Amicus Unity Gazette members suspended without reason

[belboid]

Three prominent AUG members have been suspended from the union without being given any formal explanation of the accusations againszt them. The below is a copy of the press release put out by their supporters within Amicus:

Three Amicus members of staff have been suspended from their jobs in Amicus. One is still on holiday and knows nothing of his suspension. The other two were escorted off head office premises without any explanation as to the reason why. The three people are Des Heemskerk, Jimmy Warne and Cathie Willis. They were told that a reason would be given in due course. The Amicus GMB staff representative has submitted a formal grievance with Amicus to request an explanation.

All three are leading members of the Amicus Unity Gazette, the broad left organisation that was instrumental in getting it’s candidate Derek Simpson elected as General Secretary and winning 23 of the seats on the Amicus Executive.

Des Heemskerk is the Editor of the Amicus Unity Gazette, a position he has held for many years. Des is a former Deputy Convenor at Fords who gave up his job and took a pay cut at Derek Simpson’s request to take a job in the union’s campaign department. Jimmy Warne is the Chair of the Amicus Unity Gazette and is a former shipyard electrician and Shop Steward at Swan Hunter. He was also a prominent member of the Gazette group on the former AEEU Executive that led the walkout that prevented Jackson from declaring Derek’s election void. He gave up his position on the old Executive at Derek’s request to come and work for Amicus.

Cathie Willis has worked for the union for eight years and suffered years of victimisation under the Jackson regime when they discovered her husband Phil was a leading Amicus steward in the Construction industry and a prominent Gazette supporter. She helped in the campaign to get Derek elected and is probably the single most important person that enabled the campaign to succeed. All three played a pivotal role in Derek’s election. The suspensions follow an attack on the Gazette leadership by Derek Simpson at an NEC meeting at which he accused unnamed individuals of being involved in an attempt to destabilise the Amicus leadership. Nothing could be further from the truth. These people are the one’s who got him elected to his job and have steadfastly stood by the principles of the Gazette. He called for an investigation into the publication and circulation of internal union material but never informed the Executive of his intension to suspend the three people the following day.


This political attack must end now. These people are innocent. Amicus must reinstate them to their jobs immediately. Send a message to Derek Simpson now demanding their re-instatement to Derek.SimpsonATamicustheunion.org with a copy to Phil Willis at reinstatethethreeATyahoo.co.uk or send a message of support to: 4 Stanton Close, Orpington, BR5 4RN.

 

[herman]

This is one of those issues that cannot really be commented on without further info- particularly the nature of the charges.

I know it is something that would be more expected in the PCS under Reamesbottom and the former Amicus leadership but it is hard to really form any meaningful conclusion without wider perspective.

Hats off to GMB for representing their members but if this represents a witch hunt then its back to Amicus in their electrician days. Internal disputes are hard to call at the best of times within unions but the nature of complaint may or may not carry weight. I reserve judgement.

 

[belboid]

well, so far, even they don't know what the charges are - which is hardly a good start!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's a fair point that the initial post is devoid of wider context, but I have to admit to a certain wry amusement at Herman's post, given the fawning attitude of the CPB/Morning Star towards the supposedly "awkward" union leaders.

 

[herman]

It's a fair point that the initial post is devoid of wider context, but I have to admit to a certain wry amusement at Herman's post, given the fawning attitude of the CPB/Morning Star towards the supposedly "awkward" union leaders.

I will never be shy in giving my views (party line or no party line) but on this I do feel at least the charges at very least set context.

The idea of the "awkward squad" was always a fabrication of the right of centre media, even though some trade union leaders have basked in the glory of this tag. I still reserve my judgement, after all if the people concerned were in any meaningful sense underming the union then they are wrong to do so, the union is bigger than its membership. If they were not then I would side with the individual members who have been wrongly pressured out of their jobs.

