Fighting Unions Conference

[poster342002]

Can't say I've noticed a darn thing.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

I wasn't at the conference, but I noticed the Weekly Wrecker which is totally hostile to the SWP and indeed Respect (despite being a member of it) among general criticism did mention some positive features of the conference:

Let’s look at some positives. It was good for trade unionists and activists to get together. I found it a boost to hear from union members about their struggles that don’t reach the mainstream press. There were strong comments from various speakers about the need to combat war and islamophobia, including from a young muslim woman who made clear that it was her father and brothers who encouraged her to be a union rep - clearly an alternative view to that of the tabloid press.

There was a speaker from Turkey who called for international solidarity with the struggles in his country and a speaker from India who highlighted the plight of workers there. Both were well received and made you feel part of a bigger trade union movement.

John McDonnell was given the opportunity to highlight his campaign for the Labour leadership and Dave Nellist was able to promote the Socialist Party’s latest project - the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party - to polite clapping from an audience that I would guess were a majority of SWP/Respect members (contrast that with the ovation received by John Rees, for example!).

There were representatives of JJB strikers from Wigan, who are showing that there are different ways of pursuing a dispute - they are planning to leaflet Wigan football ground and ask fans to wave their yellow leaflets as a warning to the Wigan chair, Dave Whelan, who is also boss of JJB Sports. Workers involved in the NHS Logistics dispute and Merseyside firefighters were also present, giving a real flavour that there is a fight back taking place and that workers respond to calls for action when they believe a dispute is winnable.

There was a lesson for my union leadership - a comrade working at The Daily Telegraph spoke of management backing down when the National Union of Journalists called a three-day strike: management actually stated they wouldn’t have done so if it had been a one-day strike that was called - PCS executive take note.

However . . . it did have some positive features. There were some useful snippets of information and even some inspiration to be drawn from some of the contributions. Reports from around the country gave a sense of the enormous scale of attacks workers are facing, and those who are involved in current disputes drew some strength and got a boost from coming into contact with hundreds of other activists from around the country. With up to 900 present, it was a very decent size. Although well over half were SWP and maybe a further 20% members of other left groups, that still left room for a lot of new faces.

Unlike those from the floor, platform and guest speakers were not restricted to three minutes. John Hendy QC spoke about the Trade Union Freedom Bill, which he had drafted. He said the early day motion supporting the bill, which he described as “mild, modest, moderate”, had been signed by 180 Labour MPs the last time he checked. “It’s not a revolutionary document,” he said, to emphasise the point. “It doesn’t even guarantee current international law.” Although he “understood the rationale of trade unionists ignoring the law”, he thought the bill was a “vital step forward”.

In a later contribution John McDonnell described the bill as a set of minimum (minimal?) demands “able to hold together the TUC”. He reported that the signatories to the early day motion had in fact gone up to 187, but unsurprisingly no cabinet ministers had agreed to back it. Instead they had asked if the whole thing could be dropped in return for a deal on balloting. “Can we bollocks!” said comrade John, to loud cheers.

A later guest speaker, Steve Gillian (Prison Officers Association and Labour member), was interesting for revealing the increasing militancy of the POA. He described his union’s recent defiance of the anti-union laws and their refusal to take their lawyers’ advice and apologise to the high court for breaking a court injunction - in face of this defiance the court action was dropped. Of course, workers in key parts of the state like the prison and police services have more clout than most, but the historical message has always been clear: rights must be fought for and won in action, not taken for granted. Steve had good working class instincts - “We need to get our act together, we need to act, we need to take our rights back.” He was for working class unity in action. Unfortunately, how you organise it and on what basis did not feature at this meeting.

. . . .

The only attempt at discussing organisation came from another of those three-minute contributions from the floor. Rod Finlayson (TGWU), referring back to the Pentonville Five, argued that we need to aim for an unofficial shop stewards movement powerful enough to challenge the government. He criticised the ‘official’ communist domination of the shop stewards’ movement for being sectarian and effectively running a “ban on politicals” (ie, Trotskyists).

The real test of whether it was a good conference will be what follows. It is very easy to have big rallies, what will be the key is if the conference provides the springboad for local grassroots organising

 

[BarryB]

Tell that to the commuters who rely on buses in North London!
There are quite a lot of strikes about at the moment. NHS Logistics, Merseyside Firefighters, JJB, BBC centre....some big ones looming in the NY.

Every year we hear from the SWP that there are "a lot of strikes about at the moment" but the truth is that there have been very few strikes in recent years. Which is not to belittle those that take place. But comrades like Groucho should accept the reality of the situation rather than pretend that it is different.

