Peugeot Coventry – The Fight Continues
By Darrall Cozens, NATFHE and Coventry Labour Party (personal capacity)
Thursday, 22 June 2006
On Thursday June 16th, some 60 Peugeot workers from the threatened
Ryton plant in Coventry showed their determination to fight the
proposed plant closure by demonstrating outside a Peugeot dealership on
the A45 Kenpas Highway in Coventry.
This action is part of an ongoing campaign to get the public to boycott
Peugeot cars. In 2005 Peugeot sold 280,000 vehicles in the UK with more
than 10% of the market share and the unions at the plant believe that
if there is a fall in this market share as the result of a boycott,
this would more than negate the savings made if the plant is closed and
a new one opened in Trnava, Slovakia.
Even before the closure was announced, it was obvious that secret
discussions had been going on for some time between Peugeot and the
Slovakian government which has offered £73million towards the
construction costs of the new plant. Peugeot plans to invest 350million
Euros there and produce 450,000 vehicles by 2010, with a new,
undisclosed product coming on the market in 2009/10. Despite having
made more than 1billion Euros profit in 2005, the company believes that
even more profit will be made by switching production to Slovakia where
wages costs are 20-25% the level of Ryton.
The T&GWU and Amicus believe that their efforts to put forward a
viable alternative plan has been hampered by the lack of information
from the company. A car industry expert from the T&GWU nationally
has requested full disclosure of the facts, but so far only about 25%
of what is needed has been released by Peugeot.
According to the Amicus Convenor, Tony Johnson, “there is a need to
challenge the company’s figures, especially where they claim that
vehicles will be 415 Euros cheaper per unit to produce in Slovakia than
Ryton”. He condemned the company’s refusal to disclose the information
needed on the basis of “commercial sensitivity” and stated that the
“alternative trade union business case was preliminary as it is based
on partial information”. Tony also believes that “the lack of
consultation over the proposed closure amounts to breaking UK laws, but
if the case were to go to court, there would only be a punitive fine of
only £75,000, which would be nothing for Peugeot”.
The campaign by the unions will now intensify in the five-week run up
to the August shutdown. According to Tony, “the International Motor
Show in London on July 18th will now be targeted as the boycott
campaign spreads”. In addition he said that the “issue was raised at
the recent Amicus conference in Scarborough and all 114 delegates there
would be taking the message back to their workplaces to spread the
boycott of Peugeot vehicles”.
There can be no doubt that many sections of the Peugeot workforce are
determined to keep the plant open despite facing many obstacles. The
fight is being hampered on two fronts. Firstly, workers at the plant
have rejected industrial action as part of the campaign. A ballot saw
440 T&G members vote for action and 516 against on a turnout of
69%. Amicus members too narrowly voted against strike action. Secondly,
Peugeot Citroen have threatened to reduce redundancy pay and bring
forward the closure date if workers take action to challenge their
decision.
Time is not on the side of the unions. One shift is to be made
redundant in July 2006 followed by complete closure in mid 2007. On May
12th the joint unions, T&GWU and Amicus, presented their
preliminary alternative business case to the company. This involved:
1. Moving to a single shift operation in July 2006 with the loss of over 1,000 jobs in the short term.
2. Significantly reducing costs at Ryton by cutting the
cost of labour as well as other costs throughout the plant, including
management overheads, through an innovative labour agreement to achieve
labour savings for existing employees and greater labour savings for
new hires. What this means in practice is not spelled out, but it could
possibly mean fewer workers producing more cars at a faster pace on
lower wages and the pay rates that have been achieved through years of
struggle not being offered to new workers. To try and get cost levels
down to those expected from the Slovakian plant could mean large cuts,
especially in the area of labour costs. If such wage differentials came
into existence for workers doing similar work, it would be a recipe for
division, not unity, amongst the workers.
3. The trade unions are also committed to accepting all
reasonable proposals by the company to improve productivity. But whose
definition of “reasonable” will be used? What is reasonable for the
company may not be so for the workers.
4. The trade unions hope that as they have always
co-operated in terms of accepting initiatives to improve plant
productivity, quality and flexibility, the new, undisclosed product
will be built by two more shifts at Ryton in 2009/10 as the company has
already admitted that building the product at Ryton will be profitable.
Despite the substantial savings proposed by the unions the company has
declined the offer without any discussions, and therefore no agreement
exists on any of these proposals. The proposals however do reflect the
willingness of the trade unions to go to even greater lengths and make
even more sacrifices to keep the plant open.
The unions believe that the company’s calculations are wrong as closure
would create “bad will” in the Midlands which will cost the company in
terms of reputation and sales, and the unions are prepared to spend
£millions in a high-profile campaign to reduce Peugeot-Citroen’s share
of the market. The problem is that even if the unions were to be
successful in reducing the market share and thus forcing the company
not to close the plant, they would then have to spend more £millions in
another high-profile campaign to persuade motorists to buy Peugeot
products. Once buyers have switched brands, it is difficult to get them
to switch back again. Would a consumer boycott therefore work?
The unions also believe that it is “morally wrong” for Peugeot to shut
plants in the UK or in western Europe because “labour is cheaper in
eastern Europe”. Again the problem is that capitalist owners of
manufacturing only have one moral – the profit and loss account. For
them it is morally right to increase profits even more by transferring
production, despite the hardship that this will cause to existing
workers.
Throughout Europe the Peugeot-Citroen workers are planning a joint day
of industrial action at all their plants to make clear to the company
that their plans are unacceptable. Again this shows the determination
to fight.
Up to now however the trade union campaign has been based on delivering
greater productivity, greater savings and therefore greater profit to
the company. And the company won’t listen. Sooner or later Peugeot
workers and the trade unions will have to recognise that
Peugeot-Citroen and the products they make belong to the workers, not
the shareholders, as it is those who work in the plants that actually
create the wealth through their labour. On the basis of private
ownership, of capitalism, that wealth is creamed off by the
shareholders who are now demanding an even greater share of the wealth
that is produced. They are not satisfied with 1 billion Euros. They
want more. This is what determines their actions, not morals.
How can the plant be therefore saved? The issue of nationalisation
under workers’ control will have to be raised and discussed amongst the
workers. Peugeot workers and the society they live in have to reclaim
the wealth that they have produced. The skills that they have can then
be used to produce vehicles that could provide an efficient, reliable
and frequent public transport system.
Once the plant is closed, these skills will be lost to the community
and society. We must learn from what happened at Rover. As Derek
Simpson and Tony Woodley said in the Guardian on June 13th, “many of
those who lost their jobs when Rover collapsed a year ago are still
unemployed – and those who have found alternative work are usually
being paid a half or even a third of their former wage”.
Tony Johnson said that Peugeot had opened up a £5million Resource
centre at the plant to help workers find alternative jobs, but that
“many workers, particularly those from the track, were getting negative
feedback as they did not have transferable skills”.
On the basis of capitalism, Peugeot workers face an uncertain future of
unemployment, low wages, skills dissolution and attendant stress and
trauma. A campaign for public ownership of the company under workers’
control could prevent that happening.
