School strikes over staff safety

You'll have seen the news about the school that went on strike yesterday over 'pupil behaviour'. An impressive seventy staff members attended the NUT / NASUWT picket line of the smallish Darwen Vale High School.


The Head commented that "I am disappointed that the trade unions have chosen to take this action. The vast majority of pupils at Darwen Vale behave well and take their education seriously. We are in discussions with the unions and with the staff around how we can best resolve this situation so that staff feel well supported when they do need to deal with behaviour issues."

For me this totally misses the issue. The staff are *not* taking strike action against the behaviour of the kids, they are taking action against *management* behaviour which has led to any allegation, no matter how flimsy, leading to staff suspensions - more than 6% of staff members over the last year. It's the management eagerness to suspend staff that's the problem, not the fact that a minority of pupils are not well behaved.

While the head talks about staff feeling well supported it appears that she has pursued a policy of consistently taking action against staff members and making it impossible for them to enforce, for example, the no mobile phone policy.

The Independent writes that "The striking staff members claim the arrival of £80,000-a-year head Hilary Torpey has resulted in the sudden deterioration in relations between management and staff." This seems like an important point to me as much of the press are playing up the 'bad kids' angle, but surely the emphasis has to be on the 'ruthless management' part of the equation.

Simon Jones, National Executive Member for the NUT, said:

"Members are taking strike action as a last resort because of the head teacher’s continued denials that there is a problem with pupil behaviour in the school and her refusal to engage properly with staff and unions to find effective solutions to these challenges. Staff and unions have been raising concerns for the last two terms but the Head has rejected repeated requests for earlier meetings to try to resolve this dispute informally.

"We regret that this industrial action is necessary and recognise that it will affect pupils’ education for a day. However we have timed the strike to avoid disrupting any examinations taking place and in the long run we believe resolving these behaviour management issues will benefit all the staff and pupils.

"Negotiations are due to resume after the Easter holidays and it is hoped that further strike action can be avoided provided the Governors take the necessary steps to ensure teachers have the support they need to manage pupil behaviour effectively".

March 26th: a political turning point?

It seems that today saw one of the five biggest demonstrations ever in British history. While most of those protests were against Labour administrations, who didn't take a blind bit of notice, this one makes a nice change in that it is against the Liberal Democrats and their coalition partners, and has the backing of the official opposition (pic tweeted by Richard Mallender).

It seems there could be up to half a million people marching through the streets of London with another substantial demo in the north of Ireland. There was a significant mobilisation on the part of the trade unions but also non-coalition political parties and protest groups.

Ed Miliband addressed the crowd from the end platform despite having written Labour's cuts Manifesto for the last election and Labour councillors up and down the country voting, en masse, for cuts budgets.

In a move designed to annoy the Daily Telegraph UKUncut occupied Fortnum and Masons and there were a number of other peaceful direct actions, mainly against banks, and Anne Summers' windows were smash in a targeted strike against, um... shops? This led some wags to comment that police were looking for "hardened protesters" and that this was the "climax of the demonstration".

However, while the smashed windows seem pointless and, frankly, unrepresentative of the feelings of most of those turning out, the continuing direct action, which led to a number of protesters being arrested despite being completely peaceful, are a real benefit. Unlike the Iraq War march where the focus was simply on size it is very good to see that this protest was not just big, but lively and edgy too, with many people reporting a carnival atmosphere.

The TUC had come in for criticism for taking so long to organise this demo, but part of me feels this turnout is a vindication of that decision. There have been very well attended protests all over the country which have helped build this march and it seems unlikely that had this been called in January, for example, we'd have had anything like this turnout.

It does call into question where we go from here. I've seen various people talking about the next monster demo (and "let's make it bigger", etc.) but this feels slightly unimaginative and disregards the fact  that these protests lend moral weight and confidence to the movement against austerity but cannot, of themselves, change government policy.

Right now, according to YouGov, the majority support the aims of the march (52% to 31%) but in order to get the government to change direct we need a viable strategy that goes beyond moral force. The next step is public sector strike action.

The prospects for industrial action that is coordinated across the public sector seem far closer now than at  any other point in my lifetime. While Thatcher took on unions one at a time this government has taken on the entire country all in one go, banking on the weakness of the trade union movement. For the trade unions this is now life or death, if they let this moment pass without real action they are in danger of being snuffed out of any meaningful existence what so ever.


Of course, if they allow their links to the Labour Party to hold them back once again they will find their members out of work and/or demoralised by the end of this government. Thankfully unions like the PCS are not linked to Labour and are far more free to act effectively. Whether other unions can take the lead with them is another matter - but this march today shows that there is an enormous public mood against the cuts, let's not piss it away.

Sex Workers' and self organisation

In this next installment of the ABC of feminism we have a guest post from Jane Watkinson who takes a look at some of the history of how sex workers have collectively organised to protect their rights.

The sex workers’ movement really took off in the 1970s as sex workers’ within Lyon, France occupied churches in protest against police corruption and treatment against sex workers. The direct action received international coverage, propelled the French Collective of Prostitutes and the English Collective of Prostitutes to form, as well as assisting with the development of many other sex workers’ organisations and collectives around the world.

Whilst sex workers’ organisation has existed for many years, the ‘prostitutes’ right movement’ came into its own in the 1970s; as the fight for sex workers’ rights to be considered with respect and seriousness became more prominent. The 1980s AIDS’ crisis was a double edged sword, as governments provided sex workers and health officials money to help sex workers gain access to preventative treatment and services such as condoms – but it also came with a reinforcement of the negative stigma associated with sex work through legitimising the view that sex workers are the ones who require mandatory testing and health surveillance, not the clients (most likely male).

Furthermore, AIDS funding for sex workers’ organisations has often been associated with an ‘exiting’ strategy. The USA only now provide funding for these organisations on the condition that they advocate for sex workers to exit the industry. This puts a strain on resources, especially given the legal situations of countries such as France where the possession of condoms can be attributed as evidence for ‘passive soliciting’. ‘Passive soliciting’ was introduced in the Domestic Security Bill in 2003 by Sarkozy and has been seen as a human rights attack, as the police often arrest sex workers based on their attitude or dress (even though dress was removed from the legal text after an amendment).

