The
following statement was compiled by former Lucas Aerospace Combine shop
stewards. We are proposing that an Alternative Plan for the U.K., is developed
by a combination of peace and environmental groups and trade unionists that has
socially useful production at its core, is people-centred and in tune with the
environment. We put forward this proposal based on the belief that the above
groups are opposed to the Government using technology to manufacture armaments that
threaten life at home and abroad. We realise that such an initiative will
require the organisations involved to step up their current campaigning work by
combining together; then develop and promote a vision of a future U.K. which
would include the necessary measures to address the climate crisis.
We believe that the considerable experience
and expertise that exist in the above groups and the trade unions, qualifies them
to produce such a plan.
Most if not all of the groups referred to are
aware of and support the Lucas Aerospace workers efforts in the 1970’s to
oppose job loss by developing an alternative corporate plan, which not only
proposed their company manufacturing socially useful and environmentally
sustainable products but identified the process of how the plan was developed,
with workers, the community and academics collaborating. This resulted in
championing a worker/consumer led alternative industrial culture; not only
proposing alternative products but less alienating ways of producing them that
empowered designers, engineers and shop floor workers.
It advocated
a circular economy that encouraged re-cycling and repair and long- term
sustainability in everything rather than the short-term throw away culture that
a system built on continual growth and private profit breeds.
We are of
the opinion that the proposed plan for the U.K. should be based on the same
principles.
The
statement’s aim is to highlight the government’s lack of urgency in tackling
the climate crisis and its policy of pursuing confrontation with nations rather
than cooperation, resulting in the ever increasing manufacture and export of armaments.
It highlights the financial and human cost of the Arms Industry (2&3) and
the means by which Transition (4) can take place allowing the workers to switch
to socially useful production.
Reference is
made to the Government’s inadequate response to the Climate Crisis (5&6) and
the failure of COP26 (7) to deliver - whilst Pandemics (9) are best prevented
rather than cured! It’s proposed that the Alternative Plan (8) has the Socially
Useful (10) use of technology at its core and would be best developed in a
Centre (11).
While
emphasis is centred on the arms industry, the same philosophy can be equally
applied to other sectors of the economy.
We consider that a Plan for the U.K. that tackles the climate crisis with peace and justice at its core, is people centred and in tune with the environment, is in line with public opinion and therefore would get their support
***********************************************************************************
NEW POST AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN – using resources and technology that is people centred and respects the environment
1.Introduction
The Climate Crisis is the biggest threat ever
faced by the world’s population and the Planet’s survival is at stake. Unless
dealt with urgently large areas of the world will become uninhabitable. Given
that the threat will impact on all countries, there is need for a world-wide
cooperated effort to tackle it. Yet there’s reluctance by world leaders, whose
countries are mainly responsible for global warming, to take the necessary
action to resolve the crisis.
Meanwhile
the countries of the Global South who have contributed least to global warming
are suffering the most, and a continuation of the rise in global temperatures
will detrimentally affect one billion people in those countries. Yet the use of
fossil fuels, which is the main cause of global warming, continues to be used
to generate energy.
Given the
need to tackle the Climate Crisis you would expect the U.K. Government to
prioritise and concentrate the majority of its available resources in that
direction; but that is not the case!
2. U.K. Arms Industry
While 0.01% of G.D.P. is being spent on
addressing issues relating to the climate, 2% is being spent on the Defence
budget. The Government justify this expenditure, based on what they see as the
twin threats of Russia and China.
In 2020 the Governments Defence Review
increased spending by £24bn over the next 4 years. This increased the annual
expenditure in 2020 to £55 billion. This extra funding is justified to give a
“technological advantage” over would be aggressors. Although lacking in detail,
“new capabilities such as electronic warfare and drones” have been referred to.
Furthermore, the increase in nuclear warheads
from 180 to 260 leaves the Government open to accusations of escalating the
nuclear arms race.
As a follow
up to the Defence Review the Government announced that a trilateral military security
pact named AUKUS, involving the U.K., U.S. and Australia, is being established.
The aim is to provide Australia with the technology to build nuclear submarines
to equip its naval forces. The agreement allows for the exchange of sensitive “naval nuclear propulsion information”.
China has expressed anger about the agreement,
describing it as an “extremely irresponsible” threat to the region’s stability.
