Some better electoral results - PCS

[Fisher_Gate]

It really isn't. They are positioned to the right of LU. The AWL/CPGB who form part of this alliance were critical of the leadership from a left position before the national dispute but have reorientated themselves to the right since the dispute started. Others in the alliance have consistantly been to the right (of the left). Whether you see it as 'left' or not though it is unprincipled. The fact is they failed to knock LU candidates off in favour of the right-wing which clearly was their intention.

Whatever - maybe I should have put 'left' in inverted commas; it was Nigel who claimed in the first post they were left not me! And yes those are the DWP section results not the NEC.

I think that the SP/Left Unity supporting the election of a LibDem privatiser and "mainstream" Labour supporters who want a "dialogue with Gordon Brown" is what I would call unprincipled (regardless of how little influence they may or may not have once they are elected).

People of all persuasion bar fascists have a right to put themselves forward in an election - that's perfectly principled. How left wing groups orient towards candidates is where the principles come in.

I could have called for a vote for the LibDem candidate in my local ward in last week's election, as on most policy issues they would claim to be to the left of the Labour Party candidate - but it would have been wrong, the principled position was to vote for the Labour candidate (as I am sure most SWP members would have done too)!

 

[Guineveretoo]

In reply to Timbo - I think being on the PCS NEC does not of itself make one a bureaucrat. However, a FTO in PCS is by their nature alienated from members by their nature of their work and their salaries.

Why is that a lot of FTOs are against being elected annually by members? I and a lot of activists in PCS have to be elected - why not FTOs.

Union bureaucracies will have a dual position - they will fight for members but at the same time have their own pressures and dynamic in the union machine.

Because full time officials are there to support the members and the activists, regardless of their political allegiances. The role of the FTO is to implement union policy, not to challenge it.

If FTOs were elected annually, they would have to spend a lot of their time politicising, and doing what they thought would get them the most votes, in order to protect their own positions, rather than focussing on carrying out union policies, and ensuring they are up to date with what is happening across the union world, and with employment legislation, in order best to advise and support union members. FTOs do a lot more work representing individuals in trouble, than they do on campaigning stuff, and that is quite right.

 

[Guineveretoo]

The current PCS dispute can go a number of ways. I like others hope for success but realistic to know that in a dispute, one does not always win everything we started out to win. In the current dispute - a major loss will not only damage PCS but the wider trade union movement.

I have seen enough of glorious defeats - I will take an ugly win any time.

What would constitute an "ugly win", in your opinion?

 

[Guineveretoo]

The position is not as optimistic for Nigel as his first post makes it appear.

Apparently both the Left Unity/Democratic Alliance and right wing slates lost over 10% of their votes to the Independent Left slate. I've been sent the following analysis (LU is Left Unity/Democratic Alliance, 4TM is the right wing slate(s?), IL is the left wing slate - 2007 only). Sorry the columns don't line up ...

President
Faction 2006 2007

LU 56% 44.5%
4TM 44% 35.5%
IL 20%

Organiser
Faction 2006 2007

LU 54% 44.3%
4TM 46% 34.5%
IL 21%

Treasurer
Faction 2006 2007

LU 53% 37.4%
4TM 47% 43.5%
IL 19%

Vice Presidents
Faction 2006 2007

LU 58-47% 48-36%
4TM 49.6-46% 36.5%-33%
IL 24.5-21.7%

Assistant Secretaries
Faction 2006 2007

LU 57-49% 45-38%
4TM 47.7-43% 36.4%-28%
IL 26-18.3%

Journal Editor
Faction 2007

LU 67%
IL 33%

GEC
Faction 2006 2007

LU 56-41.5% 49-33%
4TM 43.7-31% 37-27%
IL 33.5-15%

I speculate that this is a Group election, not the NEC?

 

[Zeppo]

Guineveretoo - note your comments on FTOs re elections. Doing the best for members can be linked to campaigning for votes at the same time but realise that with internal political factions - this could prove a problem with my suggestion.