Nevertheless, not all community health organisations have suffered from these conditions. In France, the community health organisations posed in direct conflict with the social workers who took an abolitionist line. Furthermore, in Sonagachi, Kolkata, the sex workers’ AIDS organisation has over 60,000 members, with the Durbah Mahila Samanwaya Committee that runs the project even setting up a civic bank for the sex workers.

Gregory Gall documents sex workers’ organisation. He refers to the development and sophisticated progression of the movement, as the collectives and heath organisations were later complemented by the formation of trade unions for/by sex workers. Whilst Gall refers to the disappointment of sex workers’ unionisation across the world, he states that there have been relative success stories such as in the USA where Lusty Lady’s was unionised and turned into a sex workers’ cooperative. Within the UK, we have the International Union of Sex Workers; however, whilst the union has had relative success affiliated to the GMB specifically in the context of assisting lap dancers rights, it has various controversies surrounding their membership criterion that supposedly allows related groups such as pimps to join. Furthermore, there are concessions that their level of organisation has been limited – reasons for this however are hardly uncommon in regards to the sex workers’ movement at large.

There are problems with sex workers feeling ashamed because of the strong stigma attached to their work meaning they often feel unable to show their faces at protests, covering them up with masks. The laws surrounding sex work do not help with this; our own laws in the UK are a testament to this. Whilst it is legal to have commercial sexual services, there are numerous laws surrounding the industry that make it very dangerous for the sex workers involved to work. This is largely shaped by a ‘moral’ concern for keeping the ‘public’ areas ‘safe’; in consequence sex workers are given ASBOs, pushed into dark unsafe areas and prohibited to work together outside or indoors.

Internationally there are largely calls for decriminalisation of sex work where sex work would be recognised as legitimate work to be considered under existing work laws. There is a strong movements in countries such as France against state legislated brothels, especially given France’s history re brothels and the mandatory health tests that undermine sex workers’ movement and freedom. Regardless, some sex workers’ want brothels, others want designated areas so they can work on the street (managed zones, as designed by Liverpool and as ignored by the Labour government); illustrating the diversity amongst sex workers and the need to provide them space to air their views and arguments in public.

Labour were central to moving the UK closer to a prohibitionist stance. Nevertheless, there are countries such as New Zealand who have adopted a decriminalisation position (influenced by sex workers’ organisation). However, the UK have taken their influence from Sweden and its prohibitionist legal context, as women are treated as vulnerable ‘victims’ said to be in a false consciousness unaware of their experienced ‘coercion’. Sex workers’ organisation is often isolated from the feminist movement as it is polarised by these debates surrounding choice and coercion. Regardless, most feminists and researchers into sex work come to the sensible conclusion that sex workers’ are neither forced or freely choosing sex work – there is a complex mixture of both.

Whilst the sex workers’ movement has come a long way since the Lyon sex workers’ strikes, there are still many obstacles for sex workers to be given the rightful legal, cultural, social and economic recognition they deserve. There are strong moralist forces within countries such as France and the UK that dictate their policies around sex work, making it harder for sex workers to make a living.

However, sex workers’ organisation has illustrated profound resilience. The movement has developed in sophistication and whilst unionisation may not have been as successful as hoped with many unions rejecting sex work as ‘work’; there are real building blocks that sex workers can hold on to and work in correspondence to progressive forces to counteract the negative and moralistic constructions of sex workers that undermine their rights to public space and consideration.

Religious strikes rocks Pakistan

A one day strike rocked Pakistan yesterday against proposed changes in the blasphemy laws Currently those who 'insult Islam' can be sentenced to death and, according to the BBC, this has led to around thirty people being killed. Critics add that the law is used to persecute religious minorities or to pursue vendettas.

Reports indicate that the strike, called by the religious parties and supported by a number of industrialists, had a wide ranging support closing down most major cities and public transport.

The proposals are being brought by Shahrbano Rahman, right, a founder of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan who was present when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Rahman may be a member of the ruling party but she is a strong advocate for human rights and has previously brought the Women Empowerment Bill, the Anti-Honor Killings Bill, the Domestic Violence Prevention Bill, the Affirmative Action Bill and the Hudood Repeal Bill as well as the the Freedom of Information Bill and the Press Act that opposed the arbitrary arrest of journalists.

Her bill seeks to eliminate the death penalty, criminalize incitement, and penalize false accusations. The government has distanced itself from her proposals although the governor of the Punjab Salmaan Taseer has been an outspoken advocate of the reforms.

Protesters demanded the death of Aasia Bibi, right, the first woman to have been sentenced to death under the law (in November), who fell foul of the law for her Roman Catholic beliefs. One leading campaigner said he'd give 6,000 dollars to anyone who killed her.

Since the law was enacted in 1986 1,060 people have been charged under the blasphemy law including 133 Christians, 450 Muslims, 456 Ahmadis and 21 Hindus. While executions are not carried out around thirty people have been lynched due to these prosecutions and it is thought that seven "committed suicide" while in police custody.

Rehman said that it was necessary to “remove the teeth and infamous use of the blasphemy laws, but to understand the way forward for our society, as minorities remain the most exploited members of society... We need to seek out a way of removing these laws from the statute books”.

Politicians like Rehman, whose Parliamentary track record is excellent, are fighting a dangerous battle to try to push their society forwards. She'll be more than aware of the murderous track record of the religious forces and the military that are ranged against her - but yet she carries on anyway because of a deep commitment to human rights.

It's a shame that her struggle has not received more attention in the Western press, because Pakistan is a central political player on the global stage. Arguably anyway that Pakistan tips could see whole sections of the world follow. If they are moving forwards on women's rights, religious freedom and against corruption then it could potentially help those in other nations who are also engaged in those struggles.

Unite's union general secretary results

Derek has posted the results for the General Secretary election for Unite and amazing reading they make too.