A further
escalation of the arms race will result from an agreement about to be reached
between the U.K. Government and Ukraine on the provision of armaments. The aim
is to supply Brimstone missiles to Ukraine to meet what is regarded as the
Russian “threat” to the integrity of Ukraine.
The above
examples of the export of U.K. technology and armaments adds to the ongoing
sale of bombs, missiles and aircraft to Saudi Arabia which, according to
Government figures, amounted to a total value of £6.7 billion since 2015. This
figure is disputed by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) their research
revealed that the true value of sales amounted to £20 billion, taking into
account the use of an “open licence system” which is used to hide the true
sales value!
Further
research undertaken by CAAT revealed that B.A.E. Systems, the main UK arms
exporter, had sales amounting to £17 billion.
The sale of arms to Saudi Arabia continues
despite an Appeals Court decision in June 2019 that sales should be halted!
Meanwhile the people of Yemen are suffering
the consequences of the U.K. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The U.N., in a report
of 2020, says the civil war has resulted in shocking levels of suffering
including a death total of 233,000. This figure includes 17,500 civilians
killed and injured since 2015, with a quarter of those killed in air raids
being women and children.
Human Rights
Watch have documented at least 90 Saudi-led coalition air strikes that appeared
to been deliberate attacks on civilians, which they regard as a violation in
the laws of war!
Along with other countries, the U.K. exports
armaments to Israel. Since 2015 the Government has licenced over £400 million
worth of arms to the Israeli forces. In addition, according to CAAT, under an
indefinite, unlimited Open General Export Licence the U.K. produces components
for the US F-35 stealth fighter. Again, according to CAAT, an Israeli
government spokesman stated that their F-35s had taken part in recent attacks
on Gaza.
As the
second largest exporter of armaments in the world, the U.K. Government
justifies it by arguing that it needs to protect high skilled manufacturing
jobs. Yet as a consequence of increasing technological involvement in the
design and manufacturing process, overall employment in the arms industry is in
decline.
CAAT estimated that in 2020 there were 170,000
directly employed in the U.K. arms industry, 115,000 at the Ministry of Defence
and 55,000 in company arms exports.
Arms exports in 2019 amounted to be worth £11
billion, making a contribution of only 1.4% to the total export market.
The Watson
Institute of International & Public Affairs based at Brown University in
the U.S. carried out research into job creation and found that military
spending created less jobs than education, healthcare and renewable energy.
This was mainly due to those sectors being more labour intensive than the
increasingly capital intensive nature of the military sector.
The research showed that $1 billion in
military spending created approximately 11,200 jobs, compared with 26,700 in
education, 17,200 in health care and 16,800 in clean energy.
Given that
arms exports do not make a major contribution to the overall U.K. export market
and more job creation can be achieved through other sectors, the Governments
emphasis on promoting the manufacture for export of arms raises a serious
question: why?
It can only be that the Government is clinging
on to its imperial past as a Global Power by taking part in military
interventions in countries who are ill-equipped to resist and sabre rattling
with countries which have a nuclear capability. Given the U.K.’s historical
role in the slave trade and it’s past colonial domination it could be said that
the country should be concentrating its efforts to compensate for its past
misdemeanours by promoting peace, justice and in helping countries in the
global south to combat the climate crisis.
The
manufacture of arms for export have consequences resulting in the deaths and
injury of innocent people; as in Yemen and Gaza.
3.Corporate Welfare and the Arms Industry
According to a Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute report, direct Government subsidies for U.K. arms exports
were estimated to be between £104 and £142 million. In an effort to further
increase arms sales the Government included £1 billion within the 2020 budget
available for countries to borrow, to enable them to purchase U.K. manufactured
bombs and surveillance technology.
The use of
taxpayers’ money to subsidise the Private Sector was first revealed back in
2012/13 by Corporate Welfare Watch, a York University based research unit. They
revealed that while £41.3billion had been paid to the Treasury in Corporation
Tax, £58.2billion was paid out in subsidies.
BAE have
particularly benefitted from Government financial support. As the largest arms
producing company in the U.K., designing and manufacturing aircraft, bombs and
missiles, the company employ 34,800 in the U.K. out of a world-wide workforce
of 90,000. As a result of 304 Ministry of Defence contracts BAE were paid £9.24
billion, while sales direct to Saudi Arabia between 2015/19 amounted to £17 billion.
