AnarWiki/markdown/Lucas_Aerospace_Plan.md

History of how arms company workers struggled against closure and for a
change in their work from weapons manufacture to socially useful
production.

In the 1970s workers at the Lucas Aerospace Company in Britain set out
to defeat the bosses plans to axe jobs. They produced their own
alternative "Corporate Plan" for the company's future. In doing so they
attacked some of the underlying priorities of capitalism. Their
proposals were radical, arguing for an end to the wasteful production of
military goods and for people’s needs to be put before the owners’
profits.

Military Matters Lucas Aerospace in the early 70s was one of Europe's
largest designers and manufacturers of aircraft systems and equipment.
It had over 18,000 workers on its payroll, spread over 15 factories,
throughout Britain. Nearly half of its business was related to military
matters - in production of combat aircraft and the Sting Ray missile
system for NATO (pictured, above). But it also had small interests in
medical technologies.

The company had been formed into the size it was through the take-overs
and amalgamations of smaller size companies. It had been backed by the
Government of the day who wanted a strong and efficient aerospace
company to compete with the other European manufacturers. As part of
achieving this Management planned to rationalise the whole 15-factory
operation into a more integrated and streamlined company. This would
mean lay-offs for at least 20% of the workforce and the closure of some
areas. The prize for the owners of Lucas in doing this would be a much
greater involvement in the military markets where profit rates were very
high compared with other industries.

Poor Wages The intentions of the company owners and management did not
go unnoticed by the Lucas workers or their Shop Stewards Combine
Committee (SSCC). The origins of the SSCC was in the strong trade union
tradition at the time in Britain though particularly in the aerospace
industry. Over a period of years the workers in the different unions had
seen the need to co-ordinate their negotiations against a single
management so as to avoid poor wage increases as one section was paid
off at the expense of the others. So they formed shop stewards
committees that bridged their different union memberships. As the
company had grown bigger these shop steward committees from different
areas also linked up to carry on the same idea of meeting the management
with a single voice for all workers in any negotiations.

Struggle pays The SSCC at Lucas which linked all the company sites had
not, however, come about without much effort or struggle. It had grown
to the importance it had because of its involvement with the direct rank
and file struggles of workers there and was looked to by many far more
than their individual unions or full time union officials. One of the
most spectacular successes of the SSCC was in the Burnley strike in 1972
when by means of mobilising the support of all Lucas workers, a 13 week
strike by Burnley workers was carried to a successful conclusion leading
to a wage increase 167% larger than that nationally negotiated by the
union officials\! The SSCC in the course of the strike had organised
widespread collections and support meetings for the striking workers and
had backed this up with strategic work stoppages at different plants
that had maximised the losses to the company with the minimum loss in
pay. The support action co-ordinated by the SSCC was extremely effective
and eventually saw management capitulating despite their previous claim
that they wouldn't give the workers a penny extra.

After the Burnley strike, the SSCC was able to achieve much better pay
and conditions for all union workers at Lucas. Local disputes in the
company were often settled through sympathy action co-ordinated by the
SSCC. Management was unable to break the new-found unity and was fearful
of any large strike, like that at Burnley, breaking out again.

Useful jobs It was against this background that the SSCC in 1976
proposed the alternative Corporate Plan (below) to Lucas's management.

It was the product of two years planning and debate among Lucas workers.
Everyone from unionised engineers, to technicians to production workers
and secretaries was involved in drawing it up. It was based on detailed
information on the machinery and equipment that all Lucas sites had, as
well as the type of skills that were in the company. Its central aim was
to head off Lucas's planned job cuts by arguing that the concentration
on military goods and markets was neither the best use of resources nor
in itself desirable. It argued that if Lucas was to look away from
military production it could expand into markets for "socially useful"
goods where it already had some expertise and sales.

If this was done no job losses would be needed. The Plan itself did
considerable market research for what was needed to replace the military
goods and what Lucas could actually make. According to it Lucas could
eventually wind down its military production, keeping all its present
workforce. In other words no job losses at all were envisaged. Moreover,
the production of high technology equipment like kidney dialysis
machines would be of far more benefit than Sting-Ray missiles to
society. The workforce would be much more happy with this from the point
of view of jobs and the quality of work.

