Can the forward march of Labour be restarted?

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.

“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.

“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

“But Respect needs to be open and flexible in this situation to any new forces from the Morning Star or the trade union left. It should do whatever is necessary to ensure that new forces have space to make their influence felt. If it can do this it could break it out of its current impasse and open up a new stage of development.
“Respect’s task in this process is to turn the tide of politics back towards the left. Rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. Work with the left in the unions to build an independent pluralist left alternative alongside the struggle to regenerate the unions and rebuild trade union strength and organisation.”

To which I posted a comment to the effect that SR are making two mistakes: i) in not understanding that Respect is not a vehicle around which left unity can be built; and less explicably ii) that SR seem to completely fail to understand the political perspective of the CP.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn't hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?

“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.

“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

SR are utterly self delusioonal if they believe that the CP or any significant left from the unions would touch Respect with a barge. Even were the Political Committee of the CP so minded, and I have no reason to think they are, then the membership would probably not agree to it.

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: "It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else."

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps.

“Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.

“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

SR are correct to highlight the Morning Star conference as important, not least because the CP still able to punch above their weight, and alongside John McDonnell, we also have Ken Livingstone and Jon Cruddas attending. At the deputy leadership hustings at GMB congress last week Cruddas came out in favour of starting to renationalise public utilities.

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.

Migrant Workers To Vote on Strike Action at Roadchef Services

Roadchef’s withdraws five times a day staff transport costing £150,000 per annum to M3 service station with motorway only access and no public transport links

Roadchef's withdraws five times a day staff transport costing £150,000 per annum to M3 service station with motorway only access and no public transport links

GMB Southern Region has given permission for an industrial action ballot to be held for GMB members employed by Roadchef on the service station between junctions 8 and 9 north of Winchester. The dispute is over the withdrawal of coach transport to and from the site for staff from June 9th 2007.

The coach travels from Southampton and picks up at Eastleigh and Winchester to the service station north and the service station south and then back to Southampton. It takes an hour to travel from Southampton to the service station south. There is no interchange between the service station north and the service station south and the only access to these two service stations is from the motorway and there is no public transport links whatsoever. The service operates five times a day at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 2 p.m., 10.p.m. from Southampton and 7 p.m.from service station north back to Southampton. The service is used by over 90% of the 80 staff who are mainly migrant workforce who are mainly from Polandand Portugal. The overwhelming majority of these staff are GMB members. The company has had difficulty recruiting staff to work at this remote service station and had to lay on transport to attract a workforce.

The employers have been threatening to withdraw the service on the grounds that it is costing them too much since February of this year. The staffs have been in a state of uncertainty for almost five months. On the 17th May 2007 the company have given formal notice that the transport service will be withdrawn as of the 9th June 2007. After that date staff will have to make their own arrangements to get to work. Management have offered staff £5.80 a day towards the cost of travelling over 70 miles round trip each day on the motorway. The only way staff can get to work is by road transport and 90% of the staff do not own cars and could not afford to buy and run them since they are low paid workers.

Negotiations between the company and GMB at local level have failed to reach agreement and the union faced with the unilateral withdrawal of the service on 9th June are now proceeding to an industrial action ballot to secure the reinstatement of the essential staff transport. This is because members who are unable to get to work will be deemed to have dismissed themselves.

Gary Cook, GMB Organiser said, "This is a cowardly attack by an already profitable company on some of the most vulnerable workers in the UK on the grounds of reducing the cost of an essential transport service just to boost profits. GMB will defend our members and we will respond to this attack. GMB will get overwhelming support from our members for action to solve their problem of getting to and from work.

GMB want to meet the owners Delek to sort out this problem. We want them to maintain the transport service until we arrive at a solution."

Posties vote for strike.

Postal Workers Back Strike Action
Results announced at the CWU's annual conference in Bournemouth:

Royal Mail Pay:
Yes: 66,064 (77.5%)
No: 19,199

Post Office Ltd (Counters):
Yes: 2740 (73%)
No: 993

Cash In Transit:
Yes: 545 (66%)
No: 283

Postal workers have voted strongly in favour of taking industrial action over pay, in what would be the first national postal strike since 1996. However the union seems to be using the ballot result as a bargaining chip, rather than showing seriousness that they will fight.