Between them the two leading left candidates achieved more than 63% of the vote and Gail Cartmail (who I saw speak at a Keep the NHS Public meeting last week where she called for an insurrection!) managed a good 16.4% despite receiving an almost blanket refusal on the part of the press to acknowledge she was even running.

The winner, Len McCluskey, is a Labour Party member backed by the United Left, while runner-up Hicks ran on a take back the union ticket and is well to the left of Labour. It's a new position when union members are deciding which brand of left they want to represent them, particularly when that union is a 'super union' with one and a half million members.

Results:

McCluskey	42.4%
Hicks	21.8%
Baylis	19.3%
Cartmail	16.4%

You can read the candidate statements here.

Of the four only one candidate was from the right of Unite, Baylis, who entered the election as a favourite to win, is a 'respectable' in favour of a 'service union' and generally opposes strike action. The fact that he polled so poorly indicates that there may be real shifts taking place inside of the union.

Brian Coleman: worst chair of fire authority ever

Further to my post earlier, as fire fighters protested outside today's London fire Authority meeting London Assembly members quizzed Brian Coleman on the violence against FBU pickets during the recent strike days.

I spoke to an FBU spokeswoman about the protest who told me that "the lobby was very successful. Around 20 women fire fighters, including Sian with her Queen's Fire Service Medal for distinguished service, leafleted Assembly Members as they went in."

I asked her about the violence on the picket line and she said that "The response was so shocking when there were two arrests for the violence, but no pickets, yet we're the ones being accused of violence. The Fire Authority has a duty of care towards its employees but doesn't seem to care that two people were injured."

When I asked about Sian's case she said that "Sain was suspended for bullying and harassment just before she was due to attend an Armistice Day memorial service in uniform. Yet there's a double standard here because normally if there are accusations like this people continue to work, although they might be moved, but they've taken Sian off duty.

"Sian has a long record of history of supporting other women fire fighters so to accuse her of harassment when she has stuck up for so many others is galling. Mind you they weren't able to suspend her before she was due to receive her medal from the Queen, because you don't mess with the monarch do you?"

Assembly Member Darren Johnson asked Brian Coleman in the meeting what action he was intending to take on the violence. Here's the verbatim report of the exchange;

"Here is Brian Coleman's response to the formal question I tabled at today's Fire Authority meeting, requesting an investigation into injuries to firefighters exercising their legal right to strike.

"(i) Question 257 from Councillor Darren Johnson AM (Green Party): Will the Chairman request the Commissioner undertakes a formal investigation, including an independent element, of the following reported incidents during industrial action on 1 November:

"a) firefighter hit by a car at Croydon Fire Station, and withholding of first aid equipment;

"b) FBU London representative and firefighter hit by fire engines at Southwark Fire Station

"And will the Chairman ensure that the findings of such an investigation are published?

"Reply from Chairman: No."

What a disgrace.

Violence against fire-fighters, at fire stations, during a perfectly legal union activity which resulted in arrests (but no suspensions) and he will neither investigate nor publish any findings on these incidents. Brian Coleman - worst chair of the Fire Authority ever?

FBU Defends Sian Griffiths

Last week was a big week for London fire-fighter Sian Griffiths. First she collected a medal from the Queen for "Distinguished Service" and then two days later she was suspended by the Fire Service for her part in the FBU strike.

The heat around the fire-fighters' has been considerable. With picket line violence seeing managers arrested and pickets hospitalised, with the media running stories about fire-fighters refusing to do their duty during the 7/7 terror attacks (stories that would be unthinkable about paramedics, or members of the public) and now the apparent willingness to target union activists.

Even as talks have started the management are clearly prepared to keep playing hard ball and claim they have suspended a number of fire-fighters. Griffiths chairs the FBU's Women's Action Committee in London and was one of the very first female firefighters recruited in the capital.

Yesterday the FBU held a well attended rally to defend the service from job cuts, loss of appliances and proposed changes in contracts. Their campaign to have Griffiths re-instated is just as import because it's bound up in that movement to defend services, which relies on having a strong union and confident members.

The FBU state that "Female colleagues will be staging a lobby of the London Fire Authority meeting between 1-2pm on Thursday November 18" and I for one wish them good luck.

CSR special: the union responses

As you might expect a Comprehensive Spending Review that intends to cut almost half a million jobs and risks losing half a million more in the private sector has provoked some sturdy reactions from trade unions. We've already seen that UNISON are unimpressed - but what about other unions?

The TUC damns the CSR as a "political project". I certainly agree that "yesterday the government launched a radical programme to roll back public services and sack public sector staff, even if this makes it more likely that the economy goes into reverse" although I'm less clear that "Voters have always rejected policies to make huge cuts to public services at the ballot box" is actually true - people did vote for the Lib Dems and Conservatives, and frankly Labour's policy was always for cuts, just less sharp, less fast.

To be honest it comes across as a Labour press release rather than a union one with it's reference to the ballot box.

Public Sector union PCS (which is not affiliated to Labour) has a much clearer, and less sloppy, approach describing the cuts as cruel and immoral. They put welfare cuts to the front of their concerns saying "These £18 billion cuts are a fundamental attack on the welfare state, targeting families with children, the sick and disabled, those on low incomes, and pensioners."

Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said "This government has no strategy for creating jobs, and is instead demonising those without them - these are the cruel actions of an immoral government with no mandate and no strategy."

Billy Hayes, leader of the CWU who represent postal workers and others, said that "The volume of cuts also threatens to leave parts of the country away from the south east struggling with mass unemployment as public and private sector jobs fall to Mr Osbourne's axe."

He also pointed out something that I'd noticed too; "At CWU we're confused why the Chancellor included a promise on post offices in his address as there is no detail about how this funding would be provided. The network currently relies on £150 million annually from the government to keep rural and urban branches open, but with no detail this is an empty promise from Mr Osbourne."

Education union UCU says that "It is hard to see the rationale behind slashing college and university budgets when they generate massive economic growth for the country and when the alternative is more people on the dole and the state losing out on millions in tax revenues.

