WEEKLY Leyland claimed that this was to but in fact it was needed to solve a short-term cash shortage which was driving the company to the wall.
apse of BLMC would he politically disastrous -It would have devasialemployed by the Corporation, but for the 2,000 supplier firms, lor steel, paper und glass producers, and for the balance of payments. But do the incasures Benn has annstandards of BLMC workers? LABOUR'S CHOICE secure the jobs, living standards and italists; or else they take the measures necessary to restore the Carporation to a profitable concern, capable of comperag with the other sapna Car prouces step up the attacks which BLMC has carried out in recent years on jobs, on the value of wages and on the apreements and shop-floer organisation that protect working conditions.
Already Leyland's bosses have made it clear that this is what they see happening. In a letter to empiplants, one of the directors spelt it out: I wish to emphasise that Mr.
to the tasks which we must face up to immediately. Any Government will be intended for the modernisation of out product range, plant and equipment, to keep us abreast or ahead of competition. It will not remove from all of our plants the obligation to be economic and lo pay their way:
ounced production cuts for the Marina and Maxi modets at Cowley, which will be accompanied by a levels on the assembly tracks, by implementing the studies of Industrial Engineers IF TONY BENN had not agreed to give state guarantees to British Leyland's bankers, its workers would not have got a pay packet for Christmas. The Corporation would be bunkrupt by now.
In October the banks refused a consulting request from BLMC for a large loan.
finance their investment programme.
the rescue operation.
Benn stepped in because the coll ing results not just for those directly working class, ounced safeguard the jobs and living Faced with the collapse of BIMC, the Labour Government have a clear choice. Either they take measures lo working conditions of the workforce, which must siar with toking the ind control of all industries requiring ustry out of the hands of private cap Government finance at the last To do that, Labour will have to oyces at the Cowley and Longhridge ise meetings of workplace representBenn's statement makes no difference to discuss the future of the comp finance which may be made available Since then, management has annthe workers whose sec And one of the most ruthless of capitalist industrialists, Don Ryder of IPC, has heen put in charge of WORKERS RESPONSE If BLM's problems are not to be solved af the expense of if work force, it is ovious that things cannot just be left up to Benn and the Labour Goveranent. Healey's bud- nothing get has already shown that when the employers crack the whip, Labour will back the capitalists against the But so far the silence of the leaders of the main unions in BLMC has been deafening. Only the Execulive of ASTMS, which represents supersors, has come out for the nationalisation of the Leyland combine. Yet all the engineering unions adopted a policy of state conference of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. They even mentioned HLM as a case in point.
Such policies make fine conf erence resolutions, but they are meaningless if the union leaders will not fight for them to be carried out when they are most urgently needed, What is needed now is a campaign throughout the BLMC comhine and the dependent suppis industries for the Labour Goverument to mutionalise BLMC A first step would be lo organatives, from manual and staff unions, in each complex of BEMC factories, any and launch a fight for nationalisation. Representatives of the Labour Government should be summon ed to such meelings to put their cards on the table and take their policies from the workers whose interests they were clected to rep Many workers are doubtful about nationalisation when they look at the late of workers in industries that have been nationalised in recent years - tbe huge redOn the line at Cowley —what will Labour do to protect these jobs? undancies in the steel industry and The sackings at Rolls Royce are obvious examples. It is clear that on as own nationalisation will not protect workers jobs.
First, there should be no comp ersation to the major shareholders -they have already made a killing off the backs of carworkers. t30 million worth of BMC shares bought on issue in 1952 would have vielded an average of 73% up to 1967, no counting capital gains! The worker who would pay any compensation through taxes, dee these people Second there must no illusion That proposals for workers directon which Benn may well come up with, will protect the workers' interests. In the steel industry. having ex-steel workers on the board of BSC has been cold comfort to workers whose jobs have been rationalised out of existence.
But to ensure that the process of nationalisation and reorganisation of the industry it carried out to protect workers interests -to safe guard all jobs, to defend and extend agreements that protect working conditions, to protect wages apainst crosion by inflation, and so on the workers will have to organise a system of workers controi over the manavement of the nationalised Workers control by mass meetings could he orginised by the existing shop-steward structure, extended to involve non-manual sections of the workforce, of by specialiy elec ted committees at tactory and national level. But control of this sort would involve a lot more than the functions exercised by present shopstewards and stait representatives. 1l would mean not just negotiating wth but exercising contral over the management of the nationalised company, with all its commercial and financial affairs open to full inspection by the workers.
Such a development in one of the biggest companies in the country would lay the basis for workers Thanage ment, not just of one natlonalised company, but of the whole econong under a workers' Cowley IMG