An ugly win would be a much stronger Cabinet Office protocol in terms of compulsory redundancies - in other words more obstacles put in to stop compulsory redundancies.

All pay rises in the Civil Service in 2007 are not below RPI inflation. The PCS demand is a "fair pay system" - a bit vague IMO and waht I am suggesting will be the hardest area for the Government to agree.

Like all disputes - sustaining a long dispute is problematic for unions to keep up the momentum of members willing to take strike action over a long period of time. At some point they will ask what is the union winning in the dispute?

Interesting times.

 

[Guineveretoo]

An ugly win would be a much stronger Cabinet Office protocol in terms of compulsory redundancies - in other words more obstacles put in to stop compulsory redundancies.

All pay rises in the Civil Service in 2007 are not below RPI inflation. The PCS demand is a "fair pay system" - a bit vague IMO and waht I am suggesting will be the hardest area for the Government to agree.

Like all disputes - sustaining a long dispute is problematic for unions to keep up the momentum of members willing to take strike action over a long period of time. At some point they will ask what is the union winning in the dispute?

Interesting times.

The protocols are only that - protocols - and departments are already trying to ignore them. It's only the efforts of the full timers shouting at the departments that is persuading them to stick to them. However, even if they were strengthened, it wouldn't have avoided the compulsory redundancies which have already happened. They simply take a bit longer to happen, is all. The DTI ones took years to happen last time, because they didn't want to be the first, and genuinely worked with the unions (in the end, and after the unions had shouted at them) to avoid said redundancies.

As for the pay aspect of the dispute, we need to wait and see a bit a to what the new Chancellor says and does, since I see that as being Brown's agenda. I agree, however, that PCS is not clear about what they want. In fact, they are on picket lines and trying to get people out on strike, where those members have actually voted in FAVOUR of a pay deal, and where there are no threats of compulsory redundancies. I understand about solidarity and all that, but not sure how many non politically active civil servants do, or whether it is fair and appropriate to ask those people to lose a day's pay....

Judging from the number of PCS members who are crossing picket lines, rather a lot of people are already unhappy with the answers they are getting from the union.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I feel very uncomfortable with the Left Unity slate.

Firstly, I feel that there is no place for politics within trades unionism, the issues are what matter, secondly, it has led to people who have already proven themselves to be ineffective being re-elected.

I am a PCS member, representative and ofiice vice chair.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Firstly, I feel that there is no place for politics within trades unionism, the issues are what matter,

The issues are "politics".

 

[Guineveretoo]

The issues are "politics".

Trade unions exist first and foremost to defend their members through collective and individual action and support.

Politics are secondary.

At least, that is how it should be. When politics start to dominate, it leaves a lot of people, who have the right notion of collectivism, even, bewildered.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Trade unions exist first and foremost to defend their members through collective and individual action and support.

This kind of stuff amazes me. What could be more political than an association of workers which acts to defend its members through collective and individual action and support? That is politics.

When people say they don't want politics in the unions, what they invariably mean is that they don't want politics they disapprove of in the unions.

 

[Mallard]

Out of interest what is the gripe with Serwotka and Left Unity? Is it the alledged pensions 'sell out' for new recruits or the one day strike tactics?

I left the civil service in '98 and was a CPSA rep involved in organising strikes during that period. Serwotka was a regular visitor to our office and great with personal cases. He always seemed like a straight up socialist to me and even donated part of his salary when he moved to London I was told. Mates of mine still in the service and union have a lot of time for him still. Starting a sectarian row during a time of national action seems a bad tactic to me. I remember Reamsbottom!

 

[Groucho]

This kind of stuff amazes me. What could be more political than an association of workers which acts to defend its members through collective and individual action and support? That is politics.

Especially obvious if the employer is the Government and if attacks on members pay and conditions are overtly part of a political neo-liberal agenda of dismantling public services.

 

[Groucho]

Out of interest what is the gripe with Serwotka and Left Unity? Is it the alledged pensions 'sell out' for new recruits or the one day strike tactics?
...

