What's going on on the PCS NEC?

[Nigel Irritable]

..and those who call for more action are denounced for 'posturing'.

Those who conflate every struggle as if they were identical in nature and call for action they know can't be delivered are indeed "posturing". The existing members - ie the people who would have to fight the actual strike - have had their pension rights secured through the threat of coordinated strike action, spearheaded by the PCS. Were the NEC to insist on rejecting the deal they would be very unlikely to win the support of a majority of the membership. If they could somehow win a strike ballot on the basis of rejecting the deal they would be launching the union into an unwinnable strike, with the membership divided and the union isolated. Something which the two SWP members on the PCS National Executive seem to appreciate far more clearly than their organisation. I would be interested to hear your views on why exactly they reached that conclusion?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Do be careful of the sound of stones shattering your own glass, Nigel.

 

[Groucho]

Well, not "denounced", no. But there's a world of difference between recognising that deal is going to cause much trouble in the future, and calling for strikes against that deal that are simply not going to happen.

Strikes were voted for, but they didn't happen because the union leaderships called them off.

Do you think that if the TUC and unions had said... 'no, we are not going to sell conditions for future generations of workers. We do not accept that our children and grandchildren have to be worse off than us on worse conditions. Nor will we accept the division of the public sector into the haves and the have nots. This is classic divide and rule and we reject it. We demand decent pensions for all, including new entrants, including firefighters, including local Government workers. We are prepared to take united action, just as they have in France to defend the public sector. We will maintain the alliance of public sector unions, and will call united action until and unless you back off from your anti-public sector agenda." ..that workers would have said, 'nah fuck off we'll take the crap thanks'. Or even that Civil Servants would have said 'I'm alright Jack, I won't take action for others, the teachers can go to hell. Of course I'll soon be sacked, but at least I've safeguarded my pension.'

Is it that workers won't fight, or that union leaderships won't lead?

 

[Soul On Ice]

When has a recent ballot for action resulted in a no vote? How many requests for ballots have been turned down? How many yes votes for action have been used simply as a bargaining tool without action being called?

I don't have reliable data on these Qs but I venture i. Rarely. ii. Many iii. All too often!

You are right that not many strike ballots have resulted in no votes - but it could be argued that this high rate of yes votes is due to the fact that the leadership of said unions are good at knowing when to ballot and when not to. There's got to be something to be said about that. Tho I accept that it is impossible to know and there could be other ballot requests that were turned down that could have resulted in a yes vote.

On Nov 5th 2004 CS workers struck but also marched. The numbers surprised everyone. At the London rally after 100s sat listening to speach after speach after speach it was opened to the floor. A young worker from the British library - not a member of any group, first ever strike, called for a general strike and the place errupted in applause. There was tremendious enthusiasm for the idea of united action in the run up to the election - after a yes vote action called off. On the day that the PCS NEC decided to call off their strike I was sitting in a PCS meeting with50 or so coleagues. The decision was universally condemned.

this is all well and good but it is important to realise that meetings such as this are not necessariuly a good indication of the feelings of the whole membership. As an FTO I've had experience of a number of industrial disputes and ballots. And it would be fair to say that as an FTO I am generally more cautious about balloting than some of my Trot brothers and sisters.

In the big disputes I've got to say I personally find it diffcult to accurately gauge the mood of the members cos of the size. But in smaller more localised disputes where I work more closely with the members I've got to say my experience has been that left activists from the branch who are not part of the dispute generally seek to use the dispute to get industrial action at any costs. My experience has been that they are invariably bad at accurately guaging the mood of members as they over estimate the strength of feeling in relation to industrial action.

This is not an attack on those left activists, merely a personal observation. I've berrated others for making generalisations that all FTOs are "bureaucratic scum" asnd I'm not about to make generalisations about leftie activists. Many I have dealt with are excellent organisers, hard working and pleasant to work with. It's just ones with the knee jerk "all FTOs are scum" response that I find unpleasant (and often very lazy).

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Do be careful of the sound of stones shattering your own glass, Nigel.

