National Shop Stewards Network Founding Conference
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
There's a fairly decent report up on the Socialist Unity site. There's a less interesting report up on the AWL site, although that one does contain a touchingly honest aside:
Story of their lives...
AWL said:
Story of their lives...
dennisr
the acceptable face
odd report on this weeks socialist worker:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10051
They seem to have missed the points being discussed? Apparently it consists of the RMT is sponsoring the building of the network. Some leaders spoke to the rank and file. An SWP member thought one of the first tasks was to lobby parliament. Another SWP member thought workers are prepared to fight if there was a lead. Another SWP member thought we should organise in the private sector as well and these folk all raised the SWPs Organising for Fighting Unions Conference as a place to discuss these issues further.
Oh and the following snippit: "While the meeting saw many familiar faces from across the unions and the left come together, unfortunately it did not pull in any of the new forces that would be needed to build a vibrant shop stewards’ movement."
thats me bemused...
The SPs version of events is here:
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2007/07/11britain.html
a snip here:
"Bob Crow summed up the conference, commenting on many of the strands of the day’s discussion. In his contribution he outlined what he saw as the key tasks of the newly-founded NSSN in the coming months: For shop stewards to fight to build up the rank and file in their own union; to adopt a branch of the CWU and give 100% support to the postal workers’ strike action; to organise a major lobby of the TUC to demand action on the trade union freedom bill; and finally, for those in Labour Party affiliated unions to ask why their union is giving money to a political party that doesn’t represent most trade unionists.
In addition to these crucial practical proposals, the conference began to discuss many important issues on how to develop the strength and confidence of the working class. Future conferences, as the NSSN grows in strength, will build on these. Issues that were debated included how to fight for trade union democracy, and when and how the anti-trade union laws could be defied successfully. In the afternoon, the conference broke up into separate workshops on: fighting the anti-union laws; fighting privatisation; organising in the workplace; organising migrant workers; organising young workers; pay struggles in the public and private sector; and the attack on pensions in the public and private sector."
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10051
They seem to have missed the points being discussed? Apparently it consists of the RMT is sponsoring the building of the network. Some leaders spoke to the rank and file. An SWP member thought one of the first tasks was to lobby parliament. Another SWP member thought workers are prepared to fight if there was a lead. Another SWP member thought we should organise in the private sector as well and these folk all raised the SWPs Organising for Fighting Unions Conference as a place to discuss these issues further.
Oh and the following snippit: "While the meeting saw many familiar faces from across the unions and the left come together, unfortunately it did not pull in any of the new forces that would be needed to build a vibrant shop stewards’ movement."
thats me bemused...
The SPs version of events is here:
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2007/07/11britain.html
a snip here:
"Bob Crow summed up the conference, commenting on many of the strands of the day’s discussion. In his contribution he outlined what he saw as the key tasks of the newly-founded NSSN in the coming months: For shop stewards to fight to build up the rank and file in their own union; to adopt a branch of the CWU and give 100% support to the postal workers’ strike action; to organise a major lobby of the TUC to demand action on the trade union freedom bill; and finally, for those in Labour Party affiliated unions to ask why their union is giving money to a political party that doesn’t represent most trade unionists.
In addition to these crucial practical proposals, the conference began to discuss many important issues on how to develop the strength and confidence of the working class. Future conferences, as the NSSN grows in strength, will build on these. Issues that were debated included how to fight for trade union democracy, and when and how the anti-trade union laws could be defied successfully. In the afternoon, the conference broke up into separate workshops on: fighting the anti-union laws; fighting privatisation; organising in the workplace; organising migrant workers; organising young workers; pay struggles in the public and private sector; and the attack on pensions in the public and private sector."
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
dennisr said:
Yep, missing the point. I think you are defaming at least one of the three people they quote by the way - they aren't all SWP members.
dennisr said:
yes mate the SP article is a lot better report than the SW one! While i did leave early i would be very suprised if many were intersted in the idea of a lobby! dave chapple is an independent syndicalist .. i found him/his politics very interesting!
and these two paragraphs below are pure SW bullshit .. sad .. their members at the conference seemed to be playing a positive and non sectarian role .
"While the meeting saw many familiar faces from across the unions and the left come together, unfortunately it did not pull in any of the new forces that would be needed to build a vibrant shop stewards’ movement.
A number of speakers pointed to the Organising for Fighting Trade Union conference on 11 November (Go to Organising for Fighting Unions conference) as a place to discuss the issues further."
cockneyrebel
New Member
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I haven't read it yet, but I'm guessing that it says that everybody else is reformist or centrist, right?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Well that didn't come as any great surprise. Workers Power still think everyone is a reformist except for their 30 members.