"We are appalled to learn that education maintenance allowances are at risk and funding for people who do not speak English is being abolished. The simple message here seems to be 'don't be poor. It's no good the chancellor describing universities as the jewel in our economic crown and then following those warm words up with massive cuts. Every MP with a college or university in or near their constituency should be clear that the cuts will put those institutions at risk."

Firefighters' union FBU have identified "Ten thousand fire service jobs are under threat from government plans to slash 25 per cent from fire and rescue service budgets over the next four years"

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the FBU, said: “These pernicious cuts must be fought to defend public safety. They are not inevitable, but politically driven. The FBU will oppose these draconian attacks on an essential frontline service and robustly defend the key role firefighters play in keeping communities safe.

“We cannot just meekly roll over and accept this. Neither should the employers. Firefighters are professionals – and we won’t stand by and see our service dismantled piecemeal.”

"In announcing the measures in Parliament, Chancellor George Osborne encouraged fire and rescue services to compete for the shrinking pot of public funds. He said that fire and rescue services could “limit budget reduction in return for substantial operational reform”. Measures mentioned include “flexible working arrangements” and “pay restraint and recruitment freezes”.

Matt Wrack commented: “This is pitting one fire and rescue service against another as resources dwindle, rewarding those who drive down pay and conditions and penalising the rest more. It is bullying and divisive.”

The RMT use their frontpage to highlight the various protests that are taking place up and down the country on Saturday (cut and pasted below). Another different tack they chose to take was to attack the rich rather than defend the poor. I like it.

"The “UK Transport Rich List” is topped by Keith Ludeman – boss of the Go-Ahead group – who saw his salary rise by an incredible 35% from £916,000 on the June 2009 figures to £1,240,000 in July this year. Ludeman is responsible for the Southern Trains franchise which recently announced it was axing toilets on the key inter-city route between Portsmouth and Brighton.

"Hot on his heels are Brian Souter from Stagecoach on £762,000 and David Martin from Arriva on £743,635. (A full list is attached.) Company profits show that the big five UK transport operators have posted combined dividends of more than £2 billion since privatisation."

Mr Crow, RMT leader, added "Under this ConDem government the public will be forced to pay through the nose to travel on crowded trains and buses on creaking and unsafe infrastructure while the profits, dividends and top bosses salaries of the private companies are ring-fenced. That is a scandal."

• London: Assemble 11am at RMT head office, 39 Chalton Street NW1 for march to SERTUC rally at Congress Huse from noon
• Edinburgh: assemble 11am: at East Market Street
• Cardiff: assemble City Hall at noon
• Belfast: assemble 1pm College of Art Gardens
• Bristol: assemble 11am Castle Park, march to Bristol City Council, College Green
• Cambridge: assemble noon Parkside Fire Station, rally 1.30pm, Guildhall
• Derby: 'Derby People's Day' , Market Place, noon to 3pm, Speakers, music and street stalls.
• Lincoln: assemble noon at Castle Square, march to rally at Cornhill at 1pm.
• Sheffield: assemble outside City Hall, 12.30

Guest Post: Is Sarkozy setting off a new May 68 in France?

Many socialist eyes are looking jealously across the channel to France at the moment (my photos). Here my regular correspondent on French affairs, John Mullen, the editor of Socialisme International, writes a really useful report on what's actually happening and why.

Class struggle is hitting France in a big way, as Tuesday 12th and Saturday 16th October saw the seventh and eighth day of action to defend retirement pensions. Two hundred and forty demonstrations were organized on each day across France along with mass strikes in transport, electricity, oil, airports, telecoms, education, and the civil service. The unions say there were three and a half million demonstrators Tuesday ; the government say a million and a quarter, but even one of the police staff associations said the government was fiddling the figures.

For the first time, students and school students joined the pensions struggle in large numbers, concerned both about their parents, and that later retirement for older workers means fewer jobs for the young. According to polls, eighty four per cent of 18 to 24 year olds think the strikers are right. “Sarkozy, you're screwed, the youth is on the street,” was the chant in Toulouse in the South West. Two days later the number of high schools involved in the strike had risen from 200 to 700. As young people moved into action, government ministers squealed that fifteen-year-olds were too young to demonstrate and strike, that they must be being manipulated. This from a government whose justice minister recently proposed to lower to twelve years old the age at which a young person can be imprisoned for committing a crime!

The movement is not just a series of one-day strikes controlled by union leaders. Since last Wednesday, daily striker meetings in the most active sectors vote each day on continuing the strike for 24 hours more. Already, all of the twelve oil refineries in France have taken up these “renewable strikes”, half of the country’s trains are not running, and some libraries and school canteens are closed, while in other sectors hundreds of mass meetings are being held to decide on next steps. Lorry drivers have started blocking industrial zones in solidarity with the movement despite the fact that they themselves can retire at 55. One of the leaders of the drivers pointed out that drivers care about what happens to the support and administrative workers in transport firms, who are mostly women, and don’t get early retirement like the drivers do. Dockers in Marseilles have walked out, too and another national day of strikes and demonstrations for everyone is planned for Tuesday 19th.

Union members make up under ten per cent of French workers, though many millions more vote for union representatives as staff reps on works committees, and in polls 53% of the population and 60% of manual workers say they trust unions. The result of low union density is that most workplaces are only partly unionized, so regular meetings where everyone can express themselves and vote on the strike are essential. Such meetings can also make it harder for union leaders to sell out strikes.

Public Support

Public opinion is absolutely on our side - Fully 71% of the population opposes Sarkozy’s “reform”, and that support for the movement rises to 87% among manual workers and routine office workers. A poll last week even reckoned that two thirds of the population thought the strike movement needed to get tougher on the government, while 53% of the population and 70% of manual workers wanted a general strike! This support needs to be transformed into active confidence to strike in those sectors not yet mobilized.