As always.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Because, y'know, when I was writing about people whose posturing let in Ellis, Chambers and Reamsbottom...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I know what you are referring to, and while I disagree it's a legitimate view. So for that matter is Groucho's line here. It's possible to have different assessments at different times as to what is possible and what should be done without assuming that those who disagree are acting out of malice or treachery.

An old Socialist Party pamphlet said the following once and I think it's an important point.

The class struggle does not reduce to a matter of either "escalate" or "betray." It is a poor general who knows only the command to charge. It is also necessary at times to know how to side step the enemy or how to conduct an orderly retreat. So in the mass struggles of the working class it is at times necessary to draw back from battle — when our forces are not adequately prepared or when there are overwhelmingly superior forces arraigned against us. It can be necessary to retreat, to make compromises, to offer concessions, even to accept defeat, in order to preserve what we can for future struggles.

I don't think it quite matches the current situation in the PCS, which I see as a victory if only a partial one, but it does capture a serious flaw in the nature of much far left commentary on trade union and community struggles. It's as if fighting a losing battle is better than pocketing a partial victory.

And by the way Groucho, my question above was meant seriously. Why do you think the two SWP members on the National Executive reached the conclusions they did?

 

[Sorry.]

Because, as I said in a posting above, if it's what you do then the membership comes to the conclusion that you're detached from reality and votes in Marion Chambers, John Ellis and Barry Reamsbottom.

but someone surely has to make the very appropriate criticisms that need levelling at this deal. And I can't see the point of having people on the NEC if they aren't going to do that.

and I don't see how making pertinent criticisms of the deal and coming out against it makes you 'detached from reality'.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

but someone surely has to make the very appropriate criticisms that need levelling at this deal. And I can't see the point of having people on the NEC if they aren't going to do that.

and I don't see how making pertinent criticisms of the deal and coming out against it makes you 'detached from reality'.

It doesn't. Calling for strikes against it does.

 

[Groucho]

Because, y'know, when I was writing about people whose posturing let in Ellis, Chambers and Reamsbottom...

Hmmm. Militant (fore-runner of the SP) had a majority on the CPSA NEC in 1987/8. They were elected because workers were taking action over pay and wanted to fight back against the Tory Govt. But this was in the aftermath of the miners defeat. Unions had been banned at GCHQ. It was in the immediate aftermath of the defeat at Wapping. CPSA was a far smaller union than PCS. Up until 1987 it had been losing members, unlike PCS which has been expanding massively. It seems inconceivable now (in retrospect) that at a time that workers were in retreat CPSA would be able to break through the rot. All credit to the Militant led NEC for trying.

The mood of workers is substantially different now than then. We are in the aftermath instead of the biggest left-wing political movement ever seen on these shores. We have seen the biggest left challenge to Labour in elections than has been seen for many decades. We have seen a general swing to the left in unions, not just one odd little CS union.

The decision by the TUC and union leaders to duck the fight now is reprehensible. I grant that the decision specifically on the PCS NEC was taken in very difficult circumstances, since they feared isolation. However, in accepting the deal, rather than challenging the other unions they have erred on the side of caution. Workers in UNISON, the NUT etc want to fight not surrender to the Government. PCS have put too much weight on unity at the top of the unions where they have their weakest links.

I should make clear that I regard Mark Serwotka as a comrade on the side of the workers, and that I have high regard for a number of NEC members, despite my disagreements.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

All credit to the Militant led NEC for trying.

Up to a point. There were, however, strikes called for that people just weren't interested in, and it didn't help. I suspect however that the union would have swung to the right anyway, it was that kind of time.

Of course any disagreements I had with Mili people were dwarfed by my loathing foer the Duggan/Henson crowd.

The mood of workers is substantially different now than then.

Really? How many big strikes are there? Not many.

Workers in UNISON, the NUT etc want to fight not surrender to the Government.

Do they?

Is it not possible that the reason the NEC people have voted to accept is that they know there's no chance of a successful strike against this deal?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Nigel you also seem to be missing the point.