BarryB

 

[TremulousTetra]

Originally Posted by poster342002
Perhaps if he visited a few UK workplaces and saw the reality of the situation (tame unions with sod-all influence or active membership) he might not have "buzzed" quite so much. UK unions are a spent force, and no amount of hyperbole or self-deluding ra-ra conferences will change that.

Every year we hear from the SWP that there are "a lot of strikes about at the moment" but the truth is that there have been very few strikes in recent years. Which is not to belittle those that take place. But comrades like Groucho should accept the reality of the situation rather than pretend that it is different.

BarryB

the lack of industrial action is central to the current political analysis of the Socialist workers party. in fact since the early 90s Socialist worker has talked about the great contradiction between the growth of "anticapitalist consciousness", for want of a better term, and the absence of the industrial action NECESSARY to complement such consciousness. For example, SW argues Only industrial action right across Britain could have complemented the aims of the anti-war movement, but there wasn't a confidence in the workplaces.

however, maybe not in style, but in general I believe Groucho is completely right to challenge the claim "UK unions are a spent force" etc. This claim is complete rubbish. Historically trade unions have been at much lower levels than they are now, and have bounced back. Not only is it possible for unions to bounce back, organised industrial action is the only effective option for workers to defend themselves IMHO. History convinces me trade unions are not a spent force.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Originally Posted by poster342002
Perhaps if he visited a few UK workplaces and saw the reality of the situation (tame unions with sod-all influence or active membership) he might not have "buzzed" quite so much. UK unions are a spent force, and no amount of hyperbole or self-deluding ra-ra conferences will change that.

Every year we hear from the SWP that there are "a lot of strikes about at the moment" but the truth is that there have been very few strikes in recent years. Which is not to belittle those that take place. But comrades like Groucho should accept the reality of the situation rather than pretend that it is different.

BarryB

the lack of industrial action is central to the current political analysis of the Socialist workers party. in fact since the early 90s Socialist worker has talked about the great contradiction between the growth of "anticapitalist consciousness", for want of a better term, and the absence of the industrial action NECESSARY to complement such consciousness. For example, SW argues Only industrial action right across Britain could have complemented the aims of the anti-war movement, but there wasn't a confidence in the workplaces For such action.

however, maybe not in style, but in general I believe Groucho is completely right to challenge the claim "UK unions are a spent force" etc. This claim is complete rubbish. Historically trade unions have been at much lower levels than they are now, and have bounced back. Not only is it possible for unions to bounce back, organised industrial action is the only effective option for workers to defend themselves IMHO. History convinces me trade unions are not a spent force.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Trade unions are not a spent force, but I disagree that organised industrial action is the only way to demonstrate this. I think that trade unions need to move into the 21st century, and to realise that the workplace is no longer what it was immediately after the Industrial Revolution.

Yes, we need to fight for the rights of our members, but we have to acknowledge that most of those members do not work in highly industrialised workplaces anymore, and that industrial action is the final resort, and not always even possible, because of the changing shape of the British workforce, and changing working patterns.

Some of the trade unionists who are lurching to the Left, are not seeing this, and it's one of the things which could cause trade unions to lose further credibility amongst their own members.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Originally Posted by poster342002
Perhaps if he visited a few UK workplaces and saw the reality of the situation (tame unions with sod-all influence or active membership) he might not have "buzzed" quite so much. UK unions are a spent force, and no amount of hyperbole or self-deluding ra-ra conferences will change that.

Every year we hear from the SWP that there are "a lot of strikes about at the moment" but the truth is that there have been very few strikes in recent years. Which is not to belittle those that take place. But comrades like Groucho should accept the reality of the situation rather than pretend that it is different.

BarryB

the lack of industrial action is central to the current political analysis of the Socialist workers party. in fact since the early 90s Socialist worker has talked about the great contradiction between the growth of "anticapitalist consciousness", for want of a better term, and the absence of the industrial action NECESSARY to complement such consciousness. For example, SW argues Only industrial action right across Britain could have complemented the aims of the anti-war movement, but there wasn't a confidence in the workplaces for such action (we know because we tried).

however, maybe not in style, but in general I believe Groucho is completely right to challenge the claim "UK unions are a spent force" etc. This claim is complete rubbish. Historically trade unions have been at much lower levels than they are now, and have bounced back. Not only is it possible for unions to bounce back, organised industrial action is the only effective option for workers to defend themselves IMHO. History convinces me trade unions are not a spent force.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Ooh, a double post on either side of mine. I feel all warm and enclosed and protected (albeit temporarily) from the attack which is (potentially, if anyone is bothering to read my contributions to this thread) on its way!

