These boards display “Key Performance Indicators” for efficiency, waste, service, quality, health and safety. These are charted in complex graph form, against targets set by the continuous improvement teams. Management requires all workers to attend regular briefings which are given by supervisors in front of the boards. However, there is intense competition between departments to set and meet higher and higher production targets, so finding time for such meetings is not a priority for supervisors. As well, the noise of the factory floor means that briefing sessions are ineffective. The supervisor can not be heard, and even if he could be, the graphs and other information are too dense and unclear. A clear message that training is less important than production targets is given by production information being presented graphically with monthly targets while training information is presented as a narrative, with no targets.

In another attempt to gain buy-in, the company invites/expects workers to participate in a “suggestion scheme” whereby suggestions for improvements are submitted on a monthly basis, with the possibility of winning a reward for the best suggestion. However, the suggestions that are accepted are those which boost production rather than those which attend to quality or training concerns. These and other initiatives have significant implications for language and literacy practice, and necessitate training support from the organisation:

• Participation in briefings about targets set for each key performance indicator

• Contribution to improvements through a “Suggestion Scheme” and team meetings

• Provision of information to the company about safety issues through completion of a “Near Miss” form, and at team meetings

• Sharing of information with co-workers and new starters about work routines, shift changeovers, downtime, etc.

• Negotiations and paperwork for those who have been appointed as “training buddies”

• Noting and reporting machine faults and breakdowns

• Recording statistical information (e.g., production numbers) on in-house computer system

Rhetoric and Reality

A picture is emerging of management immersion in quality rhetoric and workers experiencing the mismatch between this rhetoric and the reality on the shop floor. A training buddy’s requests for a slowing of the line during training are repeatedly refused. She refuses to complete a new training form which requires her to state her opinion on whether the company should continue to employ the individual she has been training. She believes the training period is insufficient and the conditions for training are inadequate (she is often not allowed time off her line to train).

Despite management talk of openness and democracy, fear of job loss is high. The health and safety representative explains:

…a lot of people won’t open up, they will not, they know that they’re often being asked to do things that are wrong but they would not say, sorry I’ve had training and I’m not supposed to be doing that, they just say, yes, right, okay. They’re intimidated, they’re frightened…of them saying well if you don’t like it, you know where you can go then. …No because they’re all temporary jobs when they come in. Nobody gets a permanent job when they come in unless it’s advertised as a permanent position. There’s a lot of insecurity down there.