from Will Fancy
The following leaflet was issued by Woolwich Trade Council,2000 copies of which were distributed on the march by AEI workers in Woolwich: ‘Woolwich has lost 16 000 jobs in the last two years! ‘There are 1 335 on the Labour Exchange (which covers only part of the area) and only 273 vacancies! Why does this happen? Throughout the massive £300 million GnC/AEI &roup, thousands of workers are being sacked in the interests of ‘increased efficiency’. In the last five years, profits of General Electric have rocketed from £4 million to more than £17 million. But even that is not eonough for them. AEI used to make £145 profit for every worker. But the more ruthless GEC can squeeze £319 profit from cach of its employees. ‘Even in our most successful businesses,' GEC's chairman, Lord Aldington told shareholders last year, "there has to be a constant struggle to cut costs and increase efficiency.' The struggle is <« comfortable one for the GEC directors: who collect a total of £110 000 basic salary, and, no doubt, are offered a lucrative 'golden handshake' when their services are no longer required. In the GEC group, like so many other businesses, it is the workers who are forced to make the sacrifices to increase profitability: and GEC's profits were 22% up at £9 million in only six months last year (Guardian 14/12/67). Some people have said that if AEI had remained independent, redundancies would have been avoided. This is not so. Even before the merger, AEI were pruning their work force and plans for major redundancies were being prepared before GEC took over. Only the shareholders benefit from mergers. In the last two months, GEC shares have climbed 10s and are nearing 25 each. Not bad for just holding a piece of paper,eh? A few people do very well out of you - here are the amounts that three men personally own in GEC: David Lewis: £22 000 000; Kenneth Bond: £19 000 000; Arnold Weinstock: £4 700 000. And what does the Government do? Its Industrial Reorganisation Corporation facilitated the merger. And unemployment follows. So then the Government has to pay unemployment benefits because it did not get guarantecs of 'no redundancy’. Meanwhile it gives 'help' to companies: GEC can expect £400 000 from the Selective Employment Tax in development areas. No-one can object to relieving the distress in the dopressed areas. But what's the point of shifting unemployment around the country? This policy does not create new jobs in the country: and that's what we neod. It just spreads the burden 2 bit wider. If Government policy produces mergers and monopolies, then the Government must take responsibility for the results. What can we do? We must fight for the following demands: 1) No redundancy for the sake of profitability; 2) Cure unemployment by producing for need and not for profit. And weve plenty of needs that the ‘excess capacity’ could be put to work on; 3) Consult=tion with the workers before the mergers, which should not go through without firm written guarantees; 4) Keep the plant open — the Government is the main buyer of telecommunic..tions equipment: let it ensure production is maintained.
5) Link up with other GEC plants. . Our redundancy in Woolwich is only
the second (Harlow was first). It will be the turn of other plants next.
Nobody is immune. Our stewards and union officials must seek sympathy
action - strike action - to force the company to treat us properly. They
won't do it if we ask them - only if we make them. Workers can only rely
on their own organisations. Just as the bosses combine through takeovers,
so workers must link up to fight the effects of mergers; 6) Workers'
control. Nationalise the industry under workers' control. We produce the
wealth, why shouldn't we control what we produce?"