Utterly ridiculous opening post. The more in the union the better. Just where would the o/p win a branch meeting on this issue?
Should some sections in the PCS be thrown out?
- Thread starter cockneyrebel
- Start date
cockneyrebel
New Member
Because of another thread on this, thought I'd bump this up.
Are any SP or SWP posters about? How do you feel about immigration police being represented by the PCS? Are you concerned about their health and safety as they deport people? That seems to be the line of your representatives on the NC.
Not saying this to have a dig, I genuinely think stuff the bastards.
Are any SP or SWP posters about? How do you feel about immigration police being represented by the PCS? Are you concerned about their health and safety as they deport people? That seems to be the line of your representatives on the NC.
Not saying this to have a dig, I genuinely think stuff the bastards.
urbanrevolt, what union are you a member of ?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
This thread is really funny. Within 30 posts on a thread about a very small number of civil servants you get to see the authoritarians come out and play - 'You're not our sort of working class so don't deserve to be in a union'.
Guineveretoo said:
There is a break away scab union in the Home Office based mainly among the Immigration Officers. What's it called?
No, the Immigration Workers should not be thrown out. Nor should the Traffic Wardens, Met Police civilians, MI5 admin workers, or Community Support Police officers. Nor the MOD workers. I guess those would all be on the list?
Nor should NAPO cease to organise screws.
The proposal is utra left sectarian nonsense of the worst kind. The key is to oppose the repressive and racist policies, not those who impliment them. Even the police who are imo seperate from the working class and organised in a hostile way against workers interests should be unionised and have the right to strike.
Oh I forgot the GCHQ workers. Spies. The Tory Government tried to take their union rights away and the trade union movement responded with strike action (not enough) and a campaign over decades to have their rights restored. At no point did that mean that we all supported trhe nature of their work.
Would CR have supported Thatcher in expelling them from the TU movement?
We need a change of society not moralistic condemnation of people who conform to it. Where would it lead? Teachers put kids in detention - throw these authoritarians out of the union movement. DWP workers deny people benefits if they don't agree to attend mandatory training! Throw them out!
There are problems and contradictions with some of the work undertaken.
Personally I would support the right of the police and the army to strike (whether I suport their demands would depend on the demand - so a strike by police demanding more powers of arrest or immunity from prosecution I would oppose....)
Would CR have supported Thatcher in expelling them from the TU movement?
We need a change of society not moralistic condemnation of people who conform to it. Where would it lead? Teachers put kids in detention - throw these authoritarians out of the union movement. DWP workers deny people benefits if they don't agree to attend mandatory training! Throw them out!
There are problems and contradictions with some of the work undertaken.
Personally I would support the right of the police and the army to strike (whether I suport their demands would depend on the demand - so a strike by police demanding more powers of arrest or immunity from prosecution I would oppose....)
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
Groucho: Immigration Services Union (here they are getting some publicity: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/europe/1292373.stm)
cockneyrebel said:
You wouldn't stop the deportations by removing union rights from those who carry them out.
Yes, I am concerned for their health and safety. Not as much incidentally as I am concerned about the health and safety of those being deported. Removing union rights from any group of workers does not address those issues though.
biff curtains
Fred West or Fred Housego
What Groucho said.
cockneyrebel
New Member
But I don't think there is a comparison between the people you have listed and immigration officers who physically carry out deportations. You're talking about a group of people whose job it is to break doors down, drag people off with force and send them back to torture and death. Hardly the same as a traffic warden is it.
The comparison is more like the police, whose job it is to physically smash up the working class, which is why they should never be part of the TUC. Obviously it's good to try and get police to side with us during times of militancy, but I wouldn't count on it and wouldn't encourage the idea that there can be any solidarity with police.
Firstly how is it sectarian to say that officers who carry out deportations shouldn't be in the PCS? Sectarianism is putting your interests, or the interests of an organisation you're in, above the that of the working class. How can you say that proposal fits that criteria? Another case of the left just throwing words about for the sake of it.
Would you say it's ultra left sectarian nonsense to say that the police shouldn't be part of the TUC or unions of the organised working class? I wouldn't say it is, in fact I'd say it is totally right. And what my point is that just as the police are the organised thugs of the government, the same can be said of officers who carry out deportations.
If you're concerned about their health and safety what would you propose? Better body army? More effective truncheons? More training on restraint techniques? Better pepper sprays? Better riot shields? Tasar guns?
The fact is that if we had a more militant working class movement we would be organising self-defence of immigrants who are being deported (and it happens in some cases now, but is fairly rare). Presumably you'd support this. So how on one hand can you support the health and safety of officers carrying out this work, and on the other say it's ok to use physical force to stop them. Surely a contradiction?
You can go off on one about moralism and teachers, traffic wardens and admin staff at MI5 but it's hardly the same. I'm talking about a specific group whose role is similiar to the police in what they do.
