Wrp Admits Support

Scan page 7

Newman, Industrial Relations Manager of the Cowley Assembly Plant.

The ferthoraine elections in pur Undon are men as the port arucial electione Therefore sey I be permitted to ures and rescreend to gou the basbershto. that the followine candidaten for the Ofrice of Deputy Sanfor storerds be their Union and industry« No one can benefit fres e sending industry, be cured before me silk de cown with st, het Tene Yes, I BELTIVE A STRONG GLADSIP IS MOULIED, & IRATERNIE THAZ ATHE I hope that you the underone I care factualent sort Home to rolle When we publised the article in the last 'Socialist Press' exposing the unprincipled entry of the Workers Revolutionary Party into the British Leyland Ryder Committees - designed to break down shop floor resistance to speed-up, we found it hard to believe that the WRP could actually defend their class collaboration in public.

Amazingly they have now done so, both at the Workers Press 6th. Anniversary Rally on November 30th., and in Workers Press on Tuesday 2nd December in an article 'refuting' Socialist Press by Michael Banda.

In four-fifths of a page, Banda wriggles and squirms away from every question -blustering to cover up the position. After a long preamble he admits that the WRP are participating in Ryder - but questions our right to raise the matter!

This admission only came of course after Socialist Press had revealed it. Up until then not a single member of the WRP outside of the closed circles of the leadership and the member who entered Ryder knew of this change of policy on such a major issue. This would explain why our leaflets were taken away from members and non-members alike as they went into the door at the 6th. Anniversary meeting.

EDITORIAL BOARD Where does the Workers Press editorial board stand on this question? You would assume from its statements that it is against Ryder. Apart from Banda's article defending Tom White for sitting on the Cowley Ryder Committee there has been no apparent change of line:

Previously, Workers Press correctly made it clear that: 'One of the first tasks the union representatives will have is to participate in the mass redundancies required by the Company."

When the Ryder Report was published, Workers Press made the correct point that: "massive investment by government under a capitalist appointed board who will take a few tame seniour stewards as hostages and declare that the era of industrial democracy has begun."

But now we find that the WRP's position is exactly the same as the opportunists of IS. From a reading of Socialist Worker you would conclude that the IS were opposed to entry into Ryder, but if you go to their meetings or read their "rank and file' paper Leyland Worker you find that they are in favour of entering 'participation' committees.

NOT TOLD When Banda, on behalf of WRP General Secretary Healy, admits now that the WRP leadership have carried out a major policy change on a question of principle without telling theit members or readers, they again demonstrate the political degeneration of the WRP.

Banda's article attempts to avoid responsibility by making it seem a defence of what he calls "Brother White's action". But Socialist Press did not attack Tom White individually. We attacked the WRP of which White is a leading member.

We know that the decision to enter Ryder was taken by WRP General Secretary G. Healy personally and carried out by White.

Yet WRP policy statements have correctly said continuously that it is not possible to defend a single principle from within the Ryder committees.

"Not a single job or basic right in this giant combine can be saved without a bitter struggle against Ryder" (Workers Press, April 28th 1975). What kind of "bitter struggle" is White carrying out by joining in the plan?

Ryder is currently the spearhead of attacks on manning levels and agreements. The shadow of the participation committees stands agreed manning levels on the tracks.

To claim (as Banda does) that the WRP are in the leadership of the struggle against speed-up in Cowley is ludicrous. You cannot fight speed-up by joining the management. In any case Tom White's only contribution (and he is the WRP's only member in any of the Cowley factories) each time management has attacked has been to warn that to fight the company would be an "adventure"

Banda says that: "In principle we [WRP] are totally opposed to the Ryder plan and are determined to smash it in Cowley and everywhere else."

He then goes on to put what must be one of the most opportunistic and unprincipled collection of reasons for entering such class collaboration ever advanced by an organisation calling itself Trotskyist. The centre-piece of his case is eight points; we will take up the six main ones:

1) "Brother White voted against participation at the shop stewards meeting"

This is true, but he did not fight it and it was Cy Blake, regarded by Healy as a sympathiser of the WRP, who, as chairman, rigged the agenda and allowed the Stalinists to swing the vote at the last minute with the argument that Ryder is a "step towards workers' control". • (The WRP are backing Cy Blake in the current elections).

2) "He did not attend the meeting which was taking nominations because he was opposed to it."

3)"He was nominated in his absence by stewards of his section. He declined nomination"

This is not true. When interviewed by branch officials and asked to state acceptance or rejection -White accepted.

4) "The stewards from his section appealed to him to stand in order to represent their views and to defend their agreements"

CONFUSION

But how can you defend agreements by sitting on the very body which is set up for the sole purpose of attacking them? All you do is cause maximum confusion and give credibility to the Ryder committees (which were discredited in Cowley before they got off the ground).

Cde.Thornett was likewise nominated by stewards from his section, who advanced exactly the same arguments. In refusing nomination he argued that the most important question was to defend principle. As a result of his stand not a single member from his section cast a vote in the election for the Ryder committees.

