6 replies to this topic

[mab01uk]

BL : Pressing The Self-Destruct Button

"Between 1975 and 1977, British Leyland’s UK market share fell from 35 to 20.5 per cent – perhaps an unprecedented collapse in customer confidence. Lord Stokes has taken a lot of flak over the years, but whatever he may have done wrong is nothing compared to the 14.5 per cent of lost UK market share surrendered in the two years after he left the scene. This was a sales catastrophe.

And Leyland Cars insiders in 1977 expected their market share to go as low as 15 per cent before new models came on stream. Yet for all the talk of new models, Leyland Cars had some relatively new cars already. But the prospect of getting one properly assembled by a militant workforce who believed the taxpayer owed them a living seemed bleak. And tales of Leyland Cars unreliability were legion, from the MGBs that would not engage reverse on the set of The New Avengers to the Princess saloons that needed regular engine changes.

The loss of market share between 1975 to 1977 sealed British Leyland’s fate. It is easy to knock the cars BL sold at the time, but as various enthusiasts who contribute to this site will testify, the company had some damned good models. It is just so sad that the very people who were meant to benefit from this investment were so reluctant to screw the cars together properly.

Regaining the ground that had been lost was simply not feasible. How much taxpayers’ money earmarked for new investment was used to keep the company afloat during crisis after crisis? How much economising resulted because of this. Is this the real reason why BL did not proceed with the OHC A-series engine?"

More on AROnline:

http://www.aronline....estruct-button/

Edited by mab01uk, 07 December 2013 - 04:59 PM.

[Tamworthbay]

As usual the same old line is followed by those who want to portray one side of the story. As is always the case there is more than meets the eye. The BBC realised this when they commissioned a documentary about one of the main players in an attempt to give an even view:

A 2002 BBC documentary series by Peter Taylor revealed that in the late 1970s MI5 had been attempting to undermine Robinson through an agent they had placed amongst his union officials; Edwardes stated that he had been "privileged to read minutes of meetings of our shop stewards", which had been passed to him via the Government.

In 1975, BL went bankrupt and was nationalised by the Government. In 1977 a new managing director, Sir Michael Edwardes, was appointed. He aimed to find a resolution to the ongoing industrial disputes and turn the company around. Robinson, for his part, supported the development of the policy of "participation", in which convenors and stewards would work together with company management. Robinson had seen the idea of "participation" as central both to his political aims and to making British Leyland a success, stating: "If we make Leyland successful, it will be a political victory. It will prove that ordinary working people have got the intelligence and determination to run industry".

Robinson was eventually sacked by BL in November 1979 for putting his name to a pamphlet that criticised the BL management, and refusing to withdraw his name from the pamphlet when asked to do so. A ballot on a strike in sympathy of Robinson and opposed to the dismissal was held but the motion not carried, votes being 14,000 against a strike and only 600 in favour. Taylor's documentary suggested that this was a result of the MI5 agent's activity, with Edwardes acknowledging that the removal of Robinson was in some ways necessary for the company's preparations to bring the new Austin Metro into production. Longbridge was being substantially redeveloped and expanded for the new car, whose assembly was heavily automated in comparison to previous models and job losses would have been inevitable: "It was planned only in the sense...well, the answer is 'Yes', from a strategic point of view we knew that we couldnt have the Metro and him. Whether or not we wanted him to go, his actions made it inevitable that he would have to go".


I don't think he was helpful to say the least but the evil nutter and cause of all fault at BL personnel was created by the management/ media and government as a way of diverting attention from appalling mismanagement and lacklustre design. No one comes out of the story very well but it's not fair that the ordinary workers are continually vilified whilst the management are seen as unfortunate victims. That was not how it was at all.

[mab01uk]

Some interesting responses in 'Have your say' at the end of the ARO blog.....including these:-

 

".......just remembered a conversation with my Dad. The guys on the line had called a strike and he was explaining to me just why. I’m going back nearly forty years but the gist was that someone had put in the suggestion box that three holes that were drilled in a panel should be deleted. These holes were for trim on a previous model – but the trim was not fitted any more. The management adopted the suggestion and the guy who operated a ‘jigged’ machine to drill the holes was told not to do so. He was told instead to assist another guy fitting another component. The union immediately called a strike until the three holes process was re-instated. I can’t remember how long that debacle lasted but eventually – in an effort to get the cars built – the management gave in. Dad’s longer term view was concerned about the holes being a source of rust for ever-more! Apart from the stupidity of the whole episode!!!
……….and you think running this plant was easy?"

