rather like a Christmas tree — much the same all the year round. The message is shortand simple: "We are in crisis; you carry the can'. PAT HICKEY, shop steward at Rover Leyland's Managing Director, Derek Whittaker identifies theproblemas low production. poor productivity, a declining market share and serious financial losses'. Whittaker to set one group of workers against the other. He points to Ford as the main enemy for Leyland workers, because they раласо то таке 30 рет cent 01 the UK market, and oust Leyland from the market. leadership - permanently. In the Leyland Mirror be notes that Ford had taken leadership in the first 11 months of 1977 and that if they achieved theiraim "we have failed".
He goes on to reveal that the Joint management counch nad drawn upaplan to deal with this union/management participation body. The proposals which IMC rubber-stamped include: improved contimuity of production tie, no strikes important in view of the otber of or lor get about one operator, one levels and Improvod product - or redundancies and speed up.
Following the vote on the corporate bargaining package the company are in no mood the hang fire. These 'improve ments" are to be implemented in the first six months of 1978 - Or eise 'the company will reduce in and participation schemes are to be met, a fighting unity across Leyland plants is vital.
size and jobs will be lost. A rather strange alternative, since proposals In volve subscantial loss of johs as well as a worsening of conditions.
PARTICIPATION The participation committees hawe been centre Buolved n the discussions on these proposal. Tase bodies hare Doel waised by the Communist Party as orcating a situation u which the labour force have greater control over their future by taking part in major com pany decisions. Of course the participation committees have done nothing of the sort. They have participated in discussion on the implementation of decisions taken elsewhere. It is rumoured chat SCLOSE being discussed involve the shedding of about 9000 employees. But the participation committees are keeping quiet about such It is clear that manning levels will be a central issue for Leyland management in 78. A recent dispute at Kadford Axles points to the future. Despite massive lay-offs as a result of the strike, Whitaker declared that manning levels "Tundamental principal and be would not concede on thisissue.
Although plant leaderships are well aware that the Radford dispute was helping management sharpen the axe for other plants, nothing was done to support thestrike or prepare the membership, Discussions around the incentive scheme on mittee are another aspect of this attack onmanning.
UNITY The old answer of each plant going its own way will not be sufficient to moet the new problems. It is necessary to fight these attacks when and where they stnike. But we must also fight for unity across Leyland cars at rank and file level, to combat the centralised strategy of Leyland management, and the "unity" of the union leaders in the joint union/ management committees.
It is essential to deal with the existioe plant leaders with a leadership committed to strugale, to defend the interests of Leyland workers. That task can only be carcied our in the struggle for a fighting unity in Leyland cars. • Normally our reporters try to avoid the use of words like талліне" which historically reflects the domination of men in the workforce, in this case we connor think of on alternative, waffing" would refer to white coffar workers, We will be publishing an Under Review article on the use of language in CREAUTIOUS Has the