left had itself 'educated' AUEW members on the dangers of militancy, they did indeed vote for Duffy, or if they didn't they found little reason to vote for In Leyland itself the price workers paid for such leadership kept increasing. In supporting the trade union has echoed propaganda of 'lazy' car workers as being the reason for all Leyland's ills.
Such a diagnosis is nonsense. As the Ryderr 'under-investment is the maim productivity But nothing 1976 investment at Leyland has been £375 per worker, Vauxhall's has been £1,030, and VW £1,110.
Other prospects presented in the Ryder report have gone the same way, and by early 1977 The Times was declaring that the plans for expansion outlined in Ryder were 'in ruins'. The bulldozer to sweep away the ruins came in October 1977 in the shape of Michael Edwardes. Token opposition One indication of the nature of the new regime was seen in a meeting Edwardes had with national union officials in January 1978. I am not here to negotiate,' he said, 'merely to tell you what is on my mind and to hear your views.' What was on Edwardes' mind soon emerged Although the unions offered a token opposition national unioh leadership or by the Leylanc As late as February 1979 Michael Edwardes was telling the Daily Mirror: If anything I would that the Communist shop stewards VER TERO THE BOAT and reliable.
leadership of the Leyland stewards from the sky.
starkly arranged disillusionment with parțicipation.
endorse a letter from among down' of Leyland.
and sent out. some more months, from it.
Already happening in the who name of an Edwardes "survival plan'. chance of winning class Tragedy Ryder capita similar priorities Scanion, the very which could have that another way was possible.
Broad depends, heir Robinson, such actions which control and lost at that time.
stronger position today.
A NICHT TOEDLINGE HIS Leyland are among the most efficient, conce By then the participation rainbow which chasing for three years had completely fades In September 1978, four hundred stewards meeting discuss tbei cars" council - the top tier in the participatio machinery. There they were told that they had to Edwardes threatening striking toolmakers and promising. a 'slimming The stewards were not consulted about the letter, they were meiely told it had been written 'Participation' staggered on for but it was the meeting in September when Edwardes effectively withdrew It would be easy to blame all this on Michael words, the 'limited workers' control' established accelerate what was happening at Leyland before he arrived. Toolmakers were attacked by their own union before and after Edwardes arrived; arrived; there were speed-ups and redundancies before and after Edwardes came. It mattered little to the victims whether they were abused or sacked in the name of participation or in the There is little use pretending that Leyland management has not gained a number of notable victories in the last couple of years. The reason it has is that through a fake 'nationalisation' and a unions and their national and plant leadership into collaborating with management plans.
This union identification with management so weakened and confused the left at Leyland that when Robinson finally protested and said sacking Robinson was a gamble he stood a Leyland justified that sacking by saying that oner recovery programme, threatening market share and confidence in the company's future."
The expression for such sentiments is not new from Leyland management; the tragedy is that have been stated by Hugh Eric Varley and, yes Derek Robinson in the past four years Could things have been different? Could a successful fightback have been organised?
It would have meant fighting Edwardes from would have Micall discussing concrete proposals for an alternative meant using the weight of the shop stewards to campaign inside the factories and show workers Socialists can never offer guarantees success. But they can and they should point to the consciousness and mobilisation of the rank and rejected 'participation' and sought to popularise involved real workers' raised the possibilities of occupation to defend jobs, they might well have But they would have been in an infinitely JIN MY DAYS WE ATTLES TO THAT ANSWER
SOCIALIST