In France, 13 per cent of retired people are living in poverty according to a recent Eurostat survey, as against seventeen per cent in Germany, and thirty per cent in Britain, where neoliberal “reforms” have gone much further. French workers are determined not to catch up to other countries in the poverty stakes. But over the last twenty years, pensions have come gradually under attack. The official retirement age is still 60, but a few years back, despite being slowed by strikes, the government managed to force through an increase in the number of quarterly stamps needed to get a full pension. In 1990, thirty seven and a half years’ worth were enough; by 2012 you will need forty one years’ worth. If you have less than this, they chop a bit off your pension for each year “missing”, unless you retire at 65, in that case you get a full pension. Sarkozy’s new law, just being voted through parliament, adds two years both to the official retirement age (making it 62) and to the age you need to retire at to get a guaranteed full pension (making it 67).

Sarkozy, weakened by disgusting corruption scandals involving his ministers (including Eric Woerth the head of pension reform) over the summer, is desperately looking for his “Thatcher moment”, a moment which has eluded recent right wing governments in France. In 1995 a month of strikes saw off a drastic attack on pensions. And most famously, in 2006, the First Employment Contract, voted though by a right wing government to impose inferior working conditions on young adults under 26 years old, was an unmitigated disaster for the government. After the law had been voted, a massive student movement backed up by the unions forced the Prime Minister into a humiliating climbdown. This happening again is Sarkozy’s nightmare. He has been quoted recently as saying in private “As long as the young people don’t get involved, I can handle the movement against my pension reform.” Traditionally, presidents allow their prime ministers to take the main responsibility for unpopular reforms, and sack them if the movement against gets too strong, but this time Sarkozy has put himself in the forefront, a move we hope to make him regret.

Union leaders and Left parties

You might think that with such levels of public support, union leaders would pull out all the stops for a General strike, but professional negotiators don’t think like that. The main trade union confederations have so far been united about the need for one day mass strikes, which has made impossible the standard government tactic of getting one confederation on their side through minor concessions and using that fact in propaganda to reduce public support for the strikers. But they are not pushing for renewable strikes, and are calling for negotiations, not for the simple binning of Sarkozy’s pension law. The union leaders’ banner at the head of Saturday’s demonstration read “Pensions, jobs and wages are important to society” when it should have read “General strike to beat Sarkozy”! So it’s up to the rank and file to build up to a general strike, though some regional leaders are supporting the idea.

The rock bottom support for Sarkozy in the opinion polls, and the fact that there are only 18 months left till the next presidential elections, has led the Socialist Party to be more active (though far from central) in this movement. They have promised to reinstate retirement at 60 if they are elected in 2012. The Socialist Party today is like the Labour Party in Britain twenty years ago, deeply divided between a Blairite wing who would abandon even weak links with an active workers’ movement, and a left wing who see a mix of parliamentary action and movements on the streets as the best way forward to more social justice. The Blairite Dominique Strauss Kahn, one of the hopefuls for the Socialist Party presidential candidacy in 2012 is presently Director General of the International Monetary Fund, the financial gangsters who are pushing across the world for later retirement and public sector cuts!

The Left reformist “Left Party”, and the Communist Party are actively building the movement, though many activists are being diverted into campaigning for a referendum on the issue of pensions. Since Sarkozy would only grant a referendum if he was terrified by the power of the movement, and if he scare him enough he will junk his reform anyway, the referendum idea is a waste of time. Anticapitalist groups such as the New Anticapitalist Party are completely committed to building for a general strike. Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson for the NAP said “We need a twenty first century version of May 1968.”

So far Sarkozy has been forced to make minor concessions (concerning for example women who have taken time off work to raise children). He has also made concessions in other areas hoping to calm the anger of certain parts of the population - for example an announced plan to cut housing benefit for students was abandoned . And a few days ago, he announced plans to look again at a whole raft of tax cuts for the rich instituted only three years back.

But the main battle is still on. Now the attack has been voted through parliament, the stakes are high - the unions are not negotiating : the new law will stand or be broken. If it is broken, Sarkozy is unlike to survive as president beyond the next elections in 2012.

Divide and rule

All year, Sarkozy has been using classic divide and rule tactics and playing the racist card. Mass expulsions of gypsies and threats to remove French nationality from naturalized immigrants convicted of certain crimes have led to protest movements. Tragically, the passage of a law banning women wearing a “full” muslim veil from walking the streets was supported by most of the parliamentary Left, while the far left remained practically silent, afraid of islamophobic sentiments among its own supporters. These racist tactics have had some effect, and racist attacks are on the rise. A sharp defeat for Sarkozy on pensions could help build a fighting Left which could then roll back some of the Right’s racist ploys, and encourage united action on the radical Left...

The movement is still on the rise, and Friday police thugs attacked high school students in a series of towns across France. In Montreuil, where I live, a high school student is in hospital having an operation on his eye after police fired plastic bullets at students who were blockading their school. In other parts of France, police forced the blockade of oil supply depots Friday.

Only two years ago in 2008, Sarkozy could be heard to gloat “These days, when there is a strike in France, no-one notices. ” He has been made to notice now, and if a rising wave of strikes can kill his attack on pensions, it will be a major step forward in the defence of workers in France, and an encouragement for workers around the world. Already, Spain’s recent general strike and Greece’s mass strikes against austerity have shown that European workers are ready to fight.

Hundreds of Foxconn workers arrested in India

Foxconn is a company that manufactures batteries for Nokia and if the name rings a bell there’s a reason. The company recently came to international attention because of a spate of suicides in its Chinese factories. That debacle found the company making various hallow promises and “pushing workers to sign a non-suicide “pledge.”” Sorted.

Foxconn employs around 2,500 people in India, specifically in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, and their record there is no happier than that in China. In last month's report “changing industrial relations in India’s mobile phone industry,”Good Electronics revealed a catalogue of anti-worker problems.

On page 28 of the pdf we see that Foxconn is paying less than the minimum wage, hiring workers as apprentices then sacking them when they finish their training period, and, as Supply Management point out workers are being kept in the dark about their rights.

Far more damning is the strategic anti-union approach of the company. For example Foxconn sends agents out to hire workers from far off regions, many of which it houses in its ‘hostels’ rather than hire local labour which it deems to be at risk of militancy. Where local labour is hired they are given the hardest most dangerous jobs in order to keep the level of local workers down.