5) "After a long discussion with the stewards he agreed to stand on these principled grounds"

So the "principled grounds" for sitting on Ryder is to forget what the committees are, abandon all pressure, from tree shop stewardr - two of whom are right-wingers openly opposed to revolutionary POLICY-MAKERS Is Comrade Banda telling us that thece three stewards decided WRP Geoff Whalen, Ryder?

We ask Banda and Healy: What about the mass of workers in the factory who demonstrated, by abstention from the ballot, their hostillty to Ryder (under conditions where they had a baalot paper thrust into their hands by a foreman and a ballot box pushed under their noses by right-wing shop stewards)? Do they count for nothing against White's group of three stewards?

White polled 167 votes out of the 1328 in his constituency, giving him a stand-in position. The right-winger elected did little better with 248. The overwhelming majority of workers on White's own constituency are opposed to Ryder - yet the WRP opts for participation! Who do they claim to be educating?

Banda is caught on the mass abstention. He says: "You cannot fight capitalism with & chastity belt. The WRP participates in all struggles without surrendering our political and organisational independence"!

But Ryder is participation in management, not in the struggles of the working class. The struggles now and the struggles to come will not be inside the committees but against them. In entering Ryder the WRP is not "staying with the working class" , but by class collaboration crossing the class divide, ending up with the employers. That is the issue. Workers Press has said it many times.

Now Healyr, in order to carry out unprincipled manoeuvres with certain individuals, because he has nothing else left in Cowley, turns his back on party policy and furtively changes his line. Banda's fury is that of a crookcaught in the act.

But the WRP position goes much worse. In the language of all opportunists, Banda castigates the WSL as "sectarian" because we refuse to participate in class collaboration. He throws in the analogy of ultra-lefts who refuse to join the army if conscripted.

But no workers are "conscripted" into the Ryder committees! They volunteer for a "commissioned rank" in the management's offensive. White, in close consultation with the WRP, opted to join Ryder, and its scab committee.

ADVOCATE ENTRY?

Banda's argument of course suggests that the WRP should be advocating full entry into all Participation schemes in order supposedly to "stay with the masses". We await such a call by the Workers Press Editorial Board -or is there one rule for Tom White in Cowley, and another rule for every other WRP member in the country?

Banda tries to argue that entering management participation is comparable with Alan Thornett's agreement that SLL members should work under the Measured Day Work system.

But that was after a six week strike against MDW was knifed by the officials, who obtained a return to wart on a hamie formula ment then forced MDW threatening each individual with the sack.

Working under a new payment system after such a struggle against it is quite different from entering the Ryder committees. In any case after MDW was forced in the mass of workers worked it. With Ryder the mass are against it.

Tom White's position at that time should also be mentioned. In a powerful demonstration of principle he held out alone in North Assembly against the company ultimatum and was removed from his job.

The next step would have be the sack, and a decision had to be correctly taken two days later for him to go back on his job.

There is no comparison here with entry into a management committee to sit with foremen and Industrial Engineers - and Healy well knows it. Healy must carry principled record to his present opportunist position.

PARSONS Banda's reason for bringing in the MDW comparison and bending it to suit his argument is to link us with Parsons, who he says has developed an "undying hatred" for the WRP because Workers Press exposed the wining and dining at the Annesly Hotel in Coventry where the Ryder agreement was cooked up.

THANKS POST I GENERAL, MOPKERS UNICK WEALTY SPITOR STENARD FLECTIOL Dest Nesbert, in the History of British leytand as conley.

considered.

1 rimly belteve that such candldates *111 cools escept of sourze those that bare osper sofires.

neve 1e a lisesse in this Teatory de both Kaseganen BUTED AND NOT DESTROY.

for the following 7 candiesterBrother JAn Barson Padat Shop Erotier Kick raylor Body Shep Frother Toony Gien Brother Sonysbrook C2 Asserbig Brother Albert PAintin 18% Tospection prother Tony Shelly 12° Paint Prother Pom Inite E Persona mentor Sterord 20m But this is not the reality in Cowley where it is well known that the group most hated by Parsons is the WSL. Tom White in fact has developed all kinds of accommodation with Parsons which is shown by White's astounding inclusion in Parson's recommended list of deputies for this week's elections in the plant.

SLATE

There are 26 nominations for 7 positions, from whom Parsons has selected 7 as the right wing slate - including, as can be seen from his circular we reproduce - Tom White.

The decision of Parsons, an extreme right wing anti-communist witch-hunter, to include White (though presumably without his knowledge) has caused divisions within the right wing. Parsons clearly wants a tame left to decorate his list. (In a similar way to that used by the right wing throughout the trade unions in using the Stalinists as a left face):

When Parsons argued this position within the extreme right wing grouping which publishes the leaflet in the plant ORMO-TU, "Organisation for Moderate Opinion", which has been the main voice of Parsons over the past two years, no agree ment could be reached. Parsons stuck to White's inclusion and ORMO were unable to publish an election policy.

TESTIMONIAL

Parsons' testimonial to White makes the following points: "I firmly believe that such candidates will commit themselves to act, firmly, fairly and intelligently in the best interests of all our members, their union and industry. No one can benefit from a sagging industry, except of course those who have other motives."