According to Deputy General Secretary, Dave Ward: "This yes vote shows absolutely clearly that Royal Mail workers have rejected the company's business plan, the company's leadership and the unacceptable pay offer. Royal Mail leaders say they listen to people; this is the clearest message they have ever had. Royal Mail has to listen and return to serious negotiations."

But he goes on to say: "Because we care about the service there will be no immediate announcement for strike action – we want an agreement – not a strike for the sake of it. So we will give Royal Mail a further opportunity to back-off from their cuts and come back to the negotiating table with a fresh approach."

The dispute is partly about Royal Mail's 2.5% pay offer. A series of walkouts will now be held by about 130,000 CWU members unless new talks can lead to a breakthrough in the dispute. But as Dave Ward points out: "The key issue in this dispute remains the unacceptable cuts in postal services – cuts in postal jobs - and attacks on our members’ terms and conditions. Royal Mail’s plans include 40,000 job losses – later deliveries - reductions in collections – reductions in weekend service. The closure of delivery offices and mail centres – and the destruction of the rural and crown office post office network."

But as I have pointed out before, the underlying issue is whether or not the CWU stands up for the idea of defending Royal Mail as a public service. So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)

All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.

The CWU needs to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to fight. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!

The Royal Mail's plans to respond to market forces, "Shaping the Future" were accepted last year by the CWU. But the inevitable consequences of the scheme are now becoming clear.

Given the liberalisation and competition then management will be determined to stand firm. The posties have a real fight on their hands, and the union's leadership needs to show the required determination. If not then the grassroots activists need to prepare to take the lead themselves.

Why we need the boycott

Some of the discussion about the proposed academic boycott of Israel has missed a crucial point. For example, the Guardian reports it as already having started: “The boycott was launched by the UCU, which represents more than 120,000 academics, at its inaugural conference.” But there is no boycott, only a decision to debate whether there should be a boycott.

The motion was passed with a decisive majority at the UCU conference precisely because of the way it was phrased. The motion requires the union to hold a debate about having a boycott in every college and university up and down the land.


Therefore, those who seeking to overturn the motion in the name of academic freedom are in reality seeking to suppress the debate which is being proposed, and disempower the lecturers from debating the question of Palestine.

What is true is that if/when the union does pass a resolution for a boycott the new General Secretary Sally Hunt has pledged she will try to overturn it with a ballot of all members.

That’s a further reason why activists need to ensure the debate involves as many members of UCU as possible. The very process of having the debate with union members is an excellent contribution to raising awareness of the plight of the Palestinians, and puts further pressure on Israel.

The Jewish Week , a New York newspaper, accuses those advocating the boycott of anti-semitism and quotes Nachman Ben Yehuda, dean of the faculty of Social Sciences at Hebrew University in Jerusalem saying: “What does it mean to boycott the Israeli academy? It means to boycott Jewish professors. We need to put this on the table”


But there is not question of academics being boycotted because of their Jewishness, it is the institutions that are being targeted, because of the exceptional nature of the forty year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

According to Asaf Wohl, writing on the Ynet news site says: “One of the official reasons for the boycott on the Israeli academy is the occupation. Isn’t it ridiculous to hear such criticism from the citizens of a country that sends its army to the other side of the earth just to keep under its colonialist patronage two arid scraps of land in the middle of the ocean? From the citizens of a country that refuses to return Gibraltar to its legal owners? Not to mention its soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

However, the occupation of Palestinian lands is exceptional and unique in the modern world because of the question of the settlements. Israel is seeking to illegally annex East Jerusalem despite the fact that international law is now unequivocal that territory cannot be illegally acquired through conquest, and there are half a million colonists illegally living in the new Zionist towns and settlements in the West Bank.

The exceptional nature of these settlements, the land grab that they represent, and the systematic destruction of the Palestinian economy and civil society that they cause require pressure to be brought onto Israel.