The fact is that the SP must know that this deal is no victory. It has been listed on this thread what a negative impact it will have in the long run. The government has succeeded in implementing significant attacks on workers rights with no industrial action at all.

Now the SP, as the leadership of the union should be honest with the membership and tell them this. It should fight for a no vote and be clear what would be needed if the membership rejected the deal. It would be a hard struggle.

But I don't accept the PCS would automatially be isolated, who knows how other trade unionists would react to this. Especially the FBU and UNISON.

Otherwise, as sorry says above, you will end up either trying to down play the inevitable negative consequences of the deal or contradicting yourself.

Also I don't accept that a one day strike, in the face of 100,000+ job losses is the best that can be done. This has nothing to do with "posturing" but the leadership being honest about what needs to be done and fighting for it.

As said above, I also find it strange that the SP members in the NUT were arguing in the Spring that the NUT was wrong to call off the strike action. Can you explain the differences between the situation with the NUT and the situation in the PCS?

As for saying that people are traitors or whatever. Don't be ridiculous, no-one is saying that, I just think the SP position is wrong.

 

[Groucho]

And by the way Groucho, my question above was meant seriously. Why do you think the two SWP members on the National Executive reached the conclusions they did?

Because they share your analysis, not mine. That without Prentis etc on board PCS would be isolated and so we had to bank a partial victory.

 

[shandy]

Pamphlet: The class struggle does not reduce to a matter of either "escalate" or "betray." It is a poor general who knows only the command to charge. It is also necessary at times to know how to side step the enemy or how to conduct an orderly retreat. So in the mass struggles of the working class it is at times necessary to draw back from battle — when our forces are not adequately prepared or when there are overwhelmingly superior forces arraigned against us. It can be necessary to retreat, to make compromises, to offer concessions, even to accept defeat, in order to preserve what we can for future struggles.

What I found most disappointing is that the TUs had the gov. on the ropes before the election and could have been hard nosed and elicited a much better deal then.

Post election, this duff offer has been enough to dissipate the dispute, but the outcome is shite - all new workers on the new shit terms.

Please stop selling it as a victory. It's not.

"even to accept defeat" - aw c'mon. Defeat is defeat, unless your troops are playing dead like when Goldfinger tries to take Fort Knox, and they're just playng dead and are about to get up and start shooting.

The real villains are the current (and future) Lords, Dames, CBEs and OBEs at the top of the TUs and not folk like Nigel Irritable and others who I believe are sound when it comes down to it.

My final complaint - if you're in the SWP or SP - duty binds you to defend their decisions - even if they are shit decisions. There's something wrong there.

Yours

Disappointed of the local gov. pension scheme

 

[Groucho]

Really? How many big strikes are there? Not many.

This is precisely the problem. Are we saying that union leaders should judge that there is no mood to strike and so should not call strikes...until there are strikes???

This year we had a simultaneous ballot across UNISON and PCS and education unions. Every union voted in favour. Had the strike not then been called off we would have seen the biggest generalised strike in terms of numbers out since the 1926 General Strike. The only reason it did not happen is because the unions called off the strike.

 

[cockneyrebel]

As an aside I note that the other organised group within Left Unity, the Socialist Caucus appears to have split three ways on the deals. SC involves some smaller left groups and some independents. There are three SC members on the NEC and they appear to have voted three different ways - one for, one abstaining and one against.

There are only two members on the NEC from the SC. One voted against, one abstained. I think you might be thinking about someone who was in the SC, but resigned from it about a year back. She voted for.

 

[Sorry.]

It doesn't. Calling for strikes against it does.

And nodding along while the general secretary tells everyone it's a brilliant deal puts you well in touch with reality does it?

 

[cockneyrebel]

It doesn't. Calling for strikes against it does.

No it doesn't. You might not be able to convince the membership, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. By that rate you'd never suggest anything unless the majority already agree with it.