And that's what is disgusting about the current PCS NCs stance. In recent reports I've read they seem to show more concern for the thugs who deport people, than the people being deported.
It was the police who killed Joy Gardner not Immigration officers because that kind of forced deportation is carried out by the police.
For the most part Immigration Officers interview people at ports and airports. They check papers and, if someone is distressed and can't speak English they need to put the person at ease and find a translator. Often distressed people are intent on claiming asylum but don't necessarily know their rights. I would prefer well trained unionised people to Daily Mail reading scab thugs.
Ultimately I am for an end to immigration controls but that argument is far from won even amongst the most militant sections of the working class, so the argument that those who work in checking papers should be ostracised by trades unionists is bonkers.
Your post was sectarian because the purpose is to attack the PCS left leadership to attempt to score political points on behalf of your tiny organisation with no regard whatsoever to the struggle of the class. The pressing issue for PCS/CWU is whether the leaderships have the bottle to call united strike action, not whether they are carrying out a 'right on' purge of their union members pushing sections of the workforce into the hands of scab unionism.
For the most part Immigration Officers interview people at ports and airports. They check papers and, if someone is distressed and can't speak English they need to put the person at ease and find a translator. Often distressed people are intent on claiming asylum but don't necessarily know their rights. I would prefer well trained unionised people to Daily Mail reading scab thugs.
Ultimately I am for an end to immigration controls but that argument is far from won even amongst the most militant sections of the working class, so the argument that those who work in checking papers should be ostracised by trades unionists is bonkers.
Your post was sectarian because the purpose is to attack the PCS left leadership to attempt to score political points on behalf of your tiny organisation with no regard whatsoever to the struggle of the class. The pressing issue for PCS/CWU is whether the leaderships have the bottle to call united strike action, not whether they are carrying out a 'right on' purge of their union members pushing sections of the workforce into the hands of scab unionism.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
No.
Not unless they've broken one of the union rules.
The rest of it seems to be a spat between the Party for Working Socialism against the Socialist Workers Party that seems to have spilled over onto PCS territory - much of whose membership have probably heard of neither.
Not unless they've broken one of the union rules.
The rest of it seems to be a spat between the Party for Working Socialism against the Socialist Workers Party that seems to have spilled over onto PCS territory - much of whose membership have probably heard of neither.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Groucho I'm not sure why you think it's only police who use extreme force in deportations, that's simply not true. Immigration officers are at the fore of things in terms of battering down doors and using restraint techniques etc
I'm clearly not talking about people who are at ports and check passports, as my posts show, so it's a red herring for you to go on about this being bonkers. I'm talking about the organised thugs who kick people's doors in and bundle them into vans to be flown off to be tortured and killed. I don't think it's being "moralistic" to have a problem with them being in the PCS.
Although I think you're a tad romanticising the role of immigration officers at the ports, where there are wide spread problems with racism. They're not all fluffy bunnies offering translation services and unionisation doesn't automatically mean that these problems will be overcome. As it goes I think the PCS should be a bit more pro-active about that kinda thing.
But as said, they're not the people I'm talking about. So I'll ask again, what do you mean by being concerned about the health and safety of the immigration workers who work as snatch squads? Do you favour better restraint training, better pepper sprays or what?
My intention isn't to attack the left on the PCS to score points, I'd make these points whatever the leadership, but I'm just more concerned that a left leadership would defend that stance. It's easy for you to shout "sectarian", as people on the left always do, but that's not the issue here.
And I don't think it's got anything to do with being "right on" complaining that a union shouldn't stand up for snatch squads. Do you not think that the PCS should clearly and openly condemn the use of snatch squads?
The point about priorities for the PCS and taking united strike action isn't really relevent. This is a thread on a web board about a specific question, I never said anywhere that this should be the number one priority for the PCS or linked it in any way to strike action around pensions, job cuts etc
I'm clearly not talking about people who are at ports and check passports, as my posts show, so it's a red herring for you to go on about this being bonkers. I'm talking about the organised thugs who kick people's doors in and bundle them into vans to be flown off to be tortured and killed. I don't think it's being "moralistic" to have a problem with them being in the PCS.
Although I think you're a tad romanticising the role of immigration officers at the ports, where there are wide spread problems with racism. They're not all fluffy bunnies offering translation services and unionisation doesn't automatically mean that these problems will be overcome. As it goes I think the PCS should be a bit more pro-active about that kinda thing.
But as said, they're not the people I'm talking about. So I'll ask again, what do you mean by being concerned about the health and safety of the immigration workers who work as snatch squads? Do you favour better restraint training, better pepper sprays or what?
My intention isn't to attack the left on the PCS to score points, I'd make these points whatever the leadership, but I'm just more concerned that a left leadership would defend that stance. It's easy for you to shout "sectarian", as people on the left always do, but that's not the issue here.