 

[Zeppo]

Something in the air?

There is no doubt that the level of strikes and industrial unrest is low but is something coming around the corner in 2007?

Between 1953-64 an average of 1,081,000 strike days each year. By 1969 this had risen to 6,376,000. Between January to October 1972 a total of 22,202,000 strike days happened.

In 2006 latest figures state more than 1.5 million strike days - the highest number in 12 years. Is this a turning point? Are strikes old hat? The contradictions in the system mean they will always happen but a revolution is still way off in 2006/2007. What do urbanites think?

 

[darren redparty]

The Workers Charter



The Workers Charter: [/B
Our immediate campaigning priorities will be:


.........*To organise a Trade Union Solidarity delegation to Venezuela

freeloading trot alert

 

[nightbreed]

There is no doubt that the level of strikes and industrial unrest is low but is something coming around the corner in 2007?

Between 1953-64 an average of 1,081,000 strike days each year. By 1969 this had risen to 6,376,000. Between January to October 1972 a total of 22,202,000 strike days happened.

In 2006 latest figures state more than 1.5 million strike days - the highest number in 12 years. Is this a turning point? Are strikes old hat? The contradictions in the system mean they will always happen but a revolution is still way off in 2006/2007. What do urbanites think?

Im with you Zeppo, on this one. I think the next few years should see an increase , especially in the private sector. There is only so much shit people can take.

 

[nightbreed]

the lack of industrial action is central to the current political analysis of the Socialist workers party. in fact since the early 90s Socialist worker has talked about the great contradiction between the growth of "anticapitalist consciousness", for want of a better term, and the absence of the industrial action NECESSARY to complement such consciousness. For example, SW argues Only industrial action right across Britain could have complemented the aims of the anti-war movement, but there wasn't a confidence in the workplaces for such action (we know because we tried).

.

Why is there a lack of Industrial action and why is confidence so low?

 

[Groucho]

There is no doubt that the level of strikes and industrial unrest is low but is something coming around the corner in 2007?

Between 1953-64 an average of 1,081,000 strike days each year. By 1969 this had risen to 6,376,000. Between January to October 1972 a total of 22,202,000 strike days happened.

In 2006 latest figures state more than 1.5 million strike days - the highest number in 12 years. Is this a turning point? Are strikes old hat? The contradictions in the system mean they will always happen but a revolution is still way off in 2006/2007. What do urbanites think?

Yeh, but most of that for this year is one day in March - the public sector pensions strike. However, there has been a flurry of little strikes lately not yet recorded in the figures. With CS strikes in the NY. UNISON Health seeing demands for national action, and a recall conference forced on the leadership in UNISON local Govt. strike figures look set to be higher next year than for some years.

The other side of this has been the decimation of formerly heavily unionised industry (ship-building, mines, docks) and the legacy of defeats since the 80s, as well as the most draconian anti-union legislation in the Western World.

Precarity - they say temps and short term contracts mean you can't organise lage sections of the workforce. Yet prior to the docks strike of 1889 the dockers were casual labourers with no contracts and no rights. The British Cattle Movement Survey workers in Workington were largely on casual contracts - PCS recently unionised them and forced the first recognition agreement on Adecco. IBM has also had to recognise PCS in the Defra contract.

Anti-union legislation. Well, it was far worse pre-1906. Then all strikes were illegal - didn't stop the birth of the general workers unions.

Divide and rule. The bosses have atempted to co-opt large sections of the workforce as low level supervisors, so that in some workforces most workers are managers. Yet the divide and rule between craft unions and unskilled labour was broken down. Migrant labour v settled labour has long been used to divide workers - and has repeatedly been overcome if racism is challenged.

The boss class are arrogant and greedy. There are more billionaires and multi-billionaires than ever. Private companies are leeching off the NHS at the expense of healthcare and health workers (compulsory redundancies of nurses ffs!). The 'old fashioned' class war is alive and well on all fronts - housing, health, wages, job security, but in recent years it has been largely one way. Workers are showing signs of realising the need to organise and fight back. One obstacle to all this is the conservative elements (especially the LP supporters) among the TU leaderships. This is another obstacle that has been overcome before.

The recovery of workers confidence after the hammering of the 80s has been slow and a long time coming. Perhaps now we are seeing the stirrings of revolt at last!

 

[Groucho]

Every year we hear from the SWP that there are "a lot of strikes about at the moment" but the truth is that there have been very few strikes in recent years. Which is not to belittle those that take place. But comrades like Groucho should accept the reality of the situation rather than pretend that it is different.