They also want the National Shop Stewards Network not to be a network of shop stewards but to include anyone with a union card, which is one of the daftest things I've heard in a long time. Do they have any political reason for this or is it just that they don't have any shop stewards as members?
They also want the National Shop Stewards Network not to be a network of shop stewards but to include anyone with a union card, which is one of the daftest things I've heard in a long time. Do they have any political reason for this or is it just that they don't have any shop stewards as members?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Given the dire state of union activism, surely trying to get the most members involved as possible would be a good thing rather than limit it to the diminishing handfull of (usually "elected unopposed", usually totally out of touch) stalworts who've been involved for years?Nigel Irritable said:
cockneyrebel
New Member
Although WP probably have few if any union reps (at most 2 or 3), I still think they have a point.
The unions are in such a bad state at the moment that I think it's probably worth getting anyone involved who wants to be.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Just how many people are there out there do you think who (a) want to get involved in a national shop stewards network but (b) don't want to be shop stewards in their own workplace?
What seperates a shop stewards network from a standard lefty rally of people who may be shop stewards, may just have a union card or may not even have that is precisely that the shop stewards network is to be based on delegates and stewards. So far its meetings have been open to anyone else who wants to come along, but voting is for delegates which is the only approach that makes any sense.
What seperates a shop stewards network from a standard lefty rally of people who may be shop stewards, may just have a union card or may not even have that is precisely that the shop stewards network is to be based on delegates and stewards. So far its meetings have been open to anyone else who wants to come along, but voting is for delegates which is the only approach that makes any sense.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
By the way, that Socialist Worker report isn't of the NSSN conference but is from the initiating meeting last year. There is no report of the conference in Social Worker at all.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Nigel Irritable said:
Quite few I should imagine - but are put off by the longstanding, ossified "elected unopposed for the last 100 years" brigade.
Delegates with what democratic mandate in practise? Ones who are elected by branch officials who are themsleves only "elected" in the "unopposed year after year" sense?Nigel Irritable said:
You won't revitalise the union movement until "outsider" members - those who would like to get involved by feel put off by the cliquey exclusiveness of it all - are made more welcome (for example: I'm sick of fringe-meetings held in pub backrooms - that can't ever even START on time - where you get the feeling you're really not welcome unless you hold 30 different comittee/party cards and have known them all since the days of Oliver Cromwell).
Alternatively, carry on as things are and watch the unions completely shrivel and dry up through lack of new blood (and it's three quaters of the way there as it is) as the old guard slowly retire. It's that simple.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
poster342002 said:
Such people are welcome to NSSN meetings! But surely if they want to do something useful they will pretty quickly have to start trying to get rid off the kind of ossified punters you are talking about in their own workplaces. The NSSN is there to help people be active in their workplaces, not as a substitute for it.
poster342002 said:
You might be tired of such fringe-meetings, but you are a perfect example of the kind of older layer of union activists you are complaining about! Except I suppose that even the most conservative shop steward hasn't given up activism entirely for cynical sniping. And, by the way, part of the point of having delegate meetings is to avoid the standard issue lefty meetings about the unions where half the people there aren't even in a fucking union.
cockneyrebel
New Member
The trouble is that a lot of union branches are so moribund that there isn't even an official way to elect stewards so people do active union work but aren't offically recognised as stewards. I just think there is a case for getting union activists involved, especially with cases like that.
Also although poster342002 is a total cynic it is the case the union bureaucrats do block positions sometimes at it is very hard to take them on.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
cockneyrebel said:
I agree - which is why such people are welcome at NSSN meetings! They don't on the other hand get voting rights until they are actually delegates, which should after all be a pretty major goal of anyone who actually wants to go to NSSN meetings.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Fair enough, but as said a lot of people can't become offical stewards because the branch is either totally moribund or totally bureaucratic. But in reality they might do more than many offical stewards.
cockneyrebel said:
i disagree very much with this .. there are tens of thousends of shop stewards around the country and most of them are bona fide elected reps. We need a network based on these people ...
if people who want to be shops but work in e.g. non union workplaces they should be welcome but as nigel says without voting rights
also i accept that many branches will not support this initiave so if a person can demonstrate they are a properly elected shop steward they should get full rights whether or NOT their branch supports their presence
tbh CR mate if it was open doors it would just get flooded by the left ..
( i always laughed when leftists slagged off IWCA for not being pro union enough, when a higher % of their small org were shop stewards, than for most of the left!
)cockneyrebel
New Member
Well I'm certainly not doing for sectarian reasons nearly all PR members are union reps, I just wanna recongise the fact that there are a lot of moribund and bureaucratic branches that make things very difficult.