But if there was strike action it would mean the majority of the membership had voted for it. An an all-out strike by civil servants would have a massive impact. I don't think it would mean automatic defeat at all. Especially as unions like the FBU could well back the PCS up.

 

[knopf]

Nothing much to add, other than that this thread is .

 

[belboid]

You are right that not many strike ballots have resulted in no votes - but it could be argued that this high rate of yes votes is due to the fact that the leadership of said unions are good at knowing when to ballot and when not to. There's got to be something to be said about that. Tho I accept that it is impossible to know and there could be other ballot requests that were turned down that could have resulted in a yes vote.

I was reading an article in, I think, this months Labour Research about the effect of compulsory balloting on strikes. Most of the trade unionists who spooke in te article said it didn't make much difference whatsoever, except in one regard. it showed clearly to bosses that the workforce were behind a strike, that it wasn't simply the stewards or activists who had pushed it, it was the membership. Thus it stregthened their hand in negotiations.

I think that point is an important one - not simply for its obvious meaning, but for its underlying one - that ballots were held, not with the serious intention of calling a strike, but simply as a means of putting further pressure upon bosses.

Does that matter? In one way, of course not - as long as you get the result who cares? And maybe even some workers would be better off, as they wouldn't have lost any pay due to striking. However, there's more to it than that - one of the things about striking, actively seeing your workmates standing together on a picket line, is that it is a massive help in increasing workers self-confidence ion heor ability to take such action - not increased confidence in the FTO's ability to negotiate, but in their own ability to hold the bastards (thats bosses, not FTO's of course ) to ransom. And hence that is something that makes it more likely that they would be willing to take strike action in the future (assuming previous successes of course).

So, in the PCS, had the previous strikes actually gone ahead (and all the evidence indicates if they had they would havre been pretty solid, and had a very good chance of success) the willingness, the confidence of workers to take further action would have been increased.

Tho, of course, right at the top of the unions, most leaders don't actually want their members to be in that positon - they want to maintain that crucial mediating position for themsleves.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And nodding along while the general secretary tells everyone it's a brilliant deal puts you well in touch with reality does it?

No, being in touch with the members does.

 

[dennisr]

No it doesn't. You might not be able to convince the membership, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. By that rate you'd never suggest anything unless the majority already agree with it.

But if there was strike action it would mean the majority of the membership had voted for it. An an all-out strike by civil servants would have a massive impact. I don't think it would mean automatic defeat at all. Especially as unions like the FBU could well back the PCS up.

Cockney, to repeat Nigel's clear points from a single eariier post:
1. Those who conflate every struggle as if they were identical in nature and call for action they know can't be delivered are indeed "posturing".
2. The existing members - ie the people who would have to fight the actual strike - have had their pension rights secured through the threat of coordinated strike action, spearheaded by the PCS.
3. Were the NEC to insist on rejecting the deal they would be very unlikely to win the support of a majority of the membership.
4. If they could somehow win a strike ballot on the basis of rejecting the deal they would be launching the union into an unwinnable strike, with the membership divided and the union isolated.

The thing is Cockney, those PCS lefts have been testing the water and pushing and raising strike action over a series of disputes for a few years now. I would put more faith in thier understanding of the mood on the ground within the PCS at the moment than yours (with its very obvious agenda...). They will know better than you or me about both the mood and state of the union membership and structures - spread as it is across very, very different workplaces. You agreed, a while back, that part of the problem facing the left in the PCS was to rebuild the activist base within the union (that could mobalise/co-ordinate and lead action on the ground). You recognised that this had been decimated in the decade beforehand by the then old right-wing leadership. I think PCS lefts have a good knowledge of the extent to which this has been acheived.

Your arguement that it is important to "try" - to reject the deal, to push for action at any cost would more than likely have the opposite effect (on a membership that is not convinced - and particularly among the very members who were willing to go on strike as they watched others scab) to the effect that you would hope for - The result is more likely tro be one of isolation, demoralisation and disunity. So much for the posturing of a "revolutionary left" leadership in that case... They would be handing the leadership back to the right on a plate. In the desperate desire of some fantasy 'cockneyrebel style' left union leadership to look 'rightous' in a single battle they would set the union membership as a whole back masively in the overall war, proudly leading that membership to clear defeat. Personally i would not call that sort of "leadership" a leadership at all...


