The world car trap for labor By DON QUINN ST. CATHARINES — In the scramble for greater profits, the transnational auto corporations have launched a series of massive investments aimed at cap- turing and expanding national market shares. The push for greater profits means the auto corpora- tions will renew their efforts to slash costs, thus spawn- ing a division of labor that extends across national boundaries and vast seas. This phenomenon is finding its fullest expression in the international sourcing of interchangeable components for the ‘*world car.” The auto transnationals are developing, and have developed models which are uniformly designed for all markets whose major parts are identical, and hence interchangeable, for all vehicles regardless of national origin. The cosmetic variation required by individual mar- kets is introduced via non-interchangeable, lesser com- ponents known as “‘inserts’’. A door, for example, consists of an inside and an outside panel. Uniformity can be achieved by designing and constructing the inside panel, identical for a par- ticular car model to receive distinct outside panels. Or, perhaps each market requires a unique instru- ment panel. In that case, the basic car body must be developed to accept the “‘insert’’ of this non-inter- changeable part in all of its varieties. , Thus a car of uniform design is one that permits superficial variation, but who’s basic structure is iden- tical. This interchangeability of major parts translates into vast savings for the auto companies and gives them the flexibility to multi-source major components. What is evident here to auto workers is that auto transnationals, by using interchangeable sourcing are intensifying their struggle to control the workforce. In 1976, Ford of Europe introduced the Fiesta, its smallest European model. The Fiesta is produced in Almusafes, Spain; Dagenham, Great Britain; and, Saar- louis, Federal Republic of Germany (West); for specific segments of the European market as well as for export to North America. FEATURES The assem ly plant... the Ford supplies engines for all Fiesta assembly capa- city in Europe from both its engine plants in Britain and Spain, while the body plants in Spain and West Ger- many each supply half of the required body pressings. Ford’s decision to invest in an engine plant in Dagenham was based on the availability of a skilled Analysis eae eee labor force that was available at wage rates that com- pared favorably with those in continental Europe where wage and price controls were in effect. The company chose not to concentrate its final as- sembly operations in Britain because that is the most labor-intensive stage of production. Ford was trying to limit the potential for disruption by its traditionally militant British workforce. If the workers on the Fiesta engine line at Dagenham slow down or strike, Ford can increase the output from the engine plant at Almusafes. This dual sourcing of components is a critical piece of new weaponry available to the auto corporations in their production of interchangeable parts. In addition, it has now become possible to dual-source the tools re- quired to make the parts, a process known as “‘shifting tooling.”’ In the event that the machining of dies required for the Fiesta stamping plant at Almusafes is brought to a halt by labor problems, Ford can shift production to its ‘to counter the global exploitation of the transnationals point in auto pro similar operations at Saarlouis by putting that work: force on overtime. ; : Where Ford faces a contentious labor force, it will assign production of an interchangeable part that cal” dual-sourced. Only where the company estimates 18 workforce is weak will it assign production on a no® interchangeable part. - Why does Ford concentrate its final assembly ope! tions in Saarlouis? The weakest point in any auto co™ pany production line is the assembly plant. ; In Saarlouis, there was high unemployment, and mig rant workers made up a large percentage of the wol® force. They were dependent on Ford for permission © stay and that depended on good behavior. Also wildca! strikes were illegal. Expanding assembly in West Germany, and com ponent operations in Britain therefore, offered Ford the chance of squeezing the maximum production from thé combined workforce of both countries. Next week, St. Catharines GM worker Don Quitth looks at the impact of international sourcing on Nott American and particularly Canadian auto worket Robots, micro electronics, numerical control technolog), and massive investment by GM in Mexico and Brat raise to top priority the need for international solidarity allworkers inthe autoindustry around acommonstrates) —7 The military-industrial complex Last week we pointed out that there exists in the United States and in other major NATO countries a militarist syn- dicate, known in modern parlance as the military-industrial complex (MIC). This -week we would like to examine this ad- vance guard of imperialist militarism, ag- gression