Chrysler: More Jobs for Axe
Socialist Press1976 1976-06-02Read it in the scan (PDF), scan page 11 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 11
workers at Chrysler's Maidstone plant will not be among those whose jobs bare been temporarily saved following recent orders for components from Iran.
The Maidstone factory is due close this month with the loss some 600 jobs.
Plans for something like 1,000 sackings at the Coventry plants are being shelved but there is no room for complacency among the Chrysler workforce.
As we have pointed out in past Socialist Press articles, any talk of Chrysler's survival depends very much on speed-up and 'flexible' working arrangements - in other words a "disciplined" workforce.
According to management the threat of redundancies can be removed only if the unions agree to hundreds of workers changing jobs, mostly moving from Ryton to the Stoke and Canterbury St. plants.
A company spokesman has said that: 'No general poluntary redundancy programme is planned. However,. if difficulties are experienced in effecting redeployment, then consideration will be given • to limited voluntary redundancy...
Although some overtime is being worked at Stoke, especially in the foundry, production of the Arrow engine is being reduced from 29 to 12 an hour.
Workers should not take management's word on their future - the fight must begin to open the company books, for no redundancies at Maidstone, and instead for work sharing on full pay. still rest with the National Board composed of management, but hopes that "the occasions on which the Board or its Area Directors might directly intervene in the decisions of a colliery management team would be few"
In other words they hope that by placing miners on "management teams" they can force through productivity deals and closures.
The greatest danger to miners now is that "lefts" such as Scargill have now come out in favour of such proposals despite all their previous talk of opposing "participation" under any circumstances.
STEP
Scargill presents these proposals as if they were nothing to do with participation, but a step towards workers' management of the pits.
In a previous issue of Socialist Press (no 19) we quoted an interview with Scargill where he said:
"I'm totally opposed to workers' control......I believe once you start alking about workers' control under capitalism what you are saying is that me open the books and we take charge of 517 of the
Scan page 12
HACKNEY. BRAND WEDEMAND SOCI ST PRES i, Wedne