Shunned by bosses Lucas's owners and management did not however place a
very high value on either the provision of work or its quality. When the
Plan was presented to them they shunned it. They resented "their workers
telling them what to do" and insisted on the Company's commitment to
defence production. The job cuts and rationalisations were to continue.

...and union leaders The full time union officials half-heartedly
pledged their support for the Plan, but did nothing to widen the support
among other trade unionists for it. This partly reflected their
antagonism to the radical proposals of the Plan which went outside, by a
long stretch, the cosy wage negotiations they were used to. But also
they were antagonistic to the SSCC which they saw as getting above its
station. They were worried that the influence of the SSCC and the
hornets’ nest it was stirring about job cuts and "socially useful"
production might spread beyond their control even more than it already
had. Maintaining the status quo was particularly important to them also
at this time because of the pact signed between the Union leaders and
the Labour Party Government which was aimed at taming the demands of
union members in return for more say for the Union bosses in "national
policy".

Sell out The Labour Party similarly, now forming the Government,
applauded the Plan but spent their time avoiding it like the plague. It
reflected some of the weak politics, however, of the SSCC that they had
turned to them at all. It was the British Government (with active Labour
Party involvement) which in the first instance had supported Lucas's
move to a competitive military manufacturer for NATO. Like all
"socialists" in Government they had promptly forgotten their commitment
to help the workers’ movement.

Direct action If it was direct industrial action that had built the SSCC
into what it was and gave it the confidence to produce the likes of the
alternative Corporate Plan, then it would have been the same industrial
action that would have carried it forward further. That such direct
action by the workers was not looked to by the SSCC in the aftermath of
its rejection by the Lucas bosses reflected major weaknesses. Looking to
the Labour Party was a huge weakness since it presupposed that Labour
really had the interests of the workers at heart, which it didn't. The
Labour Party in Government was looking after the interests of the
British state. It was not going to challenge capitalism - or its values
- which the Lucas Plan did at root. Workers, as became clear, only had
themselves to look to for help. If the SSCC looked to this they may have
got somewhere.

To some this response of management's was not very surprising. But these
people were in the minority. The bulk of the SSCC while expecting an
argument and some tough negotiations were totally taken aback at the
response. As one AUEW shop steward put it: "Quite honestly, I thought
the Company would have welcomed it... that they would see it as
constructive trade unionism... ".

Profits first Constructive it may have been if the world was being run
along different lines - ones that valued people’s need for meaningful
work and put social needs above military production. The company's
owners were adamant that this wasn't the way things were going to be.
For them capitalism was the order of the day and this meant profits
first and foremost. Moreover it was their right to "manage” Lucas and to
decide where its resources would be used. To them the 18,000 people
working at Lucas had no say in these fundamental matters. In the
aftermath of the Lucas Plan they determined to break the SSCC and its
influence, which as we will see they did.

Labour Party If the rejection of the Plan came as a surprise to the
SSCC, the aftermath put them in a spot - what to do next. Previous to
this when management had stalled or rejected their demands they had
returned the matter to the rank and file workers where industrial action
of some sort had been used to shift the company. But this time, this did
not happen. Instead the SSCC turned their attention to winning the
Labour Party and the full-time Union officials to their cause. In doing
this, they spent less and less time in consultation with the workforce
at Lucas. The workers there who would have had the most to fight for and
to gain from the Plan became less informed. Even the regular news-sheet
previously produced by SSCC became more and more irregular, eventually
disappearing altogether, Slowly the unity built up in previous times was
whittled away as SSCC members were now spending a huge degree of time
meeting Labour MPs and Ministers - neglecting the real job of
maintaining their workplace organisation.

Job cuts As the lobbying of Labour Party MPs and Union bosses continued,
Lucas's management proceeded with the job cuts and rationalisations
where they could. With the SSCC busy lobbying but not co-ordinating any
action, unity weakened among the workforce. Different areas were left to
fend for themselves. With this situation Management did have the upper
hand and used it. Some local victories were won by workers and jobs
saved. Mainly this was through industrial action of some sort to force
implementation of parts of the Plan. But this situation was a poor
replacement for the unity and strength of previous times. Inevitably
when jobs went, activists and in particular some of the main workers
behind the SSCC were victimised. Once again, as has too often happened
in Britain, faith in the Labour Party was a slippery slope to being sold
out and losing the fight, Lucas workers had got to where they had
through their own actions and organising capacity - it was this that
would have been the way forward.