In apparent appreciation of the service provided, BAE benefitted from
Government subsidies of £44,782,000, according to the Corporate Welfare Watch
data base. (2016 figures)
Based on
figures made available in February 2021 revealing the 2020 BAE Systems full
year financial results, sales had increased by 4% to almost £21 billion with
profits increasing by £31 million to £1.93 billion.
These results show that the manufacture of
arms is a very profitable business backing up the argument that there is a
vested interest in promoting ongoing “threats” from other countries by the
military – industrial complex.
As an
indication of very little material change in attitude taking place in the last
230 years the following statement was made in 1791 by Thomas Paine in ‘Rights
of Man’
‘That there men in all countries who get
there living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking
as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country,
make it their study to sow discord and cultivate prejudices between nations, it
becomes more unpardonable’
4. Transition From Armaments to Products that meet Social
Need
Given the
Government’s record there’s no foreseeable chance of a shift away from
prioritising continuing armaments manufacture and unfortunately there’s minimal
parliamentary opposition to Government policies under the present leadership of
the Labour Party, who up to now have shown no obvious difference in approach to
that of the Government.
It therefore seems that only pressure from the
“bottom up” will bring about a shift away from arms manufacture to address the
real threat of the climate crisis.
Any
alternative to the Governments obsession to promote arms manufacture will have
to deal with the thorny issue of rapid industrial conversion from manufacturing
armaments to products that are suited to a low carbon economy. However there
are historical precedents: Conversion of the economy has taken place in the
past when a national emergency has demanded it.
Prior to the second world war, there was a
shift in production away from domestic market products to those of a military
nature to deal with the war effort.
A more
recent example is the health crisis brought about by the Covid -19 Pandemic.
The NHS was very nearly overwhelmed as a result of a lack of preparedness by Government
in dealing with the outbreak, despite forewarnings from the World Health
Organisation (WHO). There was an inadequate stock of Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) and Ventilators, resulting in many needless deaths amongst patients,
NHS staff, and the residents and staff in Care Homes. To meet the shortfall,
manufacturers, designers and engineering workers rose to the challenge and
switched production to make the equipment needed. Of the many examples which
exist, one in particular stands out.
Airbus
workers were faced with the problem of lack of demand for their aerospace work
due to the Pandemic curtailing flights. At the request of Government,
management and workers, with the active involvement of the trade union UNITE,
stepped up to the plate and designed and manufactured ventilators. This was an
excellent example of switching production to meet social need. People were
dying because of a shortage of medical equipment to keep them alive. The
Government could only identify the need but they could not answer it. Airbus
management responded positively; but it
was the workers at all levels, from the design office to the shop floor, who
delivered the goods, following agreement between the management and unions to
operate a three shift system to maximise production in the shortest possible
time.
This is a good example of Government,
management and a unionised workforce working together to answer social need. This example of people profiting from answering
a social need is a far more embracing interpretation of profit rather than the
narrow definition manufacturers, with the active and financial support of government,
arrive at. Producing armaments to export, while being very financially
profitable, could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as
answering social need - in fact quite the opposite!
Usually the
best ideas do not come from above. A 2018 report by the Nuclear Education Trust
“Defence Diversification: International learning for Trident jobs” pointed out
that innovative ideas often come from the workers and affected communities
forming a partnership to successfully tackle the issues. It should then broaden
out to involve a coalition of the stakeholders, such as the former arms
companies, national and local government, trade unions, academia and other
interested parties. Any such coalition would need support in putting the
workers ideas into practice by organising as a body, carrying out analysis,
research, planning and finally implementation of the plan.
It’s not
just manufacturers that would have to adapt; the workers themselves would need
to retrain as a consequence of changes to their jobs, a process which would
necessitate financial support for the workers for both the training and loss of
earnings.
As can be expected
workers will only accept and campaign for arms cuts if they know that
alternative work exists. At the moment they are faced with two options: weapons
production or the dole. In the event of a Government decision to reduce the
scale of arms production that decision would have to be accompanied by a
mechanism to re-employ the workers affected. Otherwise they would suffer the
same fate as the miners when the U.K. Government closed the pits – mass and
long term unemployment.
In the past, consideration
has been given to the establishment of an Arms Conversion Agency. Back in the
mid-1970s a huge amount of work was undertaken on the idea in the U.K. and internationally, resulting in detailed
proposals for a National Arms Conversion Unit in the U.K. and a federal Defence
Economic Adjustment Act (DEA) in the United States. The DEA proposal, sponsored
by presidential candidate George McGovern in 1977, involved establishing a
council made up of equal representation from the unions, non-defence business
and cabinet members. This would have encouraged state and local governments and
other agencies to prepare concrete plans for non-military projects.
