Coventry. It pointedly describes the present situation in Standard Triumph, where management is attempting to force the production workers off the piece-rates system of payment. Standard Triumph is a subsidiary of British Leyland, the empire of Lord Stokes, and it produces both saloon cars and sports cars, the latter holding a significant share of the American market. Standard Triumph is a stronghold of the piece-rate system of wage payment, and it is a central part of the ndustrial strategy of British capitalism, and specifically of Stoke's empire, to smash this system of wage payment. The reasons have been analysed many times before. Piece-rate is a system of payment whereby a large proportion of the wage packet is determined by shop-floor negotiations between management rate-fixers and shop stewards over the price of a particular job. In the period of boom during the 50's workers were able to take advantage of this system to make big wage gains and to build powerful shop floor organisations. British capitalism nas subsequently experienced this as a barrier to rationalisation and rapid technological innovation. Three-parts of the wage packet of the Standard-Triumph men for example, are constituted by piece-rate earings, and the powerful shop stewards committee at S-T exhibits all the 'evils' that the Coventry Blue Book first outlined systematically in 1966: an ability to shield men against redundancy and work-load fluctuation owing to the effective absence of detailed managemnt uper vison over the job (which previals under Measured Day Work) and its substitution of steward control over this area; the continual upbidding of rates following each new job negotiation, leading in turn to 'wage-drift' over whole areas of industry; the creation of ment cannot introduce day to day changes in working practices, manning, etc. without having to constantly buy workers off restrictive practices.
It is one of SToke's major intentions to build an auto empire, in which the old established British car firms he has taken over no longer contain within them systems of wage-payment which has enabled the workers in the past to defend themselves against the level of exploitation that prevails among Stoke's competitors (Fords for example has always had MDW and has experienced no such difficulties in smashing shop floor organisation. The timing of the offensive in S-T is significant. Since 1966 throughout the period of take-overs by British Leyland, the financial viability of the whole operation has often been in doubt. This year however has witnessed a period of financial consoldation in the combine, and Stoke's is now prepared to do battle with the two-thirds of his inheritance that remains on the old system of payment, of which S-T is perhaps the toughest bastion of shopfloor power he will have to crack, where the workers are in a position to make him pay heavily for any abandonment of piecework. It has been high on BL's list of priorities for some years. In addition to financial consolidation, Stokes also hopes to take advantage of the level of unemployment which is supposed traditionally to weaken shop floor organisation, (unemployment has appeared in the Coventry area for the first time since the war as a significant phenomenon) and the period of present boom in the card industry (car registrations are up 30% on August 70). To attack, at the present time, the wage costs involved in production by switching to MDW is both necessary and possible, from BL's point of view; necessary because Nixon's imposition of the 10 percent import surcharge will affect sales of sports cards to the United States, and possible because the period immediately following the imposition is the best time to risk a strike since stockists in the US can supply the market with cars at pre-surcharge prices while further exports are temporarily reduced to a minimum during the period of negotiation over the surcharge. The struggle in S-T has coincided with another very important struggle in the Coventry area -that of 10,000 toolroom workers in the area to retain the Coventry Toolroom Agreement.
The Coventry toolroom dispute is reaching its culmination this week with a ballot of the men involved on the question of an all-out indefinite strike. This would shut down all the industries in the area. The sgruggle began some six months ago when the Coventry Engineering Employers Federation contracted out of the Toolroom Agreement which was initiated during the last war. The central feature of the Agreement is that it ties the wages of the roolroom workers in all plants in the area to the average earnings of skilled production workers in the area. This results in high wages for the toolroom without their having to constantly fight for it. It contains built-in cost of living increases, and it also serves as a contract of employment, thereby preventing the employers from using non-contract labour, in addition giving the workers a certain security against summary dismissals. The timing of the EEF withdrawal is partly explained by this fear of the possibility of the workers fighting at some future date to make the Agreement legally enforceable in the Industrial RElations Court. It is declared policy of the EEF to make contracts legally enforceable la point made abundantly clear in the course of the recent negotiations over the York procedure agreements) —but only of course those contracts which are favourable to them, and the TRA does not favour the employers. The TRA struggle is also a kind of "trial run for the employers in the area for the coming struggles over the AUEW wage claim, the cancellation of the national procedure agreements, and the possible use of the I.R. Court (see coming article in Red Mole on the Engineers).