The Alternative Plan - What the Lucas plan proposed What was the
alternative Lucas Corporate Plan? Over a period of two years a series of
proposals that later became known as the Lucas Plan were drawn together
through the active involvement of most of the workers in the 15
different Lucas factories. Its aim was to shift Lucas Aerospace, as a
company away from the production of military goods, mainly for NATO (an
emphasis that was capital intensive and had high profit margins for
Lucas's owners) and towards the production of socially useful goods
(which was a labour intensive field, relying more on the skills already
in the Lucas Company). Such a shift would mean the preservation of jobs
at Lucas and the fulfilment of some of the more pressing needs of
society. Here is what was proposed:

Medical Equipment: - Increase production of kidney dialysis machines by
40% and look into the development of a portable model. - Build up a
'design for the disabled' unit, with the Ministry of Health, to look
into things like artificial limb control systems (which could use
Lucas's control engineering expertise), sight aids for the blind,
developing the 'Hobcart'. This vehicle was designed in the 1970s by an
apprentice at Lucas to give mobility to children suffering from Spina
Bifida. Lucas management had refused to develop it on the grounds that
it was incompatible with their product range. - Manufacture an improved
life-support system for ambulances. An ex-Lucas engineer turned doctor
had offered to help design and build a prototype for this, using a
simple heat exchanger and pumping system.

Alternative Energy Techniques: Due to the finite availability of fuels
like coal and petrol, they proposed that Lucas concentrate on renewable
sources of energy generation and developing more efficient methods of
energy conservation from fuel sources. Up to 60% of energy is lost with
traditional forms of its use (car engines etc.). Moreover this would
provide a real alternative to nuclear power generation which was unsafe
and damaging to the environment. - Development and production of heat
pumps which were efficient in saving waste heat. Such heat pumps would
be used in new housing schemes to provide a very cheap service. -
Development and production of solar cells and fuel cells. - Development
of windmills. Lucas's experience in aerodynamics would be invaluable. -
Development of a flexible power pack, which could easily adjust to
people's situations allowing for small scale electricity generation
using basic raw materials. Such instruments would be invaluable in
under-developed countries where electricity provision is very poor.

Transportation: - The development of a road-rail public transportation
vehicle which would be light-weight using pneumatic tyres on rails. Such
a system would be cheaper, safer for use and more integrated. It would
allow rail services to be provided in areas where they were being closed
down, etc. The road-rail vehicle would be able to travel on rails mainly
but also convert to road use when needed. - A combined internal
combustion engine/battery powered car which could give up to 50% fuel
savings while reducing toxic emission from cars.

The Plan proposed various other ideas in the areas of braking systems,
undersea exploration technology and remote control devices.

The thrust of the Lucas Plan was radical from the beginning. It asked
basic questions like what was the real use of Sting Ray missiles and
high technology fighter aeroplanes to society. Their production gobbled
up money resources and technical inventiveness, making those who owned
the Companies richer and richer but society got nothing from them.

Waste Basic needs in society are only filled inadequately, like for
instance kidney dialysis machines, whose general shortage in society was
then and still is a crying shame. Lucas, its workers argued, had the
expertise to develop better, smaller and more mobile units which kidney
sufferers were crying out for. Why shouldn't they do so?

Worse still, under a system that produces high quantities of weapons and
armaments, not only is money wasted but also much human technology and
innovation is wasted or misused as well. Take the proposal by the Lucas
workers that the sophisticated radar systems used in modern fighter
planes be used in the development of an "alternative sight" aid for
blind people. Such a thing is easily within human capabilities, but is
not made or even developed as a priority now.

Under capitalism the world's resources and wealth is owned and used to
make profit for the wealthy. Most money is invested where profit is
highest. The fulfilment of human needs is always a secondary priority
The Lucas Plan challenged many of the basic assumptions of capitalism:
why should profits come before people? What value have military goods in
a world with so many other pressing needs? As such it was important. But
far more fundamentally it showed what capacity workers have to
articulate their priorities and their values.

Anarchism For the future it showed what enormous potential a society
based on socialism could have. Such a society with real workplace
democracy and the participation of all in the management of society
would allow for the creative capacity of each individual to have its say
while the real needs of society are met. But for this to be achieved as
the Lucas workers learned, capitalism and its priorities must be
overthrown.