...and what it is

The most recent edition of New Argot contained a factually incorrect statement on private money and the' [unclear: arts]. The validity of the line of this article by Bruce Kirkland and Peter McLeod is open to serious question as a result.

Editorialising, McLeod and [unclear: Kirk] land make the following statement: Another New Zealand owned affair is the Todd Motors combine. Todd's are in the process of revolutionising the concept of worker's facilities. Their 82 acre site in Porirua, Wellington, not only churns out motor vehicles. There are numerous cultural amenities for workers, together with aesthetic design features and works of art. Todd Motors possess one of the finest collections of contemporary New Zealand paintings in the world, called the Todd Art Collection. The Todd Foundation existing outside of the company structure, was initially financed by the Company as a cultural and charitable source.

Are Todd's revolutionising the concept of workee's facilities? The total cultural facilities (very loosely defined) include the following. There is a cafeteria which serves hot meals - a requirement in any factory where workers eompulsorily do overtime. There is an unused swimming pool which is surrounded by a large fence. The primary purpose of the pool is to cut down on fire insurance. I have never seen any painting in the factory area. There is is a social club (10c is deducted from the members pay packets to pay for it) which runs raffles, occasional social evenings, and provides Badminton. Table Tennis and Bowls inside the factory during the lunch hour. This is the total extent of the facilities. They are quite normal for a factory to provide. They are not revolutionising and they do not constitute 'numerous cultural amenities.'

What about aesthetic design features? (Using aesthetic' in the sense of 'prevailing good taste') is Todds' factory much different to any others? Inside, the factory is different to most factories only in that it is newer than most; the more memorable features are the profusion of equipment, the loud screech of compressed air-driven tools and banging of pneumatic hammers, the stink of the toilets. Now and then, if you look hard, you can find dead rats. Workers drink their tea from plastic cups where they work, sitting on old boxes, etc. Workers clock in by 7.35 am. If they are a minute late, they lose five minutes pay. They clock out at 4.6 pm. In between they work.

None of this is revolutionary nor aesthetic. Outside the factory is little different. The seven foot barbed wire fence that surrounds the factory is not aesthetic, and although what remains of the 82 acres after buildings, plant and car parks have been deducted may be aesthetic in 20 years time, it isn 't yet. The buildings are designed not to be an eyesore — this much has been achieved.

What is the workers verdict on the revolutionary concepts and aesthetic features that Todds have graciously bestowed upon them? At 4.10 while leaving the factory a worker I didn't know said to me: 'Its like a concentration camp, isn't it.' The struggles between employers and employees still continue and the drudgery of day to day wage slavery is permanent. None of the aesthetic features nor revolutionary facilities transcend this fact.

Next, the question of the Todd Foundation. It is dressed up by JD Todd to sound as though it is a gift pure and simple to enrich the whole community. McLeod and Kirkland seem to agree with the formulation that the Foundation is coming to grips with the responsibility to the community beyond profit, implying that it transcends profit, somehow standing above it and the conflict between classes that it creates.

The Todd Foundation may be outside the Todd Group, and administered separately, but this does not mean that the Foundation stands above social conflicts — the Foundation supports the interests of the Todds, and other employers.

Firstly, the Foundation's assets are invested wisely in terms of serving the interests of the Todd Group of Companies. For example, some of its assets are invested in Feltex (NZ) Ltd. a major producer of tyres. Altogether Todds have over 500,000 shares in this company through members of the family and various subsidiaries. They are the third largest shareholder.

Secondly, in many capitalist countries endowing foundations is regarded as a praiseworthy; charitable act and is rewarded by being tax deducrable. Although I am not an accountant, and therefore don't know if this is true for New Zealand, my guess is that the burden of giving for Todds is eased by tax concessions.

Thirdly, the actual type of paintings that Todds buys support capitalism in an ideological way. Enclosed is an example of the type of painting bought by the Foundation. It is called Maupua. To me it is splodges of depressing browns, blues, greys and mottle. To the artist, it is a small hamlet near Nelson, with a large hill, a distant view of Tasman Bay and the hills behind Nelson City.

If the viewer of this painting is a person of fine taste and has seen a lot of New Zealand, and probably well educated, by pondering deeply this person will probably see Maupua the hills, Tasman Bay, etc.

It is a painting for those with time and money. If hung on the factory wall, workers would not have time to ponder: deeply — they would probably see only depressing splodges of blue, grey and mottle. If they did ponder deeply, they would still probably see the same thing until, like me, they were told the pointings meaning.

This painting promotes a belief in educated elites — only they can understand and therefore appreciate it. As such it is a painting that supports the status quo — profits and profit-makers. It is very much i n the interests of the people who endowed the Todd Foundation.

With such glowing praise of JD Todd and his cohorts, based on so many factual errors, I think that we are entitled to ask why these mistakes were made. Were they letting their pens serve the interests of JD Todd, at the expense of truth, in order to get a little money for SAC deficits, or New Argot Editorships? If the errors were innocently made, there will of course be a full factual correction in the next New Argot (on page 2, under Bruce Kirkland's photo). If the errors were not innocent, then it is graphic evidence that the question of editorial control of New Argot needs to be raised again. New Argot should not be allowed to serve the interests of JD Todd on the basis of slanted reporting.

Graeme Clark