THE Michael Edwardes' style of management came to Massey-Ferguson last week with a threat from the M-F machinery division chief 3000 workers have been holding the Banner Lane, Coventry plant prevent management enforcing 170 compulsory redundancies.
M-F. management has
moved rapidly to bring the dispute to a head.
On Wednesday March the culpany plied for an injunction the strikers but union leaders got the hearing postponed for a week This can only be a briet respite. The bosses' courts will be SuiC to DaCk and M-F workers can expect similar performance from enols Dool-boys as was experienced by the Laurence Scott workers.
In best multi-national tradition Hoffman is playing different group of workers off against each farm and Mike Hoffman to He has already decided to transter sonc work lo France, and is threatening countries.
Efficiency at Coventry, he claims, has to be measured against the efficiency of Masseys in other parts of the world, and they are competing work.
But as soon as he has achieved 'efficiency' at Coventry he will be telling workers elsewhere that LaeV must Collocle Coventry Then it will be time for another turn of the screw at Banner Lane. This kind of backma resisted, if only because the always returns for more.
It will be vital in the next few weeks to turn the out and win the support of the rest of the lab certainemen Hoffman can rely on the support of the courts and the meala The local paper, the Coventry Evening Telegraph, ticles on 8 April urging the 'face wasser WOrkers the harsh realities rather jeopardise 4000 jobs our beleaguered city'.
It does not add that accepting the 'harsh realities' at British Leyland and at Talbot led only to more redundancies, current unemployment rate in Coventry of 17 pe COll The against redundancies and for work-sharing is the best answer to une compele ur die' line being peddled by the Telegraph and by Hoffman.
concern IN A CLEAR attempt to divide the workforce Massey-Ferguson has written to all employees appealing for a return to work.
Managing director, H Hebden shows touching concern for the welfare of the workers in his ovening sentence: 'You are probably sitting home worrying about your chances of having a job to go to when this is over.
He goes on to pretend that the occupation is the action of the •work of minority a group shop stewards and a few of your fellow employees are illegally the Coventry location as part of a campaign which they claim will protect jobs.
The letter contains the usual threats about los orders, transfer of work ana closure It then tries to brand the stewards as wreckers. 'what are the motives of ¡nese shop stewards? Do iney want to destrov Ban ner Lane? Perhaps some оз тет ao.
In reply, the Joint Shop Stewards have written to the managing direc LOr veer distributed to the members The stewards point out that the strike committee is democratically elected body carrying out mass meeting decisions. The occupation was carried by an overwhelming majority at Followed theee mass meeting, others, all o whicn aeciaea to rests. compulsory redundancies Hypocrisy The letter repeats the workers' demands for work sharing and shor time working as an alter compaisor, redundancies.
It goes on to point out the hypocrisy management's complaint:
about the cost of the Massey's are willing to sustain the cost of a pro longed dispute and pay for expensive legal action High Court, rather than make un ugreement to suve 170 jobs.
----- pull-quotes -----
close the plant down if the three week old oc- cupation was not ended immediately.
COVENTRY i.5.5.0