 

 

"The idea that the unions single handedly destroyed BL is a myth, they certainly didn’t help, but there was more to it than that. You imply in your article that cars suddenly became unreliable in the 1970′s and then ask if it was workers sabotage.

The reality is, British cars were far from perfect in the so called golden age of British cars, in the 50′s and 60′s. Alot of BL problems can be traced back to BMC and other BL firms.

There was a disconnect between the often brilliant designs and the production engineering. There is a book about the history of the Mini that describes problems not fixed, or even complete drawings not being sent to one of the factories. With cars having to be bodged on the production line and the problems never being resolved.

A senior man at Jaguar took a MK2 out for a drive, and was shock by the quality, the rattles and noise. Had it checked out and found half the spot welds hadn’t been done properly.

Not surprising when Jaguar used a second hand pre-war production line and that is what really killed BL and the British car industry. Lack of investment, using dated production methods, and technology. Even if the unions had been as good as gold, that lack of investment would have killed them."

 

 

"Remember though that the main management at BL weren’t the board, it was the government. Tony Benn had a bright idea that the company should let the unions have a say in the running of the factories (Industrial Democracy). This could have worked out well, except for the fact that the unions weren’t that fussed about BL actually surviving, but rather screwing over the management for anything they could get.

Some of the stories you hear from the non-car departments beggar belief. For example at the Leyland tractors plant in Bathgate one of the sales bods was on a tour of the production line, and spotted a man bolting top covers on to rear axles. As he worked, the sales bod spotted he’d missed a few bolts, and went and told him. The reaction he got was shocking, as the line fitted swore and threatened him. If the management had tried to sack or retrain him the inevitable consequence would have been a damaging strike.

Another case was constant complains from new customers and dealers that new Leyland tractors were being supplied out of the factory with scratches and faults in the paintwork. The paintshop foreman’s reply was “well they’ll soon be covered in mud so what’s the problem?” Not quite realising that when you spend the equivalent of £30,000 today on a tractor you want it looking perfect when it arrives from the factory…"

 

 

"Weak management didn’t help, but when you’ve got unions essentially running the company in their own interests, knowing full well that the labour party they paid for would never let the management sort them out, you’ve not got a chance.

There was one big difference between the union’s outlook and the managers. The managers wanted a company that made money making cars.

The unions on the other hand simply wanted a company that provided jobs, and to hell with any concept of making a profit or putting the company on a solid footing for the future.

As someone at Ford asked a apprentice at Dagenham “What do we make here?”

“Cars” said the apprentice

“No son, we make money”….."

 

 

 

 

 

[Old Bob]

Faults on all sides but the thing which rarely gets mentioned is that America wanted the power of the British Empire destroyed after WW2 so money was poured into developing the infrastructure of the nations on the losing side.  So, Britain was bankrupt ( we had to introduce bread rationing after the war because we couldn't afford to import grain) and we manufactured on worn out production lines while Germany and Japan got new factories which allowed far better quality control.

 

The concept worked so well that eventually Japan destroyed the manufacturing capacity of Detroit - now there's a message there somewhere!

 

Bob

[Tamworthbay]

'Some of the stories you hear....'

That sums it up perfectly, stories, told along a line of people and embellished at every stage until you get 'the three hole strike'. I can tell you some stories from friends and family of what the management did (but they are probably the same). Its a shame people persist in rehashing these old wives tales about how horrendous the 70s were, everything from strikes and power cuts to depression and poor fashion making the whole country miserable (ok I will accept the fashion one). I grew up in the 70s and it was great. The 80s were a nightmare however.

[mab01uk]

I grew up in the 70's and the strikes, 3 day week and power cuts, etc, were both very real and depressing and are not old wives tales........however the fashion part was good fun at the time though!

[Tamworthbay]

But it wasn't any different to any other decade, there is always good and bad. The 60s weren't swinging for most people, the 80s were horrendous for a lot of communities but this idea that a decade is good or bad as viewed in the eyes of the media is a creation, not reality. It depends who you were and what was happening to you at the time. I am sure if you look hard enough you will find there are some people who had a great time in the war. But the constant belittling of BL workers is not fair or right. Like the decades there were good and bad in everything but to continue the myth of a useless workforce is unfair to those who worked there.