And I don't think it's got anything to do with being "right on" complaining that a union shouldn't stand up for snatch squads. Do you not think that the PCS should clearly and openly condemn the use of snatch squads?
The point about priorities for the PCS and taking united strike action isn't really relevent. This is a thread on a web board about a specific question, I never said anywhere that this should be the number one priority for the PCS or linked it in any way to strike action around pensions, job cuts etc
cockneyrebel
New Member
Also it's a bit bizarre debating with the SWP on here.
On one thread Groucho attacks me for being ultra left and moralistic for saying that snatch squads shouldn't be allowed in the PCS.
On another thread DasUberdog announces that even the lowest level of managers are the class enemy, despite the fact that there are managers in the SWP.
On one thread Groucho attacks me for being ultra left and moralistic for saying that snatch squads shouldn't be allowed in the PCS.
On another thread DasUberdog announces that even the lowest level of managers are the class enemy, despite the fact that there are managers in the SWP.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
cockneyrebel said:
The union could take the position that the whole process of forced deportations is a health and safety issue to both the workers and to the deportees? I bet they get called clients or something and the immigration service must formally have a responsibility towards them.
cockneyrebel
New Member
The one about the police going on strike.....
At the moment there seems to be more concern about the snatch squads than the people getting deported.
The responsibility they have towards them is battering their door down in the early hours, bundling them into a van and flying them off to somewhere where they're never heard from again.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Any wonder why I can't take anything the left says seriously or at face-value anymore?cockneyrebel said:Also it's a bit bizarre debating with the SWP on here.
On one thread Groucho attacks me for being ultra left and moralistic for saying that snatch squads shouldn't be allowed in the PCS.
On another thread DasUberdog announces that even the lowest level of managers are the class enemy, despite the fact that there are managers in the SWP.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Yes that’s why I said formally. I’m sure there will be something buried in their manuals somewhere about ensuring the health and safety of those they deport. Of course not deporting them would be a the best thing for their health and safety.cockneyrebel said:
emanymton said:
Forced deportations are carried out by the police. I certainly support refusal by PCS members to take part directly on health and safety grounds. (If they refused on political grounds they would be sacked. Simple as).
CR - yes you have stated that 'Immigration Officers' should be kicked out of PCS. Most of these are workers at ports etc. You didn't specify people involved in forcible deportations, you said 'Immigration Officers'.
cockneyrebel
New Member
I apologise if that's that case, I thought from the context of my posts that it was clear that I meant the snatch squads, obviously not!
So do you think snatch squads should be represented by the PCS?
This isn't true as far as I know. Snatch squads employed by the civil service also take part in raids and deportations.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Looking back at the thread I have either used the phrases "immigration police" (maybe snatch squads would have been a better term) or "immigration officers who carry out deportations", so to be honest don't see how you could have thought I was talking about people checking someones passports.
Having said that the racism in the Immigration Service is pretty bad across the board (I've got a couple of mates who work there and used to have quite a lot of dealings with NASS, who were, by and large, a load of wankers).
Having said that the racism in the Immigration Service is pretty bad across the board (I've got a couple of mates who work there and used to have quite a lot of dealings with NASS, who were, by and large, a load of wankers).
urbanrevolt
New Member
I think it's clear that CR is talking about immigration officers involved in enforcing deportations. In my opinion they should refuse to enforce deportations but of course this would quickly mean no job- however, forcibly deporting people to situations of torture or death is not a good way to make a lving any more than working in the police.
Practically we should try to get PCS members where possible to join the
growing- though still pitifully small and weak- movement for workers to refuse to implement immigration controls. What is also true is that more and more workers are being asked to check immigration status- almost as routine
For example when I made a claim for JSA today I was quizzed by presumably a PCS member on my immigration status. Of course in many cases workers have little individual choice about whether to carry out these checks or not- if workers can get away with not checking all the better but we need unions strong enough to refuse to refuse treatment or services on the basis of immigration status.
Groucho's suggestions of health and safety seem a possible way forward but the PCS need to come on board with other unions opposing immigration controls or that their members should implement them. Some deportations are even illegal according to the current racist frameworks such as that of the Ndombassi family, Bolton (for more see http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1602)
Of course to get workers to act in solidarity with workers without status is v important but it must also be part of a wider picture of getting powerful unions in the workplaces to defend jobs and conditions. We should be against all redundancies and job losses though some jons such as immigration enforcement should clearly be changed- if any PCS or other union members become involved in a struggle to refuse to implement immigration controls they are worthy of serious support.
