British-Leyland are to hold what are described as "top-level" talks on Thornycroft's -the Basingstoke factory they are trying to sell to Eaton's of Ohio. The date when they had hoped to complete their E5 million deal with Eaton's - October Ist - came and went with the workers still occupying the factory. effectively blocking the takeover. As a result, Eaton's and BLMC came to an agreement to "postpone" the takeover but not before Eaton's had made some very interesting statements about no money having changed hands as yet. (So much for all those the factory by saying that you "can't unscramble the deal"*)
CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE British-Leyland are now under considerable pressure. On the one hand - no matter what facade of unity BLMC and Eaton's may care to put up - it is clear that Eaton's are turning the thumbscrews by threatening to abandon the deal altogether in the face of the workers" opposition. BLMC are especially anxious to avoid this because it would place in jeopardy all their rationalisation plans if the Thornycroft workers were seen to win in this way. may put on BLMC to crush the sit-in immediately (e.g. by using the police to evict them on grounds of trespass, etc.) BLMC have to take into account the effect this kind of action would have on workers throughout the Combine. And finally, there is the economic pressure of the Thornycroft workers themselves. For - as reported in the last issue of The Red Mole - with no gearboxes coming out of Thornycroft's for almost two months now, the dispute is beginning to create supply problems for BLMC in other parts of the Combine. There are rumours of impending lay-offs at A. E. C. Southall, for instance. workers in other parts of the Combine deciding to oceupy their factories too -both to defend their own jobs and in sympathy with the Thornycroft workers. TALKS It is in the context of these sorts of considerations that BLMC have agreed to high level talks with the unions on Wednesday October 11th in York. Having exhausted their supply of subtle tricks to undermine the occupation, BLMC have no option but to try to do a deal with the leaders of the engineering unions and the Combine shop stewards committee.
This is the real meaning of these top-level talks in York, and there is every sign that the Thornycroft workers understand only too well the dangers of a sell-out agreement at these talks. That is why the occupation committee has sent a very firmly worded message to the eight unions due to take part in the talks in York, rejecting any compromise settlement in advance. "The only basis for settling the dispute is a return to a full and expanding programme of production at the factory which must stay in BritishLeyland's hands." A mass meeting of Thorny croft workers passed a motion that no deal was to be signed by any national official, but had to be brought back to the occupation first.
The danger is, of course, that instead of building on the basis of the solidarity and determination of the Thornycroft workers and their families to launch a real struggle throughout BLMC against the rationalisation plans, the union negotiators will, as usual, look to their own bureaucratic interests (a quiet life) and (whilst covering themselves with a fig-leaf or two of left rhetoric) agree to sacrifice Thornycroft's for some paltry and probably even illusory gain elsewhere.
IMPORTANCE The importance of the factory occupation at Thornycrofts is not merely as a lo cal redundancy struggle. With a rapidly falling rate of profit, increasing competition from America and Japan, and impending entry into the Common Market, British capitalism is having to attempt a drastic restructuring of its industry. The car industry is particularly involved in this, and the plans of BLMC for their Basingstoke works is just a part of a massive scheme of closures, lay-offs, changes in payments systems (from piecework to measured day work), etc.
The principle at stake is therefore: who is going to pay for capitalism's crisis of com petitiveness and profitability. Workers have no reason to oppose the "rationalisation" of industry if this takes place so that the benefits are theirs. When this does not happen - as is invariably the case, of course then workers have every interest in fighting to defend their livelihoods, for this is what it amounts to.
ISOLATED But trade union bureaucrats are notorious for avoiding central issues such as these. On the contrary they have generally fought their way to the top on the basis of their ability to lead sectional struggles. For them Thornycrofts may well be disposable. The section. of workers involved is tiny, and their struggle isolated.
And we can say the same of the role of the "Communist" Party - many of whose members, as full-time or lay officials of trade unions are in a position to initiate a real struggle in the BLMC Combine on the issues involved at Thornycrofts. Their failure to take up this question - indeed the CP's rejection of the clearly class issues involved by talking about "British industry" being "sold out" to the Americans - has led to the Thornycroft occupation remaining an isolated and politically weak struggle As the occupation continues, and BLMC and Eatons become more and more determined to finalise their deal, the need for external support becomes that much greater. The Thomycroft workers are lucky that the men's wives and families - a traditional weak spot of a struggle of predominantly male workers - are fully behind them, and have withstood management appeals to them. But solidarity and support actions of fellow workers remain sadly lacking, not least in the rest of the BLMC combine. If trade union organisations, and student unions, etc., could now rally to the support of this occupation, then the balance of forces in the negotiations would be favourably affected, and the Thornycroft workers given new encouragement to stand firm for their objectives.