|
|
 socialist
standard
(est
1904) |
|
| 100
years for socialism-> -> Standard
Online->->Connecting with->-> socialists->->
worldwide |
The profit motive :
a case study
|
|
In January Sony, the multinational electronics corporation, announced
it is to declare 300 redundancies at its two factories in south Wales –
80 from the Bridgend factory, producing cathode ray tubes, and 220 from
the TV factory adjacent to the M4 at Pencoed – a move that almost
certainly signals the imminent closure of an operation that once
employed 3,300 working people. This latest news will be of no surprise
to those working in the two factories where Sony has been quietly
shedding jobs since the late 1990s.
Picture. Sony at Bridgend.
Production from these factories relies on ‘old’ tube technology and, as
a spokesman explained, “The move away from CRT-based TVs accelerated
last year with flat panel products now accounting for around half the
UK market” (Guardian, 21 January). It is now evident that the
managers employed in Japan to make profits for shareholders had decided
by the late 1990s that investment to support flat screen televisions
would go elsewhere and after 30 years have decided to call it a day in
Wales. So where did it all go wrong?
Picture. Crt: so last year…
Sony’s Bridgend factory, officially opened by Prince Charles in 1974,
was the first major manufacturing venture in the UK by a Japanese
multinational corporation. The main imperative of capitalism is to
expand – a fact well understood in Japan where by 1972 the country had
the largest television industry in the world producing in excess of 8
million sets a year and a domestic market on the verge of saturation.
Japanese exports had already devastated the American television
industry and while UK imports of Japanese colour TVs were rising, UK
manufacturers found some comfort under a 1962 treaty that limited
imports of Japanese televisions.
Sony needed unrestricted access to European television market and the
UK government was on the verge of joining the European Economic
Community (EEC). Assembling televisions inside Europe would circumvent
the agreement limiting imports and end the stream of accusations from
European manufacturers that Japanese televisions were being ‘dumped’ on
the market at ‘uneconomic’ prices.
Welcomed
The British government was friendly to Japanese investment and
politicians quickly warmed to the prospect of new jobs. This, combined
with financial grants made available to ease job losses in traditional
coal and steel industries, an established market and a region crying
out for employment made Wales an attractive proposition. Bridgend was
to be Sony’s assembly base to compete in the EEC, a venture viewed by
Britain’s partners in Europe, particularly in Holland – the home of
Philips – as a ‘Trojan Horse,’ an apt description for a company
importing 90 percent of its components from Japan. In 1976 the British
government, under pressure from the EEC and the European television
industry, moved to protect ‘home’ producers. It agreed that
unless 50 percent by value of components had European origin, sets
could not claim to be ‘British-made’ and would therefore count towards
Japanese import quotas agreed between the two industries. By this time,
however, Sony was operational and employing over 500 people and
compliance with this ‘origin rule’ was quietly forgotten.
Other Japanese television manufacturers followed and by 1977 Britain
had ‘overcapacity’ in both set and component manufacture. The Radio
Industry Council made representations to government for protection and
again policy was altered. In future inward investment was to be
encouraged provided it either took over existing capacity or resulted
in joint ventures with established manufacturers – hence Rank-Toshiba
and GEC-Hitachi. But by 1979 it was apparent that British television
manufacturers were unable to compete with Japanese design and
manufacturing technology and in October 1980, Pye at Lowestoft was shut
with the loss of 1,100 jobs. Despite the higher wages paid to Japanese
workers, “the direct labour cost of a set made in the UK was almost
double that of one made in Japan because the Japanese set took 1.9
hours to make and the British one 6.1 hours.” (Keith Geddes, The
Setmakers, 1991) Japanese television sets incorporated 30 percent fewer
components by making greater use of integrated circuits, and automatic
insertion accounted for 65 percent of components against 15 percent in
the UK. These advantages forced a spate of factory closures and
‘consolidations’ as European producers tried desperately to compete.
Sony’s output at Bridgend had now increased to a level that justified
investment in a tube-manufacturing factory, built alongside the
television factory and opened in 1982. This expansion was essential
because Sony holds patent rights to a cathode ray tube – “Trinitron” –
fundamentally different from its competitors and available only from
Sony in Japan. Local production was needed to reduce enormous
importation costs. Further expansion to tube manufacturing came in 1989
when the television factory was relocated to a site 3 miles away
allowing the tube factory to double in size. The new television factory
– hailed as Sony’s ‘European Flagship’ – was constructed on former
farmland in Pencoed and opened in 1992 at a cost of £30 million.
