The Lessons of the Lucas Campaign: the Role of the State
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054926 |
| Published date | 01 January 1979 |
| Date | 01 January 1979 |
| Pages | 27-28 |
| Author | Mike George |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
The Lessons of the Lucas Campaign: the Role
of the State
by Mike George
Research Fellow and Co-ordinator,
Centre for Alternative and Industrial and Technological Systems
North East London Polytechnic
The significant development of tripartite arrangements
between business, the State and the trade unions is a
well-documented feature of modern industrial relations
and economic planning. The "Social Contract" is prob-
ably the most overtly political form of collaboration to
arise for a number of years. The tripartite arrangements
over industrial strategy (Neddies) have been welcomed by
many for they provide a forum for theoretically non-
confrontational politics. The instruments available to the
State in relation to industrial and economic and employ-
ment policies and practices are now legion, but the oper-
ation of those instruments seems increasingly to diverge
from the original hopes and objectives. The campaign by
Lucas Aerospace workers provides an interesting case
study in this field.
In 1976 the officials at the Department of Industry
"welcomed the initiative" of the Lucas Aerospace Com-
bine Shop Stewards Committee for employment-creating
proposals in a company that was displacing labour at a
significant rate. Such a welcome however was not
matched by any practical help over the following two-
year period. In March of this year when the company
announced factory closures and 2,000 redundancies the
Combine Committee was doubly anxious to receive gov-
ernment support, yet the only government support was
an £8m package of aid to Lucas Aerospace to retain 500
of the 2,000 threatened jobs. It was pointed out that this
corresponds to £9,000 per job (retained, not created).
The Combine Committee had been seeking a planning
agreement procedure over the Corporate Plan proposals
for some time and they, not unreasonably, felt that this
£8m hand-out should be accompanied by some form of
agreement which would relate to the employment crea-
tion proposals put forward by the Combine Committee
over the two-year period. However, there was no such
support forthcoming and indeed there is documented
evidence to show that the Department of Industry are
unable or unwilling to deal with the Combine Commit-
tee's proposals. The Combine point out that Lucas al-
ready receives (in the last tax year) £56m a year in tax
deferrals, and that the Government is in fact the major
customer of Lucas Aerospace (primarily through the
Ministry of Defence). It was also pointed out that Indus-
try Act assistance, i.e. £8m, is not necessarily tied to con-
ventional business criteria but includes a provision for
aid which will benefit the community (which presumably
will include the work force?).
The Corporate Plan proposals do not simply substitute
produce x for product y — the products are designed
to fulfil socially-determined needs in society. For in-
stance, many of the proposals relate to medical equip-
ment, both of a high technology and low technology
nature. The Combine proposed these, both in relation to
the satisfaction of unmet needs in many areas of medi-
cine,
and to import substitution. Other Corporate Plan
products include transport proposals which would facili-
tate the development of an integrated public transport
system, power packs which would reduce fuel consump-
tion and toxic emissions.
Therefore, there is a "political" dimension to the pro-
ducts themselves and perhaps it is this feature which
entrains the adverse comment and action from the Gov-
ernment and State Agencies. It is also clear however that
the very notion of a Shop Stewards Committee engaging
in corporate planning is seen simply in terms of power
control. Yet, if industrial democracy is to have any
meaning the agenda for discussions or negotiation cannot
be separated from the process
itself.
In this case the
agenda penetrates into the very core of managerial pre-
rogatives, and if such an agenda is seen to be an im-
possible one for political reasons it points up the need to
inform the debate about industrial democracy with a
consideration of "the agenda".
If tripartite arrangements continue to take place at a
level which excludes the mass of people working in in-
dustry, it quite rightly gives rise to disquiet about the
possibility of a coming "corporate state". If there is a
trend towards corporatism, and this is not necessarily
argued here, then campaigns such as those waged by the
Lucas Aerospace workers are totally necessary to demo-
cratise what can otherwise be a somewhat "cosy" ar-
rangement; such arrangements also tend to define the
"agenda" through assumptions and convention. The real
issue is not one of confrontation or consensus, but rather
over the real content of such conflict or consensus. If
conventional tripartite arrangements remain unchal-
lenged, conventional agendas are bound to be a feature
of their deliberations.
Moreover, it would be foolish to assume that the State
maintains a "referee' role in relation to the trade unions
and the CBI or other business lobbies; the operation of
the Industry Act, for instance, quite clearly demonstrates
that the State merely takes over certain economic func-
tions which are no longer able to be performed by the
business lobby. Similarly the TUC and the official trade
union movement are also moved to accept the "logic" of
this approach, whilst of course maintaining a defensive
position in relation to unemployment and incomes poli-
cies.
There are significant de facto economic inter-
penetrations between the State, industry and the trade
unions, and the ultimate effects of these relationships
occur at levels far removed from the formalised tripartite
arrangements of the NEDC and other institutions.
"The products are designed
to fulfil socially-determined
needs in society"
"If tripartite arrangements continue to
take place at a level which excludes
... people working in industry, it...
gives rise to disquiet about the
possibility of a coming 'Corporate State' "
Employee Relations
1.1
1979 27
To continue reading
Request your trial