and expansionism in a bit more ‘ detail. a * * * end to the arms race, and for peace with Alfred Dewhurst Marxism-Leninism Today Se 42.5% go to the 10 largest suppliers. complex in the USA through its branch plant economy, as witness the recent warplane deal. The well-known former U.S. ambas sador, George F. Kennan stated 1 Munich, West Germany in 1978: ‘‘A sec ond phenomenon of American life which one must always bear in mind whe? studying the positon of this country # MIC is dominated by the most aggres- sive circles of U.S. imperialism. It is well established in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), Great Britain and France. Other countries such as Ita- ly, the Netherlands have substantial arms industries of an internationalist character. Canada is substantially tied in with the giant U.S. arms manufacturers through their branch plants in this coun- try, military purchasing and sales, as well as arms and military supplies and mate- rials. NATO serves MIC as an agency through which imperialism’s conspiracy against world peace, detente, national liberation and social progress is being waged. Today NATO is a giant military force .serving the interests of inter- national arms capital. It fuels the arms race, seeks military superiority and is expansionist in character. It has a wide network of bureaus and offices which make political and strategic decisions which affect the existence of countries and peoples. NATO conducts massive ideological campaigns to counter the ac- tivities and desires of the peoples for an security for all states big and small. * * * The arms monopolies of the NATO countries are bound in numerous ways with the top state officials and bodies responsible for military matters. This connection is best exemplified by the U.S. example. The U.S. Department of Defence (Pentagon) is the embodiment of this extensive interplay of forces of the military-industrial complex. First, it should be noted that the military leader- ship exercises an increasing influence on crucial political and strategic issues in the NATO countries. This. influence is hostile to detente and endangers peace as, for instance: the NATO missile de- ployment decision, the long-term arms renewal program, the increasing spread and application of military power as a means of political threat:and blackmail. The influence of MIC in the highest state bodies is based upon the huge milit- ary apparatus and its equally huge con- tracts awarded by the state to industry. For instance, the Pentagon possesses more assets ($200-billion) than the 65 largest industrial firms. It signs 200,000 contracts annually with 120,000 suppliers, of which in terms of value Most of these 10 top suppliers are well-known in Canada. They are: Gen- eral Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, Un- ited Technologies, Lockheed, General Electric, Litton Industries, Boeing, Hughes Aircraft, Raytheon, Grumman. kno oe The share of the 100 largest U.S. cor- porations in the total value of primary military contracts from the Department of Defence, totalled 72.1% in 1979. In addition to the two million army person- nel, there are one million civilians on the’ Pentagon payroll. It supplies weapons to ‘63 countries and trains some 10,000 military. personnel from 68 countries every year. Eleven per cent of all gain- fully employed persons in the USA are involved in the area of the military- industrial complex. The arms monopolies in'the U.S. are represented by the National Security Association. The Association arranges collaboration ° with the state arms authorities and milit- ary chiefs for its 400 member firms who represent 90% of all arms suppliers to the Pentagon. The same system, or variations of it, exists in other NATO countries. Canada is tied closely to‘the military-industrial terms of its foreign policy standpoint, the military-industrial complex. By this mean of course the dominant role of ou! military as the awarder of contracts 10 © our economy, the role of the Pentagon? | our industrial life, and the effect of all thi$ on our society.” Kennan’s statement serves to unde! write the conclusion that politically, economically and socially there 18 scarcely a single sphere which is not permeated by the imperialist state, andi » turn, there is virtually no area of stat€ activity which is not influenced by thé | military-industrial complex. * * * There can be little doubt that the | military-industrial: complex dominates the commanding heights of thé | economies of the NATO countries and 0 those within NATO’s orbit. Like 4 | malignant cancer it permeates the body |. politic of those countries. It consistentlY strives for ever-increasing militarizatioD, | and through the monopoly-controll communications media incessantly pumps militaristic ideas into the publi¢ | mind. It is high time that Canada got out of NATO. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEB. 27, 1981—Page 10 ugh igh th ob ‘ge gt ha ees 6 ee bee a ee eee ee Be SEI En PRT CGE gs nD PE SS ee, SR a