BarryB

All right, let me be clear! There are a lot of strikes about at the moment compared to recent months and years. The overall level remains low but there are signs of recovery. Of course it is too easy to jump on any green shoot and start wooting that summer is here, only to see the next day's frost kill it off. Eventually though the shoots will blossom. Capitalism creates its own grave digger. See my post above for a brief analysis of the background to the low levels of action and union confidence, as well as a hopeful optimistic assessment of the near future. It's a 'just maybe, just maybe this time'...we have seen false starts before but we are perhaps witnessing the first faltering steps of the working class recovering from a deep sleep.

 

[nightbreed]

What is clear to me is that when the big strikes start happening , they wont be lead by what you saw at the fighting unions conference.
Miles apart are words that spring to mind.

 

[Groucho]

What is clear to me is that when the big strikes start happening , they wont be lead by what you saw at the fighting unions conference.
Miles apart are words that spring to mind.

You don't think Mark Serwotka will be involved at all in the looming CS strikes? Or the delegates with their branch PCS banners - you don't think they/we will be on the picket lines? You don't think that the Merseyside firefighters who have been on strike recently will be involved at all? Or their Gen Sec, Matt Wrack? The JJB strikers and the NHS logistics strikers - you don't think they might play a part?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Two things I don't understand - 1) why has no-one responded to anything I have said on this thread and 2) why are you judging the strength of the workers by the number of strikes, when, by definition, a strike means that something has gone wrong?

 

[nightbreed]

You don't think Mark Serwotka will be involved at all in the looming CS strikes? Or the delegates with their branch PCS banners - you don't think they/we will be on the picket lines? You don't think that the Merseyside firefighters who have been on strike recently will be involved at all? Or their Gen Sec, Matt Wrack? The JJB strikers and the NHS logistics strikers - you don't think they might play a part?

Most militant PCS members I know avoided the conference. Likewise RMT members I know (but they did go to the RMT event)
Just admit that the Fighting Unions conference was a glorified SWP hack rally.

 

[Groucho]

Two things I don't understand - 1) why has no-one responded to anything I have said on this thread and 2) why are you judging the strength of the workers by the number of strikes, when, by definition, a strike means that something has gone wrong?

The balance of forces can be judged in part by strikes. Other factors; are wages going up or stagnating or decreasing as compared to the rising cost of living? Are workers losing jobs or are they secure in employment? Are working conditions improving or being eroded?

The fact is that periods of a low level of strikes see an erosion in workers conditions, increased precarity etc.

When strikes do occur another important factor is whether they win or lose, as well as whether they were defensive reactions to a bosses attack, or an offensive aimed at improving existing conditions.

A strike means something has gone wrong? Well it means that the class war is being openly fought. You seem to be imaging that no strikes means harmony and that everyone is happy and all is going well. Not so. Of course continued improvements in workers conditions usually means things are going well - in the 50s and 60s conditions improved. But the growing economy and prosperity did not automatically improve workers conditions. It took strikes to do that - plenty of them, often offensive and usually quickly victorious. In recent years real wages, conditions, rights and services have declined, hours and productivity have increased. Few strikes but all is far from well. Class struggle is being fought and won without much of a fight.

When you see women workers locked in a hall with only buckets to piss in and male bosses earning more in a week than the women earn in months shouting 'you're all dismissed' through a loud hailer it is hardly a sign that all is well in modern Britain. Good for the strike fugures though

So the era of 'you've never had it so good' saw plenty of strikes. Otherwise people would not have had it nearly so good.

There is, you see, an irreconcilable conflict of interests between workers and the big fat cat bosses. It always takes struggle to improve the lot of workers, or to stop erosion of our lot.

 

[Groucho]

Most militant PCS members I know avoided the conference. Likewise RMT members I know (but they did go to the RMT event)
Just admit that the Fighting Unions conference was a glorified SWP hack rally.

Ah, you see that is absolute bolocks. There were more PCS members at the fighting union conference than either the (far smaller) RMT conference or the ' PCS Socialist Caucus' meeting held on the same day at the same time by sectarian grouplets. There were also RMT members who went to both.

 

[nightbreed]

Ah, you see that is absolute bolocks. There were more PCS members at the fighting union conference than either the (far smaller) RMT conference or the ' PCS Socialist Caucus' meeting held on the same day at the same time by sectarian grouplets. There were also RMT members who went to both.

I said the ones I know!!

 

[Groucho]

I said the ones I know!!

Ok.

 

[cockneyrebel]

On the PCS, there are worries about the strategy.

The NEC has decided to make preparations for a
national ballot on discontinuous industrial action
beginning with a national one-day strike on 31 January
2007.

