TUC. Would they get your vote?

[nino_savatte]

I didn't say that others were not opportunitistic. I was making the point that Crow is one of a kind. I don't trust Crow though, because I have heard him make public speeches which were so grossly manipulated as to verge on downright lies. Dunno whether I trust Barber either, but that is for different reasons

I think Crow and the RMT are one of the few unions that actually have any principles left.

 

[nino_savatte]

I agree. But it wasn't newsworthy.

How is it not "newsworthy" when Cameron's thin (and predictable) speech to the LSE got coverage?

 

[Guineveretoo]

How is it not "newsworthy" when Cameron's thin (and predictable) speech to the LSE got coverage?

Because Crow didn't say anything "new", so not "newsworthy".

He was merely repeating stuff for the trade unions, which he had already been reported.

His other speeches were not reported because they were in fringe meetings, and the journalists were elsewhere.

I didn't see any coverage of Cameron's speech at all, incidentally.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think Crow and the RMT are one of the few unions that actually have any principles left.

Rather depends on what you mean by "principles".

I believe that the union of which I am a member still has principles.

I also believe that the union for which I work still has principles.

In fact, I believe that every union in country still has principles.

But perhaps we have different meanings of the word?

 

[nino_savatte]

Because Crow didn't say anything "new", so not "newsworthy".

He was merely repeating stuff for the trade unions, which he had already been reported.

His other speeches were not reported because they were in fringe meetings, and the journalists were elsewhere.

I didn't see any coverage of Cameron's speech at all, incidentally.

A lot of other TU leaders "repeat stuff for the trade unions" but you seem to have it in for Crow. Why?

I don't know which union you are in btw.

 

[Guineveretoo]

A lot of other TU leaders "repeat stuff for the trade unions" but you seem to have it in for Crow. Why?

I don't know which union you are in btw.

I don't have it in for Crow at all! I just don't think he is anything special.

I was replying factually to comments which had been made, because I am currently at the TUC and also went to two fringe meetings that Crow was at.

It's none of your business which trade union I am in

Edit - ooh, I notice that you edited your post so that you are no longer asking which trade union I am in, which is what you originally put. My response therefore looks a bit silly.

It is, however, none of your business, nor is it relevant. I was merely making a point

 

[nino_savatte]

Rather depends on what you mean by "principles".

I believe that the union of which I am a member still has principles.

I also believe that the union for which I work still has principles.

In fact, I believe that every union in country still has principles.

But perhaps we have different meanings of the word?

I don't think that "every union in this country" has principles. I think too many of them fight shy of confrontation because they are acutely aware of the anti-unionism in news reportage. Crow and the RMT stand firm, while other unions crumble.

Aye, it depends on what you mean by "principles". I don't think my "meaning of the word" differs from anyone else's or the accept definition of the word in the OED.

 

[Guineveretoo]

One can have principles but avoid confrontation. It used to be called pacifism

Every trade union is built and survives on their principles, including those who have chosen to work in "partnership" with their employers, and have agreed not to take industrial action.

Doesn't make them any less principled, by the accepted definition of the word.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't have it in for Crow at all! I just don't think he is anything special.

I was replying factually to comments which had been made, because I am currently at the TUC and also went to two fringe meetings that Crow was at.

It's none of your business which trade union I am in

Edit - ooh, I notice that you edited your post so that you are no longer asking which trade union I am in, which is what you originally put. My response therefore looks a bit silly.

It is, however, none of your business, nor is it relevant. I was merely making a point

I never asked you "which union" you belonged to. I said "I don't know which union you are in". There's a big difference there. That sort of makes your response look rather silly - non?

I don't have it in for Crow at all! I just don't think he is anything special.

So who is "special" in your mind then?

 

[nino_savatte]

One can have principles but avoid confrontation. It used to be called pacifism

Every trade union is built and survives on their principles, including those who have chosen to work in "partnership" with their employers, and have agreed not to take industrial action.

Doesn't make them any less principled, by the accepted definition of the word.

"Partnerships" are no substitute for having a strong trade union in the workplace. By ruling out any form of industrial action, the union in question is no better than a staff association.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I never asked you "which union" you belonged to. I said "I don't know which union you are in". There's a big difference there. That sort of makes your response look rather silly - non?


So who is "special" in your mind then?