Luckily, in my opinion, a 'cockneyrebel style' left leadership is unlikely to get elected in the first place due to its whole approach - the PCS membership may not be completely confident of its own potential power - but it is not daft.

There will probably be some point were a left leadership will have to take a principled stand that their own membership will not be ready to go for, but this deal is not it. The deal is a partial victory - the threat of all out action and the response of the government raises confidence - the concessions on future workers are the very basis of new battles in the future.

 

[belboid]

I think you are missing one of cockers' points there tho dennis - by seeing this decision in isolation from the others PCS have taken. This looks to me like the culmination (well, not culmination hopefully, as that implies an ending) of years of only going halfway, so that there has been little building up of workers confidence in their own abilities, and too much power and influence has remained strictly within leadership circles.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

What is it that the SP and the SWP want from the PCS?

I've just been elected branch organiser for our new branch and have just put out an article (a little bit tongue in cheek) categorically denying that the union had any plans to overthrow the management, replacing it with an anarcho-syndicalist commune chaired by executive officers elected at weekly meetings.

I would like to help make my work place a better place for members and non-members alike and am trying to persuade non members that we are not aligned to far left entities (the stereotype of which is putting a lot of people off joining) and that having a political fund will not be an excuse for people on the far left of the exec to hijack funds for their own political purposes.

I saw it happen with my student union at university where union funds were siphoned off to fund the political ideals of people from another far left movement. It ended up ruining the union in my final year and there were a lot of us who were quite angered at the failure of the union to organise anything to celebrate our graduation because all the money had been squandered.

I don't mean to offend anyone being a sensitive creature but I guess one has to ask what the union is there for:

1) To represent the interests of members

or

2) To act as a front for political organisations

 

[dennisr]

What is it that the SP and the SWP want from the PCS?

1) To represent the interests of members or

2) To act as a front for political organisations

as a branch rep - what do you want to represent?

The arguements on this thread are over HOW best to represent the interests of members.

Your implication is more than a wee bit stupid. i don't think the main reason for people joining or not joining your union branch has feck all to do with a fear of lefties 'hijacking funds' - sounds more like a crap local rep to me...

 

[cockneyrebel]

1. Those who conflate every struggle as if they were identical in nature and call for action they know can't be delivered are indeed "posturing".

Who is doing this? Why are you or Nigel making this point? That doesn’t mean I can’t ask why the SP saw the NUT dispute one way, and the PCS dispute another.

2. The existing members - ie the people who would have to fight the actual strike - have had their pension rights secured through the threat of coordinated strike action, spearheaded by the PCS.

This isn’t actually true. Because of the “flexible labour market” I would guess that most current members won’t end up benefiting from this deal, especially younger workers. And I know it is existing members who will have to fight. That doesn’t mean the SP dominated NEC can’t point out that this deal has some serious flaws. A two tier work force and the fact that future attacks will be far easier to push through. The fact that the government has managed to add five years on to peoples working lives is a major defeat. The SP leadership should be pointing this out and trying to win members over to the need for action against this. Not just say that this is a partial victory and that’s it.

3. Were the NEC to insist on rejecting the deal they would be very unlikely to win the support of a majority of the membership.

So what? At least they would have tried to win the membership over. If the membership won’t accept the arguments, fair enough. But when the inevitable attacks come along further down the line, the membership will be able to see that what the left leadership were saying was right.

4. If they could somehow win a strike ballot on the basis of rejecting the deal they would be launching the union into an unwinnable strike, with the membership divided and the union isolated.

To get strike action the majority of the membership would have to have voted yes, like any other strike. A major strike by the PCS would not be unwinnable. And why do you presume that other unions, like the FBU, would leave the PCS isolated?