Dunno about slag off, but I would criticise the IWCA for taking almost zero interest in union stuff as an organisation, this conference being a case in point.
Dunno about slag off, but I would criticise the IWCA for taking almost zero interest in union stuff as an organisation, this conference being a case in point.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Looks like i messed up royaly on the article from the SWP paper... (given there wasn't one - i'll have to check dates when going via google in future 
An interesting development in Bob Crow's view on the need for an independent political voice for working people reported in the latest Socialist (its not online yet). This is a snip of the relevant bits from the article:
BC said: "We can't seperate the trade union and the political path. We can have a great shop stewards' movement that can get pay rises and so on, but when the economy goes down those gains are taken back. That's why I argue we need not just militant trade unionism but an alternative political party".
He went on to explain how the RMT had supported John McDonnell's campaign to get on the Ballot paper for LP the deputy leadership contest. The results and his conclusions "It is a six inch nail in the coffin of the Labour Party" ... "Suddenly, then Jon Cruddas was going to be the saviour, even though he voted for the war, but he didn't win the election and he hasn't got a place in the cabinet. Digby Jones has. I say to all Labour Party members, you are giving them credibility. The marriage is over. Get a divorce and move on."
He finished by suggesting that the RMT "may form a little political party to contest the next London mayoral and assembly elections" as part of the struggle against privatisation of the East London train line. He added the FBU and others might fdo the same and that this could be a step towards the formation of a new party in a few years time.
link added: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/495/index.html?id=np1531.htm
An interesting development in Bob Crow's view on the need for an independent political voice for working people reported in the latest Socialist (its not online yet). This is a snip of the relevant bits from the article:
BC said: "We can't seperate the trade union and the political path. We can have a great shop stewards' movement that can get pay rises and so on, but when the economy goes down those gains are taken back. That's why I argue we need not just militant trade unionism but an alternative political party".
He went on to explain how the RMT had supported John McDonnell's campaign to get on the Ballot paper for LP the deputy leadership contest. The results and his conclusions "It is a six inch nail in the coffin of the Labour Party" ... "Suddenly, then Jon Cruddas was going to be the saviour, even though he voted for the war, but he didn't win the election and he hasn't got a place in the cabinet. Digby Jones has. I say to all Labour Party members, you are giving them credibility. The marriage is over. Get a divorce and move on."
He finished by suggesting that the RMT "may form a little political party to contest the next London mayoral and assembly elections" as part of the struggle against privatisation of the East London train line. He added the FBU and others might fdo the same and that this could be a step towards the formation of a new party in a few years time.
link added: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/495/index.html?id=np1531.htm
dennisr
the acceptable face
durruti02 said:interesting ..
Looks like Crow has 'misjudged the mood' as badly as the Campaign for a New Workers Party (or not as the case may be...)
http://www.cnwp.org.uk/
Actually I think I agree that it should be stewards only, not because it would be flooded by the left, most of the left are stewards, but because it is a link to the organised base of the unions.
As people have pointed out that's nothing to stop people going along as observers and participating but not with a vote.
Vis WP I think its almost certain their motivation was sectarian - as CR says they probably only have between 1-3 stewards in the whole organisation.
As people have pointed out that's nothing to stop people going along as observers and participating but not with a vote.
Vis WP I think its almost certain their motivation was sectarian - as CR says they probably only have between 1-3 stewards in the whole organisation.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
He finished by suggesting that the RMT "may form a little political party to contest the next London mayoral and assembly elections" as part of the struggle against privatisation of the East London train line. He added the FBU and others might fdo the same and that this could be a step towards the formation of a new party in a few years time.[/QUOTE]
Do you think that this dynamic will go anywhere or is it just hot air?
Could it be linked it into a larger national campaign?
Do prominent individuals involved with CNWP see this as an initiative in its own interest or not?
Talked to SWP/RESPECT people afterwards who thought it was negative, taking votes away from them.
Do you think that this dynamic will go anywhere or is it just hot air?
Could it be linked it into a larger national campaign?
Do prominent individuals involved with CNWP see this as an initiative in its own interest or not?
Talked to SWP/RESPECT people afterwards who thought it was negative, taking votes away from them.
cockneyrebel
New Member
In terms of my criticisms of the idea of a CNWP, they've never been about missing the mood, but the political problems of a revolutionary organisation building a reformist organisations, and as with RESPECT acting as substitutes for the reformists.
If real forces started building a new political parties and revolutionaries could openly fight for revolutionary politics within it then that could be a different proposition, but I suspect even then that groups such as the SP and SWP would not forward a revolutionary manifesto, but could be wrong.
Anyway we've done all this a few times before so I'll shut up......
Similar threads