Workers are consistently bullied, unable to refuse overtime or claim their statutory leave.

In summary that well known Trotskyite news source Good Electronics states that "The overall policy of Foxconn shows a preference for temporary workers, to deny right to association and to avoid collective bargaining agreements. Management practices of the company are in line with the strategy of the group of Nokia’s suppliers, creating a vulnerable workforce without the capacity to bargain for their rights."

In the face of these problems the left locally have been working together to put pressure on the government and the employers to ensure workers rights are met. An initial strike on September 23rd of factory workers resulted in a thousand arrests and the sacking of 23 workers at the plant.

This escalation resulted in an 18 day occupation, from September 27th, of over one thousand of Foxconn’s workforce demanding their colleagues’ reinstatement, an increase in wages and union recognition for Foxconn India Thozilalar Sangam (FITS). On Sunday the police raided the factory in the middle of the night and "locked up 320 Foxconn India workers along with CITU state secretary A. Soundarajan and its Kanchipuram district secretary E. Muthukumar in Vellore prison”

The most up to date news reports seem to indicate that they are still being held in prison. You can sign a petition to support them here.

Tube strike a go go

There's a strike on on the London tube at the moment and, despite having a bit of a panic that I might not get home before it starts I've just about survived the horror of having to take an alternative form of transport.

I know that anything that causes mild inconvenience is always treated as a gross affront to our human rights and anyone exercising their actual human rights is to be automatically denounced as selfish and evil -but somehow I still support the strike.

Is it because I'm a godless communist? Well, yes and no. Certainly being a godless communist helps if you're going to oppose the press, the government, the Mayor of London and just downright, globally accepted, common sense. However, there is some common sense on my side too. Allow me to explain.

The rail unions RMT and TSSA (the latter of which is neither run by nor bossed about by Bob Crow) are staging another 24 hour strike against the proposal to reduce staffing levels on the tube.

Transport for London have called the strikes "pointless" because there are no proposed compulsory redundancies and no threat to staff wages. I'm sure TfL bosses don't do anything that doesn't benefit them directly but tube workers are a better class of person. They are striking for safety, not financial advancement - and frankly I'm not the only person who thinks that protecting safety on the tube is far from "pointless".

If this strike wins it will benefit Londoners in an extremely direct way. Not only will the plans to undermine staffing levels reduce customer service on the tube, making life more inconvenient permanently, not just just for one day - it will also directly cost lives. Maybe someone you know, maybe you or maybe a stranger - but lives none the less.

Once again it is the unions that are the only barrier between the interests of the public and the interests of the wealthy. Once again the press and the government will denounce the strikes, and complain that each strike costs us money... but then that's the only thing that has any point for them, and we have the choice to accept or reject those values in favour of something better.

Short on Rights

I wonder if people saw this story where seven actors' unions, internationally, are calling on actors not to take part in The Hobbit films after management refused to recognise union workers. The non-union contracts meant the work force had no guarenteed minimum income or standards at work.

The International Federation of Actors (FIA) which brings together those working on international projects has a good track record of fighting for decent rights of workers employed by the entertainment industry in those nations with poor industrial relations laws.

The union is fighting to ensure rights to cancelation payments to workers hired and then dropped from the production and a minimum wage and rights at work. In response to these reasonable demands the makers of the film have threatened to move production to a country they say will provide less rights to the workforce.

Jackson's statement

In a sneering personal statement, which seems to state he has been giving special bonus payments to non-union actors, film maker Peter Jackson says "It's incredibly easy to wave the flag on behalf of workers and target the rich studios." Cool, let's do that then.

You will not be surprised to learn the statement includes phrases like bully boys, or raises the spectre of a political union, although it was interesting to read that Disney do not use Australia for films in order to avoid their strong unions there. For shame Bambi, for shame.

Less interesting is the way Jackson says he is pro-union then goes on to type a rambling screed on how much damage unions are doing to film making. As Jackson threatens to move production from New Zealand he says "if the Hobbit goes east (Eastern Europe in fact) -- look forward to a long dry big budget movie drought in this country."

New Zealand law

The most crucial point of all though is that Peter Jackson claims it is illegal for him to enter into collective bargaining with a union. If that were right it would mean the focus of the campaign should be against the state not the production at all, and he'd have a legitimate grievance.

So I looked up what the government had to say on this. They say "Unions have a right to represent their members in relation to any matter involving the members' collective employment interests. Unions also have the right to negotiate collective agreements."

In fact reading the Department of Labor website it appears that Peter Jackson's claims are very far from correct because trade unions do have collective bargaining rights and then some. So there we have it, a self serving uninformed whinge about how unions who represent low paid, or even unpaid workers, are bullying the timid little millionaire by asking for their members to be treated with respect.

It seems to me that they have a point, that actors working for Peter Jackson are short on rights and union members ought to boycott the making of the Hobbit until Jackson has a change of heart.

Dave Prentis wins UNISON General Secretary election

As the hyper-cuts budget is announced it would be easy to overlook the election of the General Secretary of one of Britain's largest unions, and one whose members will be bearing the brunt of the public service bonfire. Who leads the union in this crucial time is extremely important.

The incumbent Dave Prentis, who Cameron took the trouble to slag off the other day, won the votes of 67% of the 216,116 people who cast a ballot (14% turnout, which is pretty standard). A fairly ringing endorsement of a union moderate who has been able to make the right noises in the press but has also taken a hard line approach with the left in the union, including some extremely dubious expulsions.

His two challengers were both from the left. Roger Bannister of the Socialist Party won an impressive 20% of the vote and Labour Party member Paul Holmes won the remaining 13% for the 'United Left'.

The result is no surprise given that Prentis was nominated by a whopping 371 branches, 11 regional councils, 7 service groups and the National Executive Council (compared to Bannister's 31 branches and Holmes' 52 branches) but the size of the opposition is significant, as is the fact that it all came from the left of Prentis.

It's also interesting that Prentis has seen his support among members decline from the 77% of the vote he received five years ago, with the left increasing it's share of the vote (last time round Jon Rogers, also a left Labour Party member stood as the United Left candidate).