Practically we should try to get PCS members where possible to join the
growing- though still pitifully small and weak- movement for workers to refuse to implement immigration controls. What is also true is that more and more workers are being asked to check immigration status- almost as routine
For example when I made a claim for JSA today I was quizzed by presumably a PCS member on my immigration status. Of course in many cases workers have little individual choice about whether to carry out these checks or not- if workers can get away with not checking all the better but we need unions strong enough to refuse to refuse treatment or services on the basis of immigration status.
Groucho's suggestions of health and safety seem a possible way forward but the PCS need to come on board with other unions opposing immigration controls or that their members should implement them. Some deportations are even illegal according to the current racist frameworks such as that of the Ndombassi family, Bolton (for more see http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1602)
Of course to get workers to act in solidarity with workers without status is v important but it must also be part of a wider picture of getting powerful unions in the workplaces to defend jobs and conditions. We should be against all redundancies and job losses though some jons such as immigration enforcement should clearly be changed- if any PCS or other union members become involved in a struggle to refuse to implement immigration controls they are worthy of serious support.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
urbanrevolt said:
Why should civil servants enforcing the removal of undesirables or those legally refused entry be denied access to membership of a trade union? Seems like a load of divisive bollocks to me.
If someone is not condusive to the public good and a decision has been made legally and fairly to remove them from the UK then someone has to do the removal. Why should these workers be denied union membership. After all we are talking about immigration officers not the fucking SS.
Its yet another way that the left pisses off working class people by concerning itself with stuff that is a peripheral issue.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
KeyboardJockey said:
Exactly.
Granted, the police didn't cover themselves in glory during the miners strike nor the poll tax riots, but day-to-day they do a damn good job in difficult circumstances.
Even under a left-wing administration, you'd still need a police force, even if it via policing through consent.
London Boy
New Member
Both a trade union and officers from the police force and the immigration services all have a right and shold have the right to join a union.
The stupid posts made here advocating for their exclusion simply shows up the totalitarian mentality of the Marxist Left. The Marxist Left seem to think they have an inherent god given right to decide whom they deem to be a worker or worthy of union membership and what policy the unions should follow. This despite the Marxist Left failing to gain the support of the majority either in the trade union movement or the wider society.
No wonder they remian on the extreme lunatic fringe of discourse.
The stupid posts made here advocating for their exclusion simply shows up the totalitarian mentality of the Marxist Left. The Marxist Left seem to think they have an inherent god given right to decide whom they deem to be a worker or worthy of union membership and what policy the unions should follow. This despite the Marxist Left failing to gain the support of the majority either in the trade union movement or the wider society.
No wonder they remian on the extreme lunatic fringe of discourse.
urbanrevolt
New Member
There are a couple of issues here.
Should we make links with workers organising to refuse to implement repressive policy? Almost everyone on here who has posted an opinion on this agrees.
For example if certain workers in Campsfield house (immigration prison near Oxford) are complaining about conditions in a way that can help the campaign to improve the lives of people imprisoned there then fine. If workers there want to and are able to join a trade union good.
However, it is still the case that the best way to stop the attacks on working class people that these institutions represent is to close them down immediately- if the workers there can be redeployed in jobs that are of service to the working class then all the better but our demand should be that such a prison should be closed down immediately.
There is a more specialist question about whether police should be allowed into the trade union movement. Whilst we should be for police right to form their own unions and would support such unions in progressive demands there are two reason why police unions should not be treated as other worker organisations- 1) we are not for protecting police jobs or services etc 2) police can be used to spy on the working class movement.
Finally the reason the left is on the fringe of discourse is not primarily in my opinion because of our 'lunatic' opinions (a daily mail construction) but because we have failed to organise working class resistance. The main tasks here are practical such as supporting the current strikes, organising in communities over resources, against closures/ privatisations and organising with and in solidarity with immigrant workers and immigrants in general is one part of this.
Should we make links with workers organising to refuse to implement repressive policy? Almost everyone on here who has posted an opinion on this agrees.
For example if certain workers in Campsfield house (immigration prison near Oxford) are complaining about conditions in a way that can help the campaign to improve the lives of people imprisoned there then fine. If workers there want to and are able to join a trade union good.
However, it is still the case that the best way to stop the attacks on working class people that these institutions represent is to close them down immediately- if the workers there can be redeployed in jobs that are of service to the working class then all the better but our demand should be that such a prison should be closed down immediately.
There is a more specialist question about whether police should be allowed into the trade union movement. Whilst we should be for police right to form their own unions and would support such unions in progressive demands there are two reason why police unions should not be treated as other worker organisations- 1) we are not for protecting police jobs or services etc 2) police can be used to spy on the working class movement.
Finally the reason the left is on the fringe of discourse is not primarily in my opinion because of our 'lunatic' opinions (a daily mail construction) but because we have failed to organise working class resistance. The main tasks here are practical such as supporting the current strikes, organising in communities over resources, against closures/ privatisations and organising with and in solidarity with immigrant workers and immigrants in general is one part of this.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