We think that this development, together with the entry of the WRP into participation, requires some answers from Healy.

Why does Parsons decide to include White on his recommended list in an election so crucial to the right wing?

Is there not a link between Parsons' confidence that White will play a tame role as a full time deputy senior shop steward and White's entry into the Ryder participation scheme?

Body RectAtsertton North North Side Assessis

Scan page 8

lage 8 TMS' Clive Jenkins - no move to brise doctors in fight for 40 hr week.

The wholesale closure of casualty departments of hospitals throughout the country is the clearest testament to the Labour leaders' determination to attack the National Health Service along with every other right of the working class.

The junior doctors have been forced into action by the reactionary pay laws imposed by the Wilson government, and by the complete refusal of the trade union leaders to come to their support in their fight for a 40-hour working week and reasonable payment for overtime.

TORIES

Indeed the fact that their whole action is led by Tories within the BMA and the JHDA is a testimony to the betrayal of trade unionism by Clive Jenkins and the ASTMS leadership, who for years have allowed junior doctors to work a basic 80-hour week under punishing conditions without at any point seriously fighting to build the Medical Practitioners Union, the doctors' section of ASTMS around campaign to change these conditions.

As a result, the industrial action taken by junior doctors is confused, uncoordinated, and largely isolated from the Health Service trade unions - whose leaders in any event long ago sold out any opposition the government's pay laws.

It also takes place under leaders who seek to preserve private practice in medicine, while working class support would rally firmly round a clear call to defend the crumbling National Health Service against cuts and closures, ensuring maximum impact of the doctors' actions.

DIFFERENCE

Workers must be clear on the complete difference therefore between the consultants' recent decision to campaign for resignations from the. NHS, and the present action of junior doctors. While the doctors must be fully supported in the fight to end Victorian conditions of work, the consultants who attempt to blackmail the government into providing profit-making pay-beds within NHS hospitals must be given notice to quit.

Their threat to resign the NHS en bloc is an empty one. Outside the structure of the Health Service they cease to be consultants, and become merely senior doctors seeking employment in the competitive and lucrative but restricted field of private practice.

If they prefer the prospect of personal profit to the possibility of working within a system which provides treatment for all, then they must be made to make way for the many able junior doctors who would gladly take their place.

In addition the Labour movement must prepare a fight back against private practice. The 'Left' MPs who talk of socialism must immediately fight for legislation to outlaw private practice inside or outside NHS hospitals and nationalise existing private hospitals. It should be made an offence to extort money from the sick and infirm, and all recognition should be withdrawn from such 'doctors'.

The fight for such an end to private practice is already national conference policy of ASTMS. Ian Mikardo, the 'left' ASTMS-sponsored MP and ASTMS Executive member, must lead this fight, along with the struggle for a £1,000 nillion injection of funds into the NHS, which is also ASTMS national policy.

At the same time, local cuts in service are mounting - in many cases deliberately confused with and covered over by the doctors' dispute. The most determined resistance to these cuts must be fought for through the NHS and other unions.

Resistance must centre first on forcing those supposedly 'public' bodies - the Regional and Area Health Authorities - to open up their books and their future plans for inspection by elected trade union committees.

Even scratching the surface of these plans reveals the enormous impact the cuts will have on health care. In Oxford on November 24th. a meeting of over 150 health service trade unionists was held, following publication by the local Joint Trade Union Committee of a synopsis of a management Directive to All Budget Holders in the Oxford AHA which detailed the management's method of attack on manning and conditions. The Directive admits the effects of its proposals on staff will be: Inesday 10th December 1975 "either in reducing the level of take-nome рау?. changing their work-load, or working conditions, restrictive actions will sometimes need to be taken in arbitrary fashion."

It goes no to propose shedding labour through "normal wastage" reduction in overtime, freezing unfilled posts and restricting temporary staff. At the same time, other proposals for cuts include an embargo on all additional equipment, a 50% cut in advertising, a 50% cut in the training, budget (at a teaching hospital!), a "review" of the demand on diagnostic services (pathological examinations) and in general to: "maintain and where possible increase levels of underspending."

At the meeting the Joint Trade Union Committee exposed a further management document, this time a far more detailed and lengthy list of 61 proposed cuts - centring largely on preventive medicine, but also threatening maternity wards, smaller accident units and the completion of such projects as a permanent dialysis unit.

An enthusiastic response was given to those speakers who fought in the meeting for the WSL policy of fighting to force the books to be fully opened, and for national strike action in defence of the NHS around the demand for €1,000 million tied to a sliding scale of spending to defend the NHS against the impact of inflation.

The meeting clearly recognised the need for the trade unions to exercise control over the management within the hospitals if jobs, wages and conditions are to be defended, and also the need for unity of all workers in defence of the right to free health care.

The meeting further overwhelmingly backed a call by the Oxford and District Trades Council for a public meeting to begin a wide-

----- pull-quotes -----

The inaugural meeting of the Assembly Plant Employee Participation Committee. Management and union representatives are seated alternately, seeking to abolish the independent trade union 'side. Parsons is

the political responsibility for having taken Tom White from a