The union belongs to us all, therefore the first post for me raises questions that need answering. But it is hard to take an Amicus line without these answers.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I wasn't trying to be a prick about it herman, and didn't mean a personal slight. As I said above you are right that the original article is curiously devoid of wider context.

It's just that in most union disputes you can normally rely on your mob to go with whatever the leftish face of the bureaucracy is arguing and against anything more left wing. See for example the support the CPB and Morning Star gave to Prentis, the machine candidate, in the last Unison election where his only rivals were from the left - ie it wasn't as if there was any chance of someone to his right sneaking in.

This is partially down to the dependency of the Morning Star on the good will of various bureaucrats. Now that the Soviets have stopped subsidising it the only thing that keeps it going is some orders from unions. At all costs the CPB can't risk jeopardising that by siding with the left inside the unions. There is a deeper political reason too, in that the Stalinists ever since the days of the popular front have effectively sought to be or to support the left face of the bureaucracy.

The likes of the SWP and the CPB may be willing to make kissy faces at each other these days, but the rest of us remember that Stalinism is a cancer in the workers movement.

 

[sihhi]

This political attack must end now. These people are innocent. Amicus must reinstate them to their jobs immediately. Send a message to Derek Simpson now demanding their re-instatement to Derek.SimpsonATamicustheunion.org with a copy to Phil Willis at reinstatethethreeATyahoo.co.uk or send a message of support to: 4 Stanton Close, Orpington, BR5 4RN.

This sounds the most likely explanation I guess

The suspensions follow an attack on the Gazette leadership by Derek Simpson at an NEC meeting at which he accused unnamed individuals of being involved in an attempt to destabilise the Amicus leadership.

He obviously didn't have the nerve to spit it out.

 

[herman]

I wasn't trying to be a prick about it herman, and didn't mean a personal slight. As I said above you are right that the original article is curiously devoid of wider context.

It's just that in most union disputes you can normally rely on your mob to go with whatever the leftish face of the bureaucracy is arguing and against anything more left wing. See for example the support the CPB and Morning Star gave to Prentis, the machine candidate, in the last Unison election where his only rivals were from the left - ie it wasn't as if there was any chance of someone to his right sneaking in.

This is partially down to the dependency of the Morning Star on the good will of various bureaucrats. Now that the Soviets have stopped subsidising it the only thing that keeps it going is some orders from unions. At all costs the CPB can't risk jeopardising that by siding with the left inside the unions. There is a deeper political reason too, in that the Stalinists ever since the days of the popular front have effectively sought to be or to support the left face of the bureaucracy.

The likes of the SWP and the CPB may be willing to make kissy faces at each other these days, but the rest of us remember that Stalinism is a cancer in the workers movement.

I under stand the reasoning behind you criticism of both the CPB and the Star but it its stress on unity, is for me at least, is an essential one. The assault on the left is a potent one, as it has been for decades. Ok the popular front concept is one that does not on face value seem sexy politically but faced against a divided capitalist class it surely is one that can reap major rewards.

I am not incidentally one of those pro respect CP members.

This is not, as you well know, a time for ultra-left sloganeering, nor is this a time for losing the Star. Without the Star the daily intake of news will be left open to the most reactionary papers. As a paper the Star has answered its critics to its left. Remember when the ultra-left criticsed the lack of openness - now I get to read at least the views of one trot a week, sometimes more.

The Star is changing to survive but it is at least not aiming to ghettoize (is that a word) and die.

Without the Star the framework for debate would be far more narrow.

 

[audiotech]

The likes of the SWP and the CPB may be willing to make kissy faces at each other these days, but the rest of us remember that Stalinism is a cancer in the workers movement.

Still?

 

[belboid]

This sounds the most likely explanation I guess


He obviously didn't have the nerve to spit it out.

that, combined with the fact that the statement seems to say they were suspended by Simpson himself imply soething deeply dodgy to me. Simpson hasn't been very popular really since he got elected, a lot of highly 'cliqueish' behaviour.

 

[sevenstars]

This is a worrying development, I will circulate this to Amicus contacts