The DEA Act would also have established an alternative
use committee at every military facility consisting of management, unions and
members of the community. Together they would have drawn up conversion plans
and have funding provided. Additionally, the workers converting would have been
provided with a salary and benefits for up to two years by a federal Workers
Economic Adjustment Reserve Fund – financed by a 1.25% levy on defence
contracts.
The above is an indication of how skills and resources
can be re-purposed in times of emergency, showing that skilled engineering
workers employed in the arms industry can switch production when there is
urgent need and there is a close relationship between the skills applied in the
arms industry and those needed to combat the climate crisis.
The arms
industry employs teams of highly skilled engineers working to tight timescales
to answer the problem solving needs of the defence sector, thus providing
potential to bring peoples brainpower and available physical resources together
to catalyse innovation for a rapid transition to a green economy.
The trade
union UNITE have identified the Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards attempt
in the 1970s to protect jobs by shifting production from armaments to those
that answered social need as a model for the transformation to a green economy.
The Combines Alternative Plan foresaw the need to address the use of technology
in a people centred manner that respected the environment. In addition to the
products identified, the process involved in their design and manufacture was
questioned, related to the deskilling of the workers involved through the
introduction of new technology within the workplace. The 150 product
suggestions put forward by the workforce all related to social need, based on
the workers own experience and related to their skills and existing workplace
technology. The workforce suggesting the products they could design and
manufacture provided them with the opportunity to think as both producers and
consumers. While the economic system they were employed to work under normally
operated solely on the basis of the financial profit margin, the Combines
Alternative Plan introduced the social profit element into the equation.
So given
that skills and resources can be re-purposed in times of crisis, and that
skilled engineering workers from the arms industry can transfer their skills to
production that answers social need, the contribution workers can make is to
take the initiative by drawing up plans that address the climate crisis in
their own facility and negotiate their implementation.
5. The Climate Crisis
No corner of
the globe is immune from the devastating consequences of climate change. Rising
temperatures are bringing about environmental degradation with the arctic
melting and forests burning. The UN Secretary General has pointed out “the
climate emergency is a race we are losing but it is a race we can win”
According to a ten year summary of UNEP Emission Gap reports, we are on track
to maintain a “a business as usual” trajectory with billions of tons of CO2
being released every year as a result of coal, oil and gas production while
human activity is producing greenhouse gas emissions at a record high and
showing no signs of slowing down. The result is that the last four years have
been the hottest on record.
This shows
that the biggest threat that the U.K.is currently facing is not from China or
Russia but the climate crisis, which unless resolved could make huge areas of
the planet uninhabitable, bring about
the destruction of the environmental balance and result in on going pandemics. Global warming is a problem that requires a
world wide solution and can only be resolved by co-operation between nations.
Solving the climate crisis is a priority, making
it necessary for any perceived external threat from Russia or China to be
addressed through dialogue and compromise rather than an escalation of the arms
race. The U.K. will need to cooperate with all countries if the two related
issues identified below threatening humanities survival are to be successfully
addressed.
Unfortunately
as shown below the Government is not rising to the challenge!
6. U.K. Government response to the Climate Crisis
The
Governments Committee on Climate Change (C.C.C.) in its 2021 report states that
“While the Government has made climate promises it has been slow to follow
these with delivery. The UKs climate credentials have been marred by
uncertainty and delay. Those that have emerged have often missed the mark. With
every month of inaction, it is harder for the UK to get on track” it goes on to
say “Only 5 of 34 sectors assessed have shown notable progress in the past two
years, and no sector is yet scoring highly in lowering its level of risk”
An indication
of the Governments lack of urgency is in its allocation of funding, with just 0.01%
being made available for dealing with the Climate Crisis. This is despite the
CCC indicating that 1% per annum is required to meet Government targets.
On current
form, the government’s claim of achieving a carbon free economy by 2050 - a
target which environmentalists say is not bold enough - will not be met and the
Global South will, while contributing the least to global warming, suffer the
most.
The 50 least
developed countries contributed just 1% of global emissions - yet are the most
affected: that’s unjust and deserves to be rectified through compensation.
However, although £100 billion was promised to the countries most affected by
the global emissions, those countries most responsible have failed to deliver
on that promise.