The EU and USA have sanctions against the Palestinian Authority freezing funding, because the elected Hamas government does not recognise Israel. The symbolic issue of Hamas's refusal to acknowledge Israel is considered more important that the actualy existing failure of Israel to respect the territorial integrity of Palestine.

As the governments of the west have no intention of pressurising Israel, it falls upon civil society, and particularly the trade unions, to apply measured and targeted sanctions on Israel. As Kamel Hawwash, the only British Palestinian delegate to the UCU conference wrote in a letter to the Financial Times: "The mere discussion of boycotts took the debate on to the next (and in my view) necessary level. ... I am very pleased with this as a British Palestinian academic and I look forward to following the debate over the coming 12 months. I see the decision of the UCU as an opportunity for Israeli society as a whole and not just academia, to come to a historic realisation that they will only achieve peace and security when the Palestinians have their due rights and there is an independent, confident Palestinian state living side by side with Israel and not inside Israel."

The proposed boycott is in the interests of justice,and without justice there can be no peace.

CWU snubs Johnson

.

I know some of you are getting fed up with the Labour Deputy Leadership election, but it is a significant defeat for the leadership of the postal workers union that their support for the right winger, Alan Johnson, has been overturned by rank and file delegates at conference today. This underlines how the Deputy Leadership contest has allowed some debate in the unions about their future relationship with the Brown government. From what I gather support for continuing the link with the Labour Party is very weak within the CWU, and if there is a large scale strike this year - as seems likely - then pressure may grow to follow the FBU's example and disaffiliate.

This report is from the Morning Star:

CWU delegates in Bournemouth overwhelmingly voted to reconsider the union's decision to support Labour deputy leadership candidate Alan Johnson on Monday.

An emergency motion pointed out that Mr Johnson had failed to support the Trade Union Freedom Bill and the union's campaign against post office closures and had publicly supported Royal Mail's unpopular plans for employee share ownership.

Conference agreed to censure the NEC and instruct it to reconsider its decision to support Mr Johnston in line with the decisions taken at last year's conference and inform the membership of the decision prior to the ballot commencing on June 6th.

South London delegate Bob Cullen pointed out that deputy general secretary Dave Ward had said that he would rather "support a lamppost" than Mr Johnson, who was once the leader of the CWU.

"Let's support the lamppost," he urged delegates.

"If he can privatise what was his own industry, what would he do to others? He has no time for us working people. He should not be considered."

London Divisional representative delegate Martin Walsh branded Mr Johnson "the weakest" of all the candidates.

"He does not support the policies of this union, yet we still support him. That is wrong," he said.

"He walked away from this union, we did not drive him away."

London delegate Phil Walker added that Mr Johnson offered "little or nothing" to the union in his leadership manifesto.

"We have to look at the most acceptable candidate. Let's have another look at them," he said.

"Policy issues should be key to our judgment. Let us get what change we can out of this deputy leadership contest."
London Parcels delegate Paul O'Donnell said that Mr Johnson's nomination sent out the wrong message.


"It's like having a fry up for the bailiffs before they repossess your cooker," he said.

Kent Invicata delegate Sean Tait added: "We can't send divided messages to our own membership. We should make sure the people we support, support us."

Before the voting, CWU general secretary Billy Hayes urged delegates to reject the motion, insisting: "What you're saying is that the NEC is not entitled to an opinion. We are deciding the next Deputy Prime Minster."

The NEC will meet on Tuesday to decide who they will now support.

UPDATE: There is a good online report also in Socialist Worker . They make the point that: "It should be noted that not all the executive had supported Johnson at the executive meeting in question, with three supporting Jon Cruddas."

It is also worth saying that The Morning Star are wrong that Bob Cullen is from South London, he is from Oxford.

Lecturers' union condemns Israel

The UCU Congress yesterday passed 2 resolutions:


Boycott of Israeli academic institutions
This requires the Union to

circulate of the full text of the Palestinian boycott call to all branches
encourage members to consider the moral implications of links with Israeli universities
organise a UK campus tour for Palestinian academic trade unionists
issue guidance to members on appropriate forms of action