These combined battles will provoke bitter struaales in the Caventm workers adopted a co-ordinated policy of non-cooperation and overtime bans. Two months ago they embarked on a series of weekly one-day strikes each Monday. The EEF refused to reinstate the Agreement, offering f3.50 rises to buy the workers out. The EEF has subsequently replied to the one-day Monday strieks by Tuesday lockouts. This rather cautious and ineffective policy of one-day strikes has now been superceded by a ballot for an all-out strike, following the intervention, ironically enoughj of Rolly Royce. Last week Rollys-Royce, which is not federated to the EEF in the area, tried to break the solidarity of the strikers by offering a separate deal with its own section of toolroom workers. The rebuttal of this tactic by the workers was met by R-R with an indefinite lock-out of 1,150 of its workers. This was the schedule the Government have almost certainly attempted to play a signal for an all out strike in the area. With the RB-211 now ahead of strike breaking role in this case through the intervention of R-R (now a nationalised concern of course). This is complementary to the other Government intervention which has occurred last week in the industry: discussions between Goverment, EEF, and AUEW to work out some formula to head off the coming struggle over the York agreements in the engineering industry.
What is therefore needed, given this close interrelation of all the factors discussed in this brief introduction, is an analysis of the balance of forces not just on the shop-floor of S-T. This is not a criticism in any way of the militant interviewed below it merely suggests that the outcome of the struggle in S-T is not going to be determined by isolated factors, but given the balance of forces which bear on S-T and the prevailing situation around S-T, a situation has been created in which new tactical possibilities are open to both sides. (One of the most directly observable points of interrelation for instance is the fact that the most militant sector of toolroom workers involved in the TRA dispute are located inside S-T itself, where three weeks ago they broke ranks and conducted not just a one-day stoppage, but an indefinite strike, staying out as it happened for a whole week before the District Committee of the AUEW forced them back into line/ It must be borne in mind that an indefinite strike of TR workers which shut the area down for a period would necessarily up-the-stakes in any struggle inside S-T, thereby directly affecting the behaviour of Stokes, the Government and the EEF. But the shutdown also raises new tactical possibilities for the men in S-T. For example, the extension by the S-T men of an enforced lay-off into a strike on the issue of MDW might, depending on the circumstances, take the initiative out of S Tokes hands. Conversely, the refusal of S-T men to negotiate on MDW until the EEF settled the TRA dispute to the satisfaction of the toolroom workers might provide a powerful lever on the EEF over and above the action taken by the toolroom men themselves. The outcome of these two struggles is of prime importance since this is only the beginning of the EEF offensive in Coventry. Red Mole: Could you explain the general background to the situation in Coventry? In particular what effect is unemployment having on the workers in the motor industry and how are the unions reacting?
J.S.: Obviously it has an effect in making the men worry over taking action because they are scared of losing their jobs. The T & G in the Midlands has a policy of refusing to accept deals, especially productivity deals, which accept redundancy, but so far this has not been brought down to the shop floor level. Jack Jones has spoken of the possibility of using industrial action to help the pensioners, but at present he is not even using it to defend his own members, and neither is the refusal to sign Productivity agreements which involve loss of jobs being enforced by the union. In Standards for example, I requested at a mass meeting that the convenors give an undertaking that in any negotiation with the Management no job losses would be accepted. This they refused to do. Saying you refuse to add to unemployment is all very good but it is now much use unless you are prepared to enforce that policy.
R.M.: Why do you think the union leadership is not prepared to take effective action against unemployment? J.S.: I think they are scared of their own members. For example take the case of the demonstration on January 12th this year against the Industrial Relations Bill. The local full time officials originally asked for a demonstration during the factory lunch hour. It was only a meeting of local shop stewards that decided on a demonstration during working time. This led to 25,000 people attending the demonstration. This scared the officials, and there was no follow up. It is just like the case of the TUC and the demonstration on February appearances by organising a demonstration for Sunday morning.
