In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
I'd suggest you do a little reading about the UK motor industry of
the 70s. Rather than take what the Express says as gospel.

As I recall, management were often blamed for the poor running of
British car manufacturing.

Depends on what level of management. At the top, they were more interested
in instant profit than investing for the future. Easy enough to to prove
by looking at how much investment in the German car industry of the time,
versus the UK.

While there must be some germ of truth in that, it seemed to me they
got blamed because there were fewer of them than assembly line workers
and their scapegoating kept an easy peace once it had been
eastablished.

The UK car industry of the 70s was making cars that were often outdated or
quirky and poorly designed and equiped. And even more to the point,
underdeveloped.
Because the unions obstructed any change to improve things.
Leaving the selling garage (in theory) to sort out any
problems, but more likely the customer. When the Japanese came along with
cars which were reliable from the off, they had a captive market just
waiting for cars the average driver wanted.

The early Japanese cars were rot boxes, worse than anything in the UK.
Add to that a prediliction for left wingers to rewrite history in their
academic papers and we end up with blameless workers.

More of this black and white nonsense?

You mean truth versus lies
However I doubt very much if management were quite so much at fault.

In a lot of cases they treated the workforce like cattle.

Which cases would those be?
--
bert