2010 candidates			2005 candidates
Dave Prentis	145,351	(67.3%)	Dave Prentis	184,769	(75.6%)
Roger Bannister	42,651	(19.7%)	Roger Bannister	41,406	(16.9%)
Paul Holmes	28,114	(13.0%)	Jon Rogers	18,306	(7.5%)
	216,116			244,481

It's interesting that in both elections Bannister was put under a great deal of pressure by the 'United Left' to stand down in favour of their candidates who on both occasions received more branch nominations but less support from ordinary members.

Quite rightly in my view the Socialist Party understood that they had the better placed candidate among members, even if the United Left was able to mobilise a certain layer of branch officers. On both occasions it was seen as the height of sectarianism on the part of Bannister not to step down, and on both occasions it turned out that it was the United Left that was in fact speaking to a more narrow section of the membership.

At no time did the United Left seriously consider stepping down in favour of Bannister despite the fact that such a move could bode extremely well for a more coordinated approach to elections and campaigns at other levels of the union. Such as it is the different cliques of the organised left in the union are still at daggers drawn and will, therefore, remain unable to win a majority influence.

However, the good news is that 32.3% of the union's membership who voted opted for a fighting union that takes on the government cuts agenda head-on. Whether that one in three can be translated into victories in the public sector depends not just on UNISON members but the wider movement as a whole.

Bring on the clowns

We all know that Latin America is a hot bed of Communism. So much so that the very bastion of conservative comedy has been infected. Yes, the clowns are on the march in El Salvador.

The demonstration of one hundred professional clowns and their supporters included fire-eating, tricycling, sitting in the road and, of course, a quick break for prayers was in response to the fact that a man had been shot dead by two clowns after he had refused to give them money.

One banner read "real clowns are not criminals". A clowns union spokesman (yes, you read that right) told Sky News "If the criminals can get hold of police uniforms imagine how easy it is for them to get hold of a clown's outfit."

The union is calling for clowns to be issued with official documents which they can show members of the public to show they are "real" clowns. The clowns are concerned that their livelihoods depend upon the public (like buskers) and that any ill-will shown towards them may cost them their ability to put food on the table.

BA-union negotiations disrupted by direct action

The BBC and the Telegraph report that the union negotiations between the UNITE union and BA management have been disrupted by protesters coming from the Right to Work conference. The BBC have particularly exciting footage which shows quite a few people I recognise from the SWP and at least three of them are employees of that organisation.

Now, I might be taking a wild stab in the dark here but there didn't seem to be a single BA worker among the protesters who'd decided to break up the union's negotiations. If anyone is going to make the decision to occupy their union's negotiations with management it should be the BA workers themselves, and not just one of them but collectively making that decision.

I have absolutely no idea what this is meant to achieve apart from making the strike more complicated for those workers who are already on the receiving end of abuse from media and management alike.

Derek Simpson, one of the union's negotiators tweeted that "Unite totally and absolutely condems [sic] the demonstrators who disrupted the talks at ACAS no member of cabin crew were involved". Now, whatever you think of him that seems to be a perfectly justified position to me.

Unsurprisingly Socialist Worker have a report up already where they unintentionally make clear that no BA worker asked them to disrupt their negotiations and that their key (or should that be only) purpose was in "demanding that activists build solidarity for the BA workers and hold collections to support the strikes."

So that's all about activists demanding things of other activists then without any involvement from the workers who are actually on strike and whose livelihoods are concerned. I don't think this is very cool, in fact I'd say it was the wrong way to help cabin crew win their dispute.

Court's outrageous decision against UNITE

UNITE union members working at British Airways were due to go on strike from midnight tonight but a court has just ruled that the ballot was illegal and therefore the strike could not take place.

What grievous crime had they committed? Ballot stuffing perhaps? Or had they refused to allow a number of no votes because of ticks rather than crosses? No.

The Sun tells us that "BA had argued a technicality that Unite had not "properly complied" with the requirement to "send everyone eligible to vote details of the exact breakdown of the ballot result". The judge said: "I am unable to say it is sufficiently clear that the union took the steps required by law at the time they were required.""

The "exact breakdown" is code for the fact that they had not told their members of the eleven spoiled ballots of the thousands that were cast. Everyone knew the result, these spoiled ballots had no impact on the outcome nor, in fact, did they have any significant interest to members.

Yet this was enough to call off a democratically decided strike action and cost the union thousands correcting the 'error'. On top of the court ruling against the RMT it's quickly becoming clear that the courts are becoming increasingly willing to prevent workers taking strike action even when they have taken a proper ballot to do so.

The right to strike

I was genuinely shocked when attending Radio Four’s Any Questions in Camden on Friday night when Vince Cable, the cuddly face of liberalism, came out in favour of banning strike action - gaining the honour of getting the first boos of the night.

Specifically he said that workers in "essential public services" should not be allowed to strike. He was pressed on it and was adamant that this was what he believed. He seemed to think this meant both rail workers and BA cabin staff, both of whom work for private companies, so it seems they are essential enough to take away thier basic human rights, but not essential enough to take the industries into public hands.

While he doesn't seem to have said this in print (although I haven't scoured the entire internet), writing in the Daily Mail Cable says that "We are back to old-fashioned industrial conflict of a kind that we thought, and hoped, had gone." He compares the strikes to "union militants who once ruled the roost in Britain’s strike-prone industries and helped to wreck them."

I think Cable is making two mistakes here. The first one is that he is simply wrong to say the industrial disputes of 2010 are in any way comparable to the disputes of the 70's or 80's. The scale and quality of the strikes are quite different and since the mid-90's we have seen a dramatic decline in industrial disputes.

The number of strikes days the year before Labour came to power was 1.3 million while in 2009 there were less than half a million strike days. Union membership today is dwarfed by the size of the unions three decades ago. Personally I think we strike far too little and far too few of us are members of trade unions, but that's by the by.

His other mistake though is this fake even-handedness where he says both sides have a case and both sides are at fault - so let's outlaw strikes. This would put the employer in a position where they can run riot over their workforce who would have been completely disarmed, so not quite as neutral as we first thought.