The reason my response looks silly is that you originally said something like "please tell me which union you are in". I thought you were being flippant, so replied flippantly. You edited your post.

Why does anyone need to be special. Bob Crow is only a General Secretary of a trade union and, as such, although a figurehead, he really is not what the union is all about. However much he spouts, unless his membership vote both on the ballot paper and with their feet when asked to do so, he is nothing. As it is, he has been lucky in some respects, because his members don't tend to vote against a strike ballot. Some of them do, however, not vote at all

 

[Guineveretoo]

"Partnerships" are no substitute for having a strong trade union in the workplace. By ruling out any form of industrial action, the union in question is no better than a staff association.

In theory, I agree.

Doesn't make them unprincipled, though.

 

[nino_savatte]

In theory, I agree.

Doesn't make them unprincipled, though.

It does in my book, because it is a compromise that favours the bosses.

 

[Guineveretoo]

It does in my book, because it is a compromise that favours the bosses.

Not necessarily.

Besides, that depends on what the principle is.

This is boring. I am going back out to listen to the speeches

 

[nino_savatte]

Not necessarily.

Besides, that depends on what the principle is.

This is boring. I am going back out to listen to the speeches

Paul Simon - Slip Sliding Away.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What is he then?

Someone you appear to dislike, that's what he is.

 

[nino_savatte]

The reason my response looks silly is that you originally said something like "please tell me which union you are in". I thought you were being flippant, so replied flippantly. You edited your post.

Why does anyone need to be special. Bob Crow is only a General Secretary of a trade union and, as such, although a figurehead, he really is not what the union is all about. However much he spouts, unless his membership vote both on the ballot paper and with their feet when asked to do so, he is nothing. As it is, he has been lucky in some respects, because his members don't tend to vote against a strike ballot. Some of them do, however, not vote at all

I never asked you which union you were in (though I am sure you've told me before and I suspect that it's the union that I once belonged to).

I never said that Bob Crow was "special" either, he just happens to do the things that most union leaders would shy away from: like calling for strikes. Whatever you think about him, he ensures the union has a high media profile.

 

[poster342002]

that depends on what the principle is.

It depends if the "principle" of a union is to accomodate and suck up to the employer at every turn.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Someone you appear to dislike, that's what he is.

This is true

 

[Guineveretoo]

It depedns if the "principle" of a union is to accomodate and suck up tot he employer at every turn.

Quite.

As you have now realised, I was being somewhat pedantic about the words "principle" and "principled" etc. etc.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I never asked you which union you were in (though I am sure you've told me before and I suspect that it's the union that I once belonged to).

I never said that Bob Crow was "special" either, he just happens to do the things that most union leaders would shy away from: like calling for strikes. Whatever you think about him, he ensures the union has a high media profile.

To my knowledge I have never told you which union I belong to, either as a member or an employee.

I apologise if I misread what your earlier post. I'm doing mobile access, innit.

Crow does, indeed, ensure that he and the RMT get a high media profile. Unfortunately, in recent weeks, such profile has not been altogether flattering or positive.

Now I am off to a fringe meeting

 

[nino_savatte]

Crow does, indeed, ensure that he and the RMT get a high media profile. Unfortunately, in recent weeks, such profile has not been altogether flattering or positive.

That's your personal antipathy speaking.

I once complained how, in a previous occupation, I had been bullied and my local branch did nothing in spite of my complaints. I'm sure you claimed to be in the same union as me - NATFHE or UCU as they are now called. Maybe I've confused you with someone else?

 

[urbanrevolt]

I agree......but it ain't gonna happen and never will!

The workers need a 'Chavez' type leader?
I listened to Bob Crows speech yesterday and believe me he ain't no Chavez but he was angry at the injustices he sees everyday and it came across well in the auditorium. Thats what we need, a 'Blood and thunder' speaker who will gird the workers loins instead of this dream like existance of Tesco and mobile ring tones many of us live in today ffs!!

Viva Bob Crow!!!!

If Crow and Serwotka formed a aprty on a fighting program it might be worth something, to intervene in, may be even campaign for.

But how do you know jiggajagga that the rank and file workers never will form their own party- it can and has happened, though never with sustained success, but it is what we should aim for- a working class party to put the working class i.e. the 99.9% tolilers of the earth into power over our own lives.