7. C.O.P.26
A
significant lack of progress was made at the Glasgow based 26th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (C.O.P.26). While promises were made,
action was not forthcoming to back up those promises. An illustration of this
was the research carried out by the organisation Climate Action Tracker during
the course of the conference based on commitments from the 197 countries
involved, which predicted that the world is heading for 2.4 degrees above pre
industrial level by the year 2100.
This despite
the need to achieve a maximum of 1.5 degrees which was a temperature previously
agreed upon.
As a consequence, it’s estimated that 1
billion people would be adversely affected in the year 2100, due to the land
they currently occupy becoming uninhabitable.
8. An Alternative Plan for the U.K.
Given the government’s poor record on
addressing Climate Change and their current emphasis on the manufacture and
export of armaments it’s important that an alternative approach be pursued and
fought for. In the absence of any meaningful parliamentary opposition it’s
necessary to call upon those best placed and sufficiently experienced enough to
develop and promote a plan to address the climate crisis. Those best placed are
an alliance of Environmentalists, Trade Union activists, the Peace Movement and
like-minded supporters who have the knowledge and expertise to undertake that
task. This is necessary given that there’s no sign of an alternative view being
advocated by parliamentarians on either side of the House.
Many of the
aforementioned groups have been in existence for many years and have
experienced success and failure in equal proportions as they have campaigned
for a better world. Their campaigning experience has provided them with a vast breadth
of knowledge in their given field. Building up this bank of knowledge means
they are more likely to be aware of the issues involved than the parliamentarians.
Another advantage is, that as the groups are campaigning on an ongoing basis they
are not subject to the constraints imposed on them as the government or opposition
of the day who, before making decisions, consider what such decision would
affect their success come the next General Election!
Whereas all
of the campaigning group’s current focus is to attract support from the general
public for their individual causes, combining their efforts to produce an
alternative vision for the U.K. which is people centred and in tune with the
environment should not be beyond them. Once the framework of “another Britain”
has been drawn up then the “full picture” can be completed as a result of the
groups involved in the “combine” encouraging their supporters to be active in
their own communities to develop their own local plans. This could serve as a
model for a future “bottom up” participating democracy.
Running
alongside the development of the “Alternative Plan for the U.K.” there would
need to be a publicity drive to involve the general public, which would possibly need to be financed through a Crowdfunding appeal, given
the Main Stream Media’s antipathy to anything remotely radical.
If a
breakthrough is made in communicating to the U.K. population as a whole, which
will be no easy task, then public opinion would need to be galvanised to
influence government policy.
A parliamentary back bench initiative which at
first sight has merit and could be part of an alternative plan is a people
centred Green New Deal (GND) Bill, which has been drawn up on a cross party
basis. The Bill addresses the
environment problems arising from the Climate Crisis, along with achieving
socially just aims such as secure job creation and economic equality. The Bill
is linked to a grass roots movement, mainly supported by the younger generation,
under the heading of Green New Deal Rising. This movement is pursuing
support/donors for the Bill within Parliament and the community at large.
Another
Parliamentary initiative is the Climate & Ecology Bill which while
gathering more M.P. support, is less ambitious than the GND Bill. Although at
this stage it does not seeming to be linked into any grass roots movement it is
seeking donor support.
Either Bill,
with the necessary Parliamentary support, could proceed to become government
policy if enough pressure is applied from the “bottom up”. That will not be
easy given that pressure from those that favour “the business as usual” brigade
have the ear of the Government!
Other
initiatives exist including a parliamentary Private Members Bill titled “Power
for People” which if passed would enable electricity to be generated and traded
directly at community level. So far the Bill has the support, across parties,
of 291 MPs.
9. Pandemics – as a result of
destruction of the natural world
Up to now
over 150,000 have died in the U.K. from Covid-19; nearly 4 times more than the
number of U.K. civilians in the 6 years of the 2nd World War! World-wide there have been over 5 million
deaths. Many of the UK deaths were avoidable, given that the recommendations
arising from a Pandemic simulation programme called Exercise Cygnus in 2016
were not acted upon, especially the need to increase the availability of
necessary equipment: including ventilators! While the lack of vaccine
availability in the Global South has had a detrimental effect on the overall
world death rate and will continue to do so unless all on the planet are
vaccinated.