They are claiming that this day would be effective as
it is the closing date for receipt of self-assessment
tax returns. The proposal is to follow this with
discontinuous action short of a strike, probably not
co-ordinated nationally.

It seems they have not learned the lessons of the last
strike in Nov 2004.

Actually if you take out the UNISON one day strike the figures are still very, very low. Last year saw 157,000 days lost, the lowest in history.

If you take out the UNISON strike (about 450,000 days), then about 220,000 days have been lost. If this average carries on, then excluding the UNISON strike (which was a total and utter defeat), then about 300,000 days will have been lost this year. A pathetically low figure. Even with the UNISON strike it will be 750,000 days which is less than 2002 and 2004.

Some green shoots maybe, but there's a long, long way to go. Bascially this comes out of the fact that capitalism was able to expand into massive new markets after the stalinist states collapsed, giving reformism a new lease of life.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Maybe it is also because some of the union executives have decided to regroup and reorganise and to campaign differently?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Maybe it is also because some of the union executives have decided to regroup and reorganise and to campaign differently?

I think they did that in the 1980s, it was called New Unionism, and was a complete failure. I think the stick is STARTING TO bend the other way now, in my opinion anyhow. the only reason we are confident it will return, is because as sure as eggs is eggs, the bosses only listen when you hit them in the pocket.

 

[Groucho]

Maybe it is also because some of the union executives have decided to regroup and reorganise and to campaign differently?

The unions that are growing in membership are the unions that are putting up a fight. PCS is one. RMT another. Unions that won't fight - like PROSPECT - are impotent.

 

[Groucho]

On the PCS, there are worries about the strategy.



Actually if you take out the UNISON one day strike the figures are still very, very low. Last year saw 157,000 days lost, the lowest in history.

If you take out the UNISON strike (about 450,000 days), then about 220,000 days have been lost. If this average carries on, then excluding the UNISON strike (which was a total and utter defeat), then about 300,000 days will have been lost this year. A pathetically low figure. Even with the UNISON strike it will be 750,000 days which is less than 2002 and 2004.

Some green shoots maybe, but there's a long, long way to go. Bascially this comes out of the fact that capitalism was able to expand into massive new markets after the stalinist states collapsed, giving reformism a new lease of life.

Explain the wories about the PCS strategy further. What is your alternative strategy?

The plan is not a one day strike. The ballot is for discontinuous action to begin with a one day strike on 31st Jan - the first day of many, with action to include O/T bans and a work to rule. The issue will be whether - and how much - further strike action is called and how the mood builds up for escallating the action.

The strategy envisaged allows for escallation. The worries are whether the more nervous and conservative elements of the PCS NEC will hold their nerves and carry it through. Getting the NEC to agree to ballot -and to call an emergency meeting - took some pushing. In the end they were unanimous.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think generally you you are right Groucho about green shoot, but one day actions are notoriously unproductive forms of industrial action, and highly unlikely to escalate. Let's hope I'm wrong on both counts.

 

[Groucho]

I think generally you you are right Groucho about green shoot, but one day actions are notoriously unproductive forms of industrial action, and highly unlikely to escalate. Let's hope I'm wrong on both counts.

The PCS dispute in the NY is a ballot for discontinuous action NOT a one day strike. Discontinuous action is a mandate to call strikes on and off, and allows escalation without a further ballot.

There is no mood at present to ballot for an all out indefinite national strike. Such a ballot would result in a massive no vote and the Govt. would be laughing. PCS members understand the importance of the threats they face and want to take action. But they don't see it as a fight to the death necessitating remortgaging their homes etc.

A one day strike won't be enough. Everyone understands that. The 31 January has been named as the first strike day. SWP members are urging that the dates of further action be named. The NEC majority - SP etc want to see how the first day goes before committing. It seemed for a while that the NEC majority would bottle it and delay calling a ballot at all.

The fact is banning O/T and striking a day a month, possibly two days is seen as quite a sacrifice by PCS members, many of them desperately trying to make ends meet. The 31 is a significant day because it is the deadline for self assessment returns. Coupled with an O/T ban and work to rule it will cause some disruption. But of course a one day on its own is no more than a protest. That is not what is proposed.

The first step though is to win the bloody ballot.

The only alternative strategy put forward is the AWL idea of financially crippling selective paid action by core groups of members. That would be a battle between the Treasury and PCS as to whose funds run out first. From the AWL point of view it has the benefit of members not losing pay and most members not having to take action at all. It is a strategy that would be defeated. It was rightly rejected.

I would guess that WP, if they produced a leaflet, (as far as I know thwey have no members in the CS) would call for an immediate indefinite strike ballot now because that is what they always call for regardless.