The thing is Cockney, those PCS lefts have been testing the water and pushing and raising strike action over a series of disputes for a few years now. I would put more faith in thier understanding of the mood on the ground within the PCS at the moment than yours (with its very obvious agenda...).

My flat mate is a PCS steward and has a different view to you. It is clear that the membership would have been up for more than an isolated one day strike against 100,000+ job losses for instance. And yes I have got an “agenda” I think the SP leadership is getting it wrong. I’m not gonna just criticise them for the sake of it though. But once again, the leadership should take a lead. Otherwise you’re saying that the leadership can only ever reflect the membership, not say what needs to be done and fight for it.

You can throw silly words around like “righteous” etc but the fact is that I don’t think the SP leadership would be discredited for being honest and saying they think it’s not a great deal and should be fought against. If they can’t convince the membership on that, I can’t see that meaning a head long flight into the hands of the right, I’d give the members of the PCS a bit more credit than that.

Far from raising confidence, this deal, in the long run, will lead to a divided work force and further attacks from the government.

I think you are missing one of cockers' points there tho dennis - by seeing this decision in isolation from the others PCS have taken. This looks to me like the culmination (well, not culmination hopefully, as that implies an ending) of years of only going halfway, so that there has been little building up of workers confidence in their own abilities, and too much power and influence has remained strictly within leadership circles.

Agreed.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

1) To represent the interests of members

or

2) To act as a front for political organisations

Thing is, fair Prince, it's quite often the members of organisations as in 2) who are best at carrying out the job described at 1)...

 

[dennisr]

I think you are missing one of cockers' points there tho dennis - by seeing this decision in isolation from the others PCS have taken. This looks to me like the culmination (well, not culmination hopefully, as that implies an ending) of years of only going halfway, so that there has been little building up of workers confidence in their own abilities, and too much power and influence has remained strictly within leadership circles.

Maybe I have... - Although, i think the point about rebuilding the active layers of the union has a lot to do with the resulting approach of the leadership. I think cockers is reading far too much into decisions made from what is IMHO a completely pre-concieved viewpoint.

On your point about building up members confidence there has been a series of one-days + the section disputes, at the moment we have the DEFRA strike - all supported by the leadership of the union - and all this from nothing, nada, zilch a few years ago. Disputes like these will be a key to building confidence and an active membership again, wouldn't they? Cockneys arguement would be to push rejection of the deal and for strike action over this. i would imagine that that the PCS lefts would see this as a mistake - one likely result being the isolation of the left leadership from the membership and isolation of minority of members who went for such action - something that would put back all that confidence and increacing new layers who are volunteering for picket duty and more at the moment, I would think.

The left leadership was initially elected in a union that had faced decades of decay and bureaucratic control by the right over a passive membership - that is changing and I am not convinced of cockney's pre-conceived (and i would say that ironically it is actually demoralised in practice...) view of the PCS leadership.

This is what left unity say - something which has a little bit more weight as a viewpoint than cockers 'one-man at all costs' army: "Overall the lesson learned by young people is not that the unions have sold them out but that the united strength of the unions can protect conditions....The necessity for agreements to be reached on the balance of forces at any given time does not preclude winning further and even better concessions in the future" (originally pasted by cockneyr from the left unity site)

 

[Donna Ferentes]

...since you ask

What the Socialist says

 

[cockneyrebel]

Maybe I have... - Although, i think the point about rebuilding the active layers of the union has a lot to do with the resulting approach of the leadership. I think cockers is reading far too much into decisions made from what is IMHO a completely pre-concieved viewpoint.

To be honest I think it is you who are coming from a totally pre-conceived view point.

You can throw yet more stupid comments around about "one man army" etc, but the fact is you must know that's not what I'm saying. When we met up for a drink did I come across as someone who was saying "revolution now, all or nothing", I didn't think the conversations we had were along those lines anyway.

I've outlined what I'm saying in my last post. And I don't believe the leadership trying to convince the membership that this is not a good deal and that they should fight against it will isolate the leadership from the membership. Indeed in the long run I think it will give the leadership more credibility.