It may have escaped Vince's attention but slave labour was abolished a little while ago and it is a human right to choose not to work. To tell people that they must work, no matter what the provocation, no matter what the justice of your case, is to encourage employers to be intransigent and arrogant beyond anything we normally see in the 21st century.

Industrial action, up to and including strike action is the only bulwark working people have against a dictatorship in the workplace. Employees have to be able to take *collective* action because the employer can take *collective* liberties with the workforce each and every day.

Whilst it's to be regreted that people wont be able to travel by train on the day of the rail strike, if we make strikes illegal we are effectively chaining people to their desks and work stations for the sake of our own convenience. That's a narrow vision because today it's them, tomorrow it's you.

The rail workers and BA staff took a clear democratic decision that it was necessary to withdraw their labour. We should support their right to take that decision even if we don't think they're right on this occasion. However, it seems to me that they are right to strike and I'd recommend reading up on their cases at the RMT and UNITE websites.

Unions and bosses: two cheeks of the same arse?

Nick Clegg is in overdrive at the moment in his anti-union posturing. Yesterday he came out with this little gem in the House;

"Charlie Whelan and Lord Ashcroft are exactly the same. One is the baron of the trade unions, and the other one is the baron of Belize. Both are bankrolling political parties, both are trying to buy seats."

Now, on one level, I wonder if this is part of a new strategy where he tries to diss everyone in society. First he does most of us by going for union members and the rich then perhaps he'll shout "And I hate cats too, bloody animals!" until he's slated every group with any support in the UK.

But more importantly, is it fair to say that Lord Ashcroft is just the opposite cheek of the same arse to Whelan? Are they "exactly the same"? It doesn't seem right to me.

• Ashcroft made his money exploiting people, Unite gets it money from the people it helps.
• Ashcroft is unaccountable to anyone, Unite is democratic and Whelan is accountable to it.
• Ashcroft is anti-union, Unite is pro-worker.
• Unite pays taxs, Ashcroft dodges them.
• Unite is open about it's money, Ashcroft isn't.
  
• Unite contributes to society, Ashcroft feeds off it.
• Unite is unable to influence Labour policy, Ashcroft is Tory deputy chairman.
  

More than that, if either Unite or Ashcroft had offered to fund the Lib Dems he'd have bitten their hands off. Not much chance of that now though now he's made his badly aimed political cheap shot.

Of course, there are problems with rich people using their vast wealth to bankroll parties to ensure society stays just as unequal as it always has been. The problem with union donations does not lie in the principle however.

It seems to me that the unions give millions to Labour and have seen precious little return on their money. Last year there was a survey of Unite members (pdf) which revealed that most unite members did not think the union should fund Labour, nor did most members even vote Labour, only one in three did, not much higher than those who voted Conservative.

There is a question over whether the enormous donations from the unions to Labour represent the will of the members and/or value for money but it's hardly true to say that Charlie Whelan, who is simply following union policy, is "the same" as Lord Ashcroft.

Gove's fantasies about the Labour-union link

Earlier I had an email from Michael Gove, leading Conservative frontbencher. He didn't just write to me you understand, we're not even on first name terms - but none the less I got the benefit of his thoughts on the union strangle-hold over Labour.

Click the image to enlarge.

I so wish this was true.

However, I think it shows how skewed the Tory political perspective is if they can look at the Labour years and see a government consistently bending to the will of the unions. If only.

What is going in UNISON - London?

Was forwarded this by UNISON member MarshaJane on the union's attacks on the left, and thought it was important to pass it on;

DAWN RAIDS AND BANS

The Union showed an even uglier face yesterday morning when a dawn raid was launched on the Greenwich UNISON Office. Not shamed at all by all the evidence that an orchestrated witch hunt has been in effect since June 2007, 6 employed Officials of the Union turned up completely unannounced and took over the office.

When Kaz made the point that the Union acting in this way had deeply upset the office staff he was told "we thought you'd be on your own". Only in the world of the playground bully is 6 verses 1 seen as a fair fight. BUT in fact maybe this is a compliment to Kaz as the Region obviously believes it takes two Senior Officials and 4 "organisers" to replace Kaz.

The Regional Official, Dan Pappiett, had told Kaz on Thursday that he would meet with him next week to do a handover. This was obviously a lie. The officials claim that between Thursday and Friday the situation had changed and that they were instructed by the NEC to take the Branch into administration. No reason was given for the NEC decision, if indeed there was one. Instead, the aim of the raiding party is twofold - Firstly, to send a bullying message but secondly to attempt to uncover evidence to lay further charges, just in case the court cases are successful and also no doubt because the ban was reduced by one year.

On entering the Office, Chris Remington from the Regional Office told Kaz to "disappear sharpish". By midday, the Region had organised the changing of the locks to the office. Most disturbing of all is the obvious collusion with the employer. Two days prior to the raid, Kaz received minutes of a TU Liaison meeting that he had attended. In it, it was minuted that "the Branch would be taken into administration and significant decisions would be taken by the Regional Office ". This was never said at the meeting and was obviously added by the Council following discussion with the Region. The Regional Officers also met with Ray Collingham and Shaun Rafferty (who showed them to the office) yesterday and we are aware that they went to the Town Hall for a meeting which we can only assume was with the Leader and the Chief Exec.

This was a coordinated and vicious action by the Union to the extent that when the office administrator arrived and turned on the Union computer, it turned out that it had been disabled for membership use centrally.

Most disgusting of all is the letter that has gone out to members from the Region stating that the Regions actions are motivated by the interests of the members. The letter says that measures will be introduced to strengthen the Branch - yet members are so disgusted we are only just preventing mass resignations. The letter uses the word "improve" 3 times as though the Branch is not functioning. This was also the mantra from the usurpers in the Branch. What an insult. If so much improvement is needed, how do they explain our results?

But the truth is clear for all to see - by improvement they mean changing the political complexion of the Branch and they want to do this by witch hunts and bullying.

Please do send messages of protest to:

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk

More at Jon's blog.