By the early 1990s Sony had a major share of the European television
market and was locked in bitter competition with Philips. Output peaked
at about 1.75 million televisions and computer monitors were added to
the production line-up. The combined turnover of both plants was
approximately £800 million.
But then things started to go sour. Intense competition from
manufacturers producing high quality, low cost televisions and the
collapse of a major market in Russia started to eat away at profits.
The market demanded cost reductions, and Sony – which had
traded for so long on a brand name that marketing gurus had made
synonymous with quality and price premiums – could not deliver, at
least in Wales. A further threat emerged as Sony’s recently opened
television-factory in Barcelona, employing the latest technology,
gathered momentum.
The ‘centre of gravity’ of the European TV market was moving eastwards
and factories in Wales were no longer suitably placed. The company then
negotiated generous grants and tax concessions and, eager to exploit
cheap labour, opened new factories in Hungary and Slovakia to improve
competitiveness in the growing east European market that had once been
supplied by the Pencoed factory. The factories in Wales had served
their purpose and utilising ‘old’ technology were now to be run-down
while ‘new’ technology and investment went elsewhere. The workforce now
lived under threat that production would be transferred unless profits
improved, serving to keep wages and benefits fixed, while the trade
union, effectively anaesthetised since the 1970s, collaborated with
management on projects to increase profits. Desperate to cut costs,
investment in manufacturing was slashed; internal component production
contracted out, permanent workers were replaced by temporary employees
and leavers not replaced. Discipline became oppressive and workers grew
demoralised and indifferent to the continuous demands to improve
performance. The company’s reputation as an employer plummeted and
official redundancies were first declared in April 2000.
The bottom line
So who is to blame? Why did the bubble burst? It would be easy to blame
local management employed to squeeze profits from working people or the
working people who became dispirited or perhaps even market conditions.
But all this evades the fundamental issue that we live in an economic
system that demands that corporations must roam the world in pursuit of
lower costs to remain competitive to increase profits for shareholders.
Sony, like any other corporation with global aspirations, cannot stop
to consider how its working people, many employed since the beginning
in 1974, are to survive when the factories in Wales close, as they must
surely do in the near future. The fact that Wales already suffers dire
poverty and comparable jobs will virtually impossible to find is of no
consequence on the balance sheet, where the only consideration can be
the bottom line. It should not be forgotten that the social cost of
Sony’s years of successful profit-making in Wales was achieved at the
expense of forcing thousands from employment in factories across Europe
with all the misery and trauma this entails. The wheel has turned full
circle and it is now the turn of people employed by Sony in Wales to by
abandoned, cast aside in the pursuit of greater profits. This is
capitalism.
In capitalist society there can be no allegiance or loyalty to a
workforce or community. Production is motivated solely by profit,
regardless of the social consequences. As a recent article in the
Economist states, ‘corporate social responsibility’ – “a kinder,
gentler capitalism,” is a non-starter. Instead, we learn:
“The goal of a well-run company may be to make profits for its
shareholders, but merely by doing that+the company is doing good works.
Its employees willingly work for the company in exchange for wages; the
transaction makes them better off” (22 January).
Now we are asked to shallow the outrageous proposition that capitalism
has a benevolent social purpose – but try telling that to the people
until recently employed by Sony or those formerly employed by the
thousands of other companies that have shed working people when higher
profits are demanded. The choice is stark; the working class either
sells its labour power in return for wages or salaries or goes without
the essentials of life. This is not willingness but compulsion. It is
wage slavery.
Capitalism has outlived its usefulness and must be immediately replaced
by socialism. Capitalism divides the world’s population into two
classes, the majority who sell their labour power in return for wages
and salaries and those who own the means of producing wealth and live
on profits. It is class struggle where workers will always be the
losers, with the impending closure of Sony in south Wales a testimony
to opposing class interests of workers and owners. As ex-Sony workers
go about rebuilding their lives, they, and working people everywhere
would do well to reflect on the fact that capitalism cannot operate in
any other way and is incapable of being reformed to do so. Like
millions before them, capitalism has condemned these workers to an
uncertain future, breeding the stress and anxiety that is linked to a
Jobcentre interview likely to lead nowhere.
STEVE TROTT
|
Page 15
Page 16 and
17
Contents Page
The
Socialist Party |
|
|