I'm not sure. The individuals who made up the IL did not split over the pensions issue at the time, and their slate includes people who supported the leadership on that question. So it is not pensions.

Putting aside the motivations of one or two key individuals I think two factors enabled a vote for a split. Firstly there were bitter arguments within the DWP over their dispute. Some quite good activists lost their patience over the issue and unfortunately allowed themselves to be led by hopeless sectarians. Secondly the Socialist Caucus AGM was very poorly attended and a CPGB member suddenly realised a vote for a split could be won (the proposal hadn't been circulated prior to the meeting). The AWL's better periphery were against a split as was the AWL in PCS in majority, but they were turned around into its most enthusiastic proponents by their full timer who saw a chance to attempt to wreck the left leadership of a major union (at least in DWP) and lept at it. One or two AWL PCS members are personaly bitter at Mark's rise to Gen Sec. Since he was once their comrade in SO, and since they helped his election campaign they expected MS to be their puppet. Unfortunately it is all playground stuff.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Groucho I think your analysis is a little simplistic.

For instance PRs problems with Left Unity are to do with the two tier pension deal and the way that strikes have been handled (both at a national level and the DWP dispute). It has nothing whatsover to do with personalities or sectarianism.

 

[Groucho]

Groucho I think your analysis is a little simplistic.

For instance PRs problems with Left Unity are to do with the two tier pension deal and the way that strikes have been handled (both at a national level and the DWP dispute). It has nothing whatsover to do with personalities or sectarianism.

But PR has nothing to do with any of it.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Well my flat mate is in PR and is a union steward in the DTI. He is also involved in Socialist Caucus/IL.

And while PR is tiny, no more so than the CPGB.

 

[Mallard]

I'm not sure. The individuals who made up the IL did not split over the pensions issue at the time, and their slate includes people who supported the leadership on that question. So it is not pensions.

.. One or two AWL PCS members are personaly bitter at Mark's rise to Gen Sec. Since he was once their comrade in SO, and since they helped his election campaign they expected MS to be their puppet. Unfortunately it is all playground stuff.

Ta. I have a good mate in AWL (non PCS) and questioned his slagging of Serwotka and thought the same as you about the slate and pensions. I remember when SO where much more influential in CPSA and was in the same branch as one of their key members in BA section. Serwotka seems to be doing a decent job to me (as an outsider) and is building unity/action with other public sector unions at the moment I believe. If his alledged sins are not so great and it's just bitterness/nutters in CPGB/failures in AWL it's hardly a surprise the membership aren't impressed with his opponents.

 

[cockneyrebel]

If his alledged sins are not so great and it's just bitterness/nutters in CPGB/failures in AWL it's hardly a surprise the membership aren't impressed with his opponents.

Again I think this is ridiculously simplistic, there are political reasons for the differences as I've stated above.

The two tier deal may well be a disastour for the union in the long run and the current strike strategy is flawed to say the least. If the strategy of one day strikes here and there carries on (while huge job losses are taking place) then it may well lead to demoralisation.

Also the figures I've seen suggest that the IL didn't actually do that badly in terms of the amount of votes they got.

 

[Mallard]

Again I think this is ridiculously simplistic, there are political reasons for the differences as I've stated above.

The two tier deal may well be a disastour for the union in the long run and the current strike strategy is flawed to say the least. If the strategy of one day strikes here and there carries on (while huge job losses are taking place) then it may well lead to demoralisation.

Also the figures I've seen suggest that the IL didn't actually do that badly in terms of the amount of votes they got.

The one day strike tactic was a problem years ago. Do you believe that members would go out for longer? Mates of mine who went out recently were concerned by the number of staff who went in to work at their office which has a higher rate of non-members than ever before. They don't believe that sustained action will be that well supported (despite their support for it). Only a couple of years ago their branch was one of the most militant in the BA section. They believe that Serwotka got the best deal he could on pensions. Why are they wrong cockney?

 

[Groucho]

Well my flat mate is in PR and is a union steward in the DTI. He is also involved in Socialist Caucus/IL.