It will never happen? Well, who knows? May be some people thought you'd never overthorow apartheid, never have all sorts of things. it is a real possibility and one worth fighting for

 

[jiggajagga]

If Crow and Serwotka formed a aprty on a fighting program it might be worth something, to intervene in, may be even campaign for.

But how do you know jiggajagga that the rank and file workers never will form their own party- it can and has happened, though never with sustained success, but it is what we should aim for- a working class party to put the working class i.e. the 99.9% tolilers of the earth into power over our own lives.

It will never happen? Well, who knows? May be some people thought you'd never overthorow apartheid, never have all sorts of things. it is a real possibility and one worth fighting for

Just looking through history shows that ( and I hate to say this) it is the socially unhappy middle classes who bring change. Think of Ghandi ( Lawyer), Marx ( middle class background, married to Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron), Pankhurst ( father a barrister), Guevara ( student doctor at Buenos Airies uni in 1948 ( had to be middle class to afford it)) , etc, etc.

Of course there are exceptions but it is the fact that it is the better educated that see most injustice in the world is it not?

I think am am right when I recall the great sociologist Adorno being asked why the working classes seem unable to rid themselves of their shackles.
He replied " because they are too busy earning a crust, living and dying to think about revolution".

 

[brasicritique]

this thread will reappear next year and the year after as many urbanite prefer talking about change rather than changing if blair was bushs poodle wtf does that make the unions

 

[Guineveretoo]

That's your personal antipathy speaking.

I once complained how, in a previous occupation, I had been bullied and my local branch did nothing in spite of my complaints. I'm sure you claimed to be in the same union as me - NATFHE or UCU as they are now called. Maybe I've confused you with someone else?

You are thinking of someone else.

I don't have a personal antipathy to Bob Crow. He was ousted from the TUC NEC today, by the way. Which surprised me. I am interested in how "the left", whoever they are, respond to that.

 

[treelover]

I have noticed rumblings amongst the liberal middle class about the gross levels of inequality, after all its getting too obvious not to notice, one regularly sees 20'000 pound Lexus sport cars driven by 25 year olds, ffs.


one thing is if there is ever a big riot like the poll tax, there will be plenty of expensive cars for the disgruntled, etc.

(disclaimer, no one is advocating such an action)

Just looking through history shows that ( and I hate to say this) it is the socially unhappy middle classes who bring change. Think of Ghandi ( Lawyer), Marx ( middle class background, married to Jenny von Westphalen, the educated daughter of a Prussian baron), Pankhurst ( father a barrister), Guevara ( student doctor at Buenos Airies uni in 1948 ( had to be middle class to afford it)) , etc, etc.

 

[poster342002]

I have noticed rumblings amongst the liberal middle class about the gross levels of inequality,

Just so long as the proles don't get all uppity and start to do anything about it themselves. The liberal middleclass just want to be able to be in control of what happens in order to ensure it doesn't go "too far" and endanger their own positions of privilege and power.

 

[nino_savatte]

You are thinking of someone else.

I don't have a personal antipathy to Bob Crow.

Perhaps I am.

That's not how you've come across.

You never answered the question "Which TU leader is special". Perhaps I should rephrase that: "Which one, in your view, has the right ideas and the right qualities"?

 

[Guineveretoo]

Perhaps I am.

That's not how you've come across.

You never answered the question "Which TU leader is special". Perhaps I should rephrase that: "Which one, in your view, has the right ideas and the right qualities"?

What I said to which you responded with that question was that Crow was "nothing special". I meant that idiomatically. To translate, I meant that he was not unique or even noteably different from other trade union leaders, at least in how he comes across in the media and at the TUC.

I don't see how my views about different "union leaders" is of general interest or relevance, and it's a whole different thread anyway, since it would have to start with clarifying what we mean by the phrase "union leader", and then go on to discuss whether we meant "right ideas" in terms of principles or politics or just general all round goodpersonness and the same with "right qualities", and then debate the context in which these qualities may be evident.

You seem to be having a bit of a go at me, and I am not sure why. I wonder if you are mistaking me for someone else? Particularly since you thought we had had a conversation about the union for which I work and/or am a member, neither of which I have told you....

I can assure you have no particular or personal antipathy towards Bob Crow. Ask me about any other General Secretary, and I would doubtless be equally negative