Its
suggested that a more proactive approach is required to deal with the threat of
Pandemics, rather than reacting to them when they are upon us with lockdowns
and vaccines. It’s the opinion of a coalition of environmental and health
groups, under the name of Preventing Pandemics at Source, “That there’s a need
to tackle the root cause of Pandemics” They consider that the ongoing
destruction of nature will result in Pandemics reoccurring on a regular basis.
While they
welcomed the increased expenditure on human welfare to combat Covid-19, far
less expensive measures to halt deforestation and an end to the illegal wildlife
trade are considered vital.
The increasing
destruction of nature by farming, logging and the wild animal trade in recent
decades, has brought people and their livestock into closer contact with
wildlife and led to a great increase in diseases crossing from animals to
people.
A recent study estimated that spending
approximately £20bn a year on the environment would substantially reduce the
risks of other pandemics in the future. Given that global expenditure in response
to Covid-19 is believed to exceed £14.45tn, the expenditure on rebalancing the
environment makes good sense economically, puts far less strain on health
providers and prevents millions of deaths worldwide. If the environmental
balance is not restored then pandemics will be reoccurring on a regular basis.
10. Socially Useful Production
As indicated above, it would be more
beneficial to the U.K. population and those in the wider world if our
resources, energy and technology were spent on tackling the Climate Crisis and
related Pandemics - rather than the manufacture and export of weapons that kill
and maim civilians.
Investing in
sustaining our environment and creating socially useful employment is the only
way to deal with the threat of global warming, while accelerating the arms race
results in ongoing confrontation between nations when there’s an urgent need
for cooperation.
The peaceful use of technology and resources
was the ethos of the Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards’ Alternative Plan
(Lucas Plan). Those who were involved in
the 1970s and still take an active role in promoting the same “bottom up”
philosophy, are calling on those groups, organisations and supporters who are
critical of the Governments current policy to COMBINE and -
“Put together an Alternative
Plan for the U.K. which is people centred and in tune with the environment
alongside the conversion of harmful technology to socially useful production in
order to address the threats of the Climate Crisis and related Pandemics”
11. Centre for
Socially Useful Production
Developing
an Alternative Plan for the U.K. will be more easily undertaken if it’s based
in a centre with paid workers to assist in its operation. This suggestion is
based on the experience gained from the Lucas Combine establishing the Centres
for Alternative Technological Systems (C.A.I.T.S) and the Unit for the
Development of Alternative Products (U.D.A.P.) Both centres were invaluable in
providing much needed support to the Combine in promoting the philosophy of
people centred technology, through research advice and socially useful product
development. To establish such a centre in, for example, a university would
require funding for its ongoing operation and staffing. Based on the Combine’s
experience raising funds for such a centre is achievable; both of the Combines
centre’s being funded by charitable trusts. Given that the terms of reference
of a proposed centre would be similar to C.A.I.T.S and U.D.A.P. then it should
be possible to attract funding.
12. In Conclusion
As former
members of the Combine Committee we see the development and promotion of the
U.K. Alternative Plan as a progression of the work we carried out in
establishing the original Lucas Plan and more recently our own website,
Click here to go to thelucasaerocombineshopstewardscommitte.org
The website registers the Combine’s account of what was achieved in the 1970s and acts to encourage a new generation to produce their own plans that are people centred and in tune with the environment. An Alternative Plan for the U.K. fits into that category.
While we
would not be playing an active role in developing the plan, we would be more
than willing to assist in an advisory capacity; instead, we are handing over
the baton to a generation who are more aware of the issues involved in pursuing
a green, people centred economy.
Given the
failure of the Government to address the climate crisis in a positive fashion
its essential that pressure is applied from the “bottom up” to influence
decision making.
As Lucas
Aerospace shop stewards we learned that simply reacting to management decisions
was insufficient to prevent job losses and the company’s decline. The Combines’
Alternative Plan, while it was never adopted, took the initiative from the
company resulting in stabilisation of both the manning levels and the company
for 10 years, preventing all threatened compulsory redundancies. The plan became
an international cause celebre of the labour, peace and environmental movements
and is still widely discussed today.
Based upon
that experience, we are now calling on the groups who are campaigning on a
daily basis, against military aggression and the ongoing destruction of the
natural world, to combine and produce an Alternative Plan for the U.K. which
will, in tackling the climate crisis, promote peace and justice for people
world- wide and restore a balanced environment.
Brian Salisbury, January 2022, on behalf
of surviving Combine members
**************************************************
Democracy within the workplace
Comments to Brian are welcome via Contact Us