And while PR is tiny, no more so than the CPGB.

When I say CPGB in PCS I actually mean one individual! But an individual with a high profile (for being a nutter).

 

[cockneyrebel]

The one day strike tactic was a problem years ago. Do you believe that members would go out for longer? Mates of mine who went out recently were concerned by the number of staff who went in to work at their office which has a higher rate of non-members than ever before. They don't believe that sustained action will be that well supported (despite their support for it). Only a couple of years ago their branch was one of the most militant in the BA section. They believe that Serwotka got the best deal he could on pensions. Why are they wrong cockney?

I don't know whether members would go out for longer but I think that socialists should be honest to the membership in saying that if this strategy continues it will lead to failure. If they can't persuade the membership fair enough, but at least try. It's the same with the disastour of the two tier pension deal. If the SP and Serwotka had fought for more action and the members had voted no then again I'd say fair enough but instead they presented it as a partial victory and encouraged members to vote yes to the deal (the SWP didn't to be fair).

PS Groucho I think you're a little unfair calling Lee Rock a nutter. From what people have told me he has done some very good trade union work over the years.

 

[Mallard]

I don't know whether members would go out for longer but I think that socialists should be honest to the membership in saying that if this strategy continues it will lead to failure. If they can't persuade the membership fair enough, but at least try. It's the same with the disastour of the two tier pension deal. If the SP and Serwotka had fought for more action and the members had voted no then again I'd say fair enough but instead they presented it as a partial victory and encouraged members to vote yes to the deal (the SWP didn't to be fair).

Ta. I see. Persuading them to go out for longer is clearly the best tactic but I'm told the BA at least are shakier than ever. I was surprised by the two-tier deal and the fact that Serwotka went for it but I don't think action would have been voted for (but like you would have argued for it to be put to members and argued for it myself). It does seem that future entrants have been sold down the river.

PS Groucho I think you're a little unfair calling Lee Rock a nutter. From what people have told me he has done some very good trade union work over the years.

Bloody hell, I remember chatting to him pissed at a social at conference in Blackpool about 10 years ago. On the same night a SWPer called me 'bourgeois' for collecting records.

 

[Geoff Collier]

Bloody hell, I remember chatting to him pissed at a social at conference in Blackpool about 10 years ago. On the same night a SWPer called me 'bourgeois' for collecting records.[/QUOTE]

Collecting records of what?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Bloody hell, I remember chatting to him pissed at a social at conference in Blackpool about 10 years ago. On the same night a SWPer called me 'bourgeois' for collecting records.

are you serious!

I was surprised by the two-tier deal and the fact that Serwotka went for it but I don't think action would have been voted for (but like you would have argued for it to be put to members and argued for it myself). It does seem that future entrants have been sold down the river.

I'm in agreement then. It might well be that members would have voted no but you can never be sure until you try.

 

[Groucho]

I'm in agreement then. It might well be that members would have voted no but you can never be sure until you try.

Although you do know that no new pension arrangements for new entrants have actually been agreed as yet and that once proposals are forthcoming from Govt. then PCS will ballot members?

 

[Mallard]

are you serious!

Sadly yes. One of those people you can't escape at conference when pissed and hemming you in a seat during a social.

 

[Groucho]

Sadly yes. One of those people you can't escape at conference when pissed and hemming you in a seat during a social.

PM me who it was

 

[donald duck]

I've just seen on another board that the election results for the Public and Civil Service Union (PCS) national executive are in.

Left Unity has strengthened its majority on the executive taking, with its smaller PCS Democrats ally, all but one seat. The two right wing factions as well as a left breakaway involving some of the smaller left sects were all but wiped out.

Does this mean that the PCS are now very left wing?

 

[donald duck]

Does this mean that the PCS are now very left wing?

No, not really.

I've worked in the civil serice in a labour-voting area.

The left wingersd are a bit of a joke.

A lot of the people i met supported the BNP.

So good luck to the socialist party in the PCS.

Good luck to the SWP with the Islamic revolution.