R.M.: How are the management using this situation to attack the workers in Standards?
J.S.: The management have demaned an end to piece work but ar not prepared to negotiate over rises. They say the company can't afford it. All they make are general promises such as talking about lay off pay and regular pay reviews.
These are completely useless. Lay off pay is like the so called guaranteed week-you never see it. What is the use of regular pay reviews if all they say is you can't have anything because the company hasn't got the money? In the company newspaper Triumph News they talk about a system which will guarantee 'stable earnings' but that is just nonsense. If MDW goes through it will inevitably lead to redundancy and the only earnings then will be the dole. MDW also turns men into machines, for example at Rootes now they even regulate when you can go to the toilet. Also the management will use any device to try to trick the men. For exampie in 1956 they summoned the convenors to the office and while they were there gave out 3,000 redundancy notices. The bosses calculated that by giving out who was going to loose their job and who was going to be safe, the solidarity of the men would be split.
R.M.: How do you thing this sort of situation can be dealt with?
J.S.: I think the union must take the initiative. It is useless just to sit there and wait to be attacked. The union must submit a straight pay claim and reject the MDW outright. R.M.: Do you think the same tactics should have been pursued in the Tool Room dispute?
J.S.: Yes, definitely. All the men should have been called out right from the beginning. By only sections coming out it enables the management to try to turn sections of workers against each other. For example, they have tried to get men to work on machines which should have been blacked because the tool men were out. The machine tool fitters at Standard's have voted to come out on indefinite strike. This is the right tactic. It is particularly vital now because the Engineering Employers Fede ration is quite definitely trying to break the unions. Its secret circular on DATA shows this clearly. A maximum solidarity is necessary at this stage.
R.M.: Surely the same could be said about all the main struggles at the moment-about the Industrial Relations Act, the tool room dispute and the Engineering pay claim? J.S.: Yes. In the case of the tool room agreement the employers' tactics is quite simply to isolate the smaller factories. Some of the men in the well organised plants unfortunately think that they will not be affected. This is completely wrong. Once the employers have isolated the small plants then they will start contracting out the work and force down the rates in the well organised factories. In the case of the industrial relations act it is obviously aimed at intimidating whole groups of workers. As for the autumn pay claim here too the need is for the unions to take the initiative. If the struggle gets bogged down in individual disputes the plants can be picked off one by one. We need a general engineering strike, or more, to ensure the claim is met in full. Like in the case of the tool room it is united action which is vital. If the management can take on each group of workers separately, then they will probably defeat one factory and demoralise everyone. The whole management tactic is to divide and conquer.
R.M.: How do you think this tactic can be applied in the struggle against the anti-union laws?
J.S.: The first time the law is used everyone should be called out on strike. But it must not stop there. What is needed is a General Strike to get rid of this government. We shouldn't
THE STAGES OF A SELL-OUT A very dangerous element in the Tory Goverment's anti-union Industrial Relations Act becomes law on Friday, Ist October. From a new office in Euston Road North London the official Registrar of Trade Unions started his work of listing unions in order to regiment them under his wide powers in the new Act. The importance of this event was not lost on the expert that all trade unions took the same line and de-registered. This condition was crucial. With at least some unions intent on becoming registered, here was precisely the formula to save the tender skins of the 'left wing' leaders union leaders. Insistence on collective de-registration allowed Jones to keep the flag of opposition to the Industrial Relations Act flying bravely for the eyes of the rank-and-file, whilst simultaneously providing an opportunity for the 'left' to eventually registerthe safer will Jack Jones feel in his decision to be registered at this time. Only a dramatic upsurge of the T.G.W.U. rank and-file can force a change of policy-and this is not likely. The warm endorsement of Jones as a 'militant' leader by the Communist Party and organisations like the Institute for Workers' Control makes public rebellion against his policies extremely embarrassing for many of these "leftists' in the Union. In addition, the question of registration has been left
----- pull-quotes -----
powerful rank and file bodies over whom the union bureaucracy has little effective control; and a generalised state of affairs in which manage-