The election of Mark Serwotka

[Zeppo]

Serwotka should win but there will be no complacency that it is guaranteed in his camp. Expect the right to put up someone and run a campaign on the lines that Mark is a red, PCS is led by reds time for a change.

Fedayn is right lots of public sector workers have big concerns over the next Government and cuts. The proposals to reduce the Civil Service Compensation Scheme are in effect the foundation of making it cheaper to get rid of staff.

As ever the resistance to these cuts is the key - will Prentis and Unison get out of their passivity once we have a Conservative Government?

 

[Fedayn]

Out of interest. Serwotka is up for election soon. Anyone reckon he would win? Or will the right reorganise and get their person in?

It depends on who the right 'put up'. It was mooted at the recent annual conference that the '4TheMembers' group, ie right-wing, will be standing Rob Bryson. To call him a 'lightweight' would be an insult to lightweights. A confirmed 'reds under the bed' paranoia merchant.

 

[ViolentPanda]

According to the Certification Officer, last year he earned £82,094 salary, £26,104 pensions contributions, £2,245 additional housing cost allowance and additional housing cost supplement.

However, although he earned that officially, it obviously doesn't say how much he donated to the strike fund or anyone else.

As for the election, what I have heard is pretty much what it says on Wikipedia. The right wing tried to stop Serwotka standing by bringing in a new threshold rule. When it backfired and the rightwing candidate was prevented from standing, he tried to claim the new rule was against the rules.

Yep, "Private Eye" ran this (along with the usual schoolboy remarks the come out with whenever faced with a comedy gold name like "Reamsbottom") as it was happening.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

So why doesn't Mark Serwotka still take a workers wage by giving money back?

Why don't the NEC change the rules so that union officials are on a workers wage?

The Tories will attack the whole of the public sector in a brutal fashion. I think that in areas such as the civil service some of the attacks will be harder to fight given there is now a two tier workforce as regards to pensions. If they attack the rights of the workers who have the better pension I would think it would be almost impossible to get a united struggle against it.

I agree that people can make mistakes and it is good that people have said so on here. It is right to say that it is easy to shout sell out at every turn, but given the mistakes that people made about Serwotka they should also think about shouting people down for being what they would see as fantasists. People on here are criticising the Independent Left, but maybe they should also give them some credit because if it wasn't for them the PCS would have had a Blairite as the general secretary.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Yes and I disagree.

I note that you haven't replied to my points about SC. Any reason?

I am not a PCS member but I know people who are in IL and trust their judgement that LU panders too much to the right of the union.

That they got it so badly wrong on Serwotka is indicative of an arrogance and hostility towards other left forces that I have seen all too often from the likes of the SP in particular going back to the days when the Militant ran the likes of the CPSA, the LPYS and the Liverpool Broad Left. The SWP are similar flip-flopping between ultra-left rhetoric and toadying to right wing allies, always dissing any alternative groups to make sure there are no rivals to muddy their pitch, for example their opposition to Jerry Hicks candidacy in Unite.

I find it ironic that they are both prepared to make an alliance with Liberal Democrat leading members in steering one of the few left led unions to the right, but both criticise Galloway and Respect for too many concessions to the right and bourgeois politics!

The SWP principled 'left opposition' in Tower Hamlets have now all joined New Labour (or Tories) scumbags, while the SP accept Liberals on their slates in the Euro-elections and call for votes for LibDem and NuLab toerags in union elections against respected socialists.

Yet they have the cheek to claim Galloway and Respect are not principled leftwingers, offering no evidence of any occasion where Respect has made an unprincipled concession. (In fact the only one that Respect has made is one that SR and I raised - supporting the government's Religious Hatred Bill in parliament was an unnecessary concession to get favour with bourgeois muslim groups).

However this has not weakened the resolve of Respect to both stand up to New Labour (as in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham Councils) and favour unity of all left forces whereever possible, as in current developments in Wigan. I just wish that the SP and SWP were half as consistent.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...To mistake practical tactics for some ideal principle, resulting in losing positions which will shape the direction the union can turn in lets down that membership at the very moment they will move further into struggle.
...

'practical tactics' vs 'ideal principle', it's the great conundrum isn't it? But it takes some gall coming from the people who flounced out of the Socialist Alliance because they couldn't get their way over their self-proclaimed right to select their own candidates and debar the rest of the organisation from a say?

What 'ideal principles' were involved in that little tantrum, eh?

 

[Fedayn]

I am not a PCS member but I know people who are in IL and trust their judgement that LU panders too much to the right of the union.

That they got it so badly wrong on Serwotka is indicative of an arrogance and hostility towards other left forces that I have seen all too often from the likes of the SP in particular going back to the days when the Militant ran the likes of the CPSA, the LPYS and the Liverpool Broad Left. The SWP are similar flip-flopping between ultra-left rhetoric and toadying to right wing allies, always dissing any alternative groups to make sure there are no rivals to muddy their pitch, for example their opposition to Jerry Hicks candidacy in Unite.

Interesting all this given Serwotkas open support for Respect.

Yet again you utterly fail to address the points I made about IL. They had NO principled opposition to the Democracy Alliance whatsoever. Their 'principle' was a hissy fit based on their inability to win support at LU copnference for more of the LU seats on the NEC. Ignore that all you wish, ignore their courting opf the right-wing against the LU led NEC aswell... But hey you know best cos you know a few IL members... Well so do I and i'm active in the union....

 

[Fedayn]

So why doesn't Mark Serwotka still take a workers wage by giving money back?

Why don't the NEC change the rules so that union officials are on a workers wage?

The Tories will attack the whole of the public sector in a brutal fashion. I think that in areas such as the civil service some of the attacks will be harder to fight given there is now a two tier workforce as regards to pensions. If they attack the rights of the workers who have the better pension I would think it would be almost impossible to get a united struggle against it.

I agree that people can make mistakes and it is good that people have said so on here. It is right to say that it is easy to shout sell out at every turn, but given the mistakes that people made about Serwotka they should also think about shouting people down for being what they would see as fantasists. People on here are criticising the Independent Left, but maybe they should also give them some credit because if it wasn't for them the PCS would have had a Blairite as the general secretary.

I can criticise them for many reasons, such as their behaviour in the union i'm an active member of.

Which 'Blairite' would that be then?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

You said that only the Socialist Organisers or Independent Lefts supported Serwotka and the rest supported a Blairite for tactical reasons.

I'm not saying don't criticise them, but at least they should get some credit because if it wasn't for them then you'd have a Blairite as your general secretary.

Anyone know why MS no longer takes the workers wage? Or why the NEC hasn't put union officials on a workers wage?

Also have they made all union positions elected?

 

[Fedayn]

You said that only the Socialist Organisers or Independent Lefts supported Serwotka and the rest supported a Blairite for tactical reasons.

I'm not saying don't criticise them, but at least they should get some credit because if it wasn't for them then you'd have a Blairite as your general secretary.

Anyone know why MS no longer takes the workers wage? Or why the NEC hasn't put union officials on a workers wage?

Also have they made all union positions elected?

Lanning may be many things but he's no Blairite. I can't recall calling him one neither. Reamsbottom however was/is a confirmed fan of Mr Blair. It was as sucvh that Lanning was 'preferred' as the, wrongly, best chance of defeating the Blairite ie Reamsbottom.

Part of the reasons seems to be the protracted debates with the GMB who represent staff. They are on contracts, simply cutting the wages of union employees, who are not elected to stand on a workers wage but are employees isn't as simple as that. There's also the point that not everyone stands on a weorkers wage, bit difficult to then force them onto it.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Another poster called him a Blairite, I don't know one way or the other. But either way the Independent Left surely deserve some credit because without them you wouldn't have an out and out socialist as your general secretary, you'd have Lanning.

Surely the union can say that it wants all positions to be elected an all officals on a workers wage? If people don't then want to go for those positions because of the wages that's up to them.

 

[Fedayn]

Another poster called him a Blairite, I don't know one way or the other. But either way the Independent Left surely deserve some credit because without them you wouldn't have an out and out socialist as your general secretary, you'd have Lanning.

Surely the union can say that it wants all positions to be elected an all officals on a workers wage? If people don't then want to go for those positions because of the wages that's up to them.

Lanning is no Blairite, he's a bit of a twat frankly, but no Blairite. There's a difference between a OPCS employee and a PCS elected offical. I think all reps should be on a workers wage./ But reps have a pay scale, deliberately, designed to 'seperate' them from the members imho. To simply rip those agreements up would be a big battle.
I'd personally like all offocials elected and on a 'workers wage', hopw we get tehre is anyone's guess.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Lanning is no Blairite, he's a bit of a twat frankly, but no Blairite. ..

He's an ex-IS member from the 1970s, but the SWP repeatedly called him a "Blairite" when he stood against Serwotka, even though they nowadays support the alliance that gets him elected. He's also been called a "moderniser" (NuLab speak for "Blairite") and a "careerist".

I believe he's been a full time trade union official since he was a rather more left wing Treasurer of the National Union of Students in the 1970s; he stood against the Clause IV/CP Broad Left and I have distant memories of working with him when he backed an alliance with the IMG against both the Broad Left and the IS/SWP in the NUS. He's moved to the right but not become an out and out right winger. Because he represents the PCS union he takes public positions opposed to the Labour government, but so does Jack Dromey at times. There's no doubt that he looks tolerable against the right wing in the PCS and Serwotka and the majority of the PCS leadership are well to the left of him.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Interesting all this given Serwotkas open support for Respect.

...

Previous "open support" - he appeared at the SWP I-cannot-believe-its-not-Respect conference and in a vitriolic and ill-informed speech accused the majority of the Respect leadership of actions tantamount to scabbing in the dispute with the SWP.

 

[Fedayn]

Previous "open support" - he appeared at the SWP I-cannot-believe-its-not-Respect conference and in a vitriolic and ill-informed speech accused the majority of the Respect leadership of actions tantamount to scabbing in the dispute with the SWP.

He should have said a plague on both your houses frankly.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

The thing that I've never got with the PCS is how big the "left" faction is and how big the "moderate" faction is - and where the rest of us members sit with all of this.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

He should have said a plague on both your houses frankly.

Some quotes from his speech to the SWP's I-cannot-believe-it's-not-Respect conference.


"I have declined to speak to the Respect Renewal conference in London."

"there can never be unity in a party to the left of Labour if people attack and witch-hunt other socialists"
...

"I think, if we understand what we need to do, we can see today as not some desperate position that we all dreaded and we put our heads in the sand and feel sorry for ourselves - we can see it perhaps as an opportunity to get a few things clearer and move on stronger.

And I want to say this to you that I don't think that means, I believe, and I'll be honest about it and I've said it before, that what we've got in this room is the finished article, that this is the alternative to Labour that will take us into pastures new. It isn't the case, and I hope we all accept it isn't the case. But what it is, a vital part of creating that something new."

Socialist Worker's report on the speech, which conveniently translated "Respect Renewal Conference" into "a rally organised by George Galloway":

Guest speaker Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS civil service workers union, said, “We need industrial unity to face the attacks on workers, we need political unity to offer hope.”

He called for public sector unity against the neoliberalism of Gordon Brown's government, saying, “If we believe in policies for the millions not the millionaires, we have to dedicate ourselves to build unity.”

He pointed out that he had declined to speak at a rally organised today by George Galloway. He said, “The happiest man over splits in the left is Gordon Brown. But unity has to be based on open tolerance and accepting difference.

“You cannot have unity in a party to the left of Labour based on those who attack and witch-hunt other socialists.

“We can see today as opportunity to get some things clearer and move on stronger. We stand as Respect but we want unity of those to the left of Labour to give Gordon Brown nightmares to ensure that we can give our children something better.”

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13567

 

[nightbreed]

Why don't the NEC change the rules so that union officials are on a workers wage?

Er.... Breach of Contract? Unfair dismissal? Or are unions outside of employment law?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Well at the very least they could say that all new officials have to be elected and on a workers wage.

 

[nightbreed]

Well at the very least they could say that all new officials have to be elected and on a workers wage.

What if the officials, left or right, said no?

Just like in any workplace a union would object to changes in terms and conditions to employees who are members.

How would this be introduced?

All very commendable BTW but lets be real. How would election of TU officials be introduced?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

In terms of taking the average workers wage, why couldn't you say that would apply to any new employees?

As for being elected, there are already many union officials who are elected. I'm sure it would be possible, as current employees left to gradually wind that structure down and replace it with an structure which only contains elected posts. Why couldn't that happen?

 

[nightbreed]

Two tier workforce?

As Trade Unionists we oppose that dont we?

whats different about a union then?

Just playing devils advocate

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Granted a two tier workforce is not a good thing, but if that was the only way we could get to having all TU officials elected and on the average workers wage, then I'd be for it. I can't believe that the union, if they really wanted to, couldn't make this happen. Starting with the general secretary, who should do it as an example to others.

 

[nightbreed]

the key is to strengthen lay member democracy and participation in the union. Having elected officers and a GS on a workers wage, while commendable, dont make a union left wing.Officers up to the GS have a job of work to do. They therefore need to be managed and made accountable to the lay structures. Thats why the left should argue for the strengthening of the lay structures, the shop stewards bodies, from the bottom up. Officers are to work for the union and not for themselves. Being managed and even disciplined if they dont is more achievable than waiting for individual full time officers to be elected. Besides as members wouldnt we want officers doing what they are paid to do and not spending part of their time campaigning for themselves every few years?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I think having unelected full time officials help set a bureaucracy in place and in reality unelected officals do end up having quite a bit of power.

Obviously we need to build up the decimated stewards structures, but I don't think it's either, or.

I'd rather officials be removed by the membership if they're aren't doing what the members want, rather than be disciplined.

 

[nightbreed]

I dont think you understand my last post. You certainly havent thought it through.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I have, I just don't agree with you.

 

[nightbreed]

I havent given you a position. I pointed out earlier on that Im playing a bit of devils advocate.

I just get a bit confused with the left throwing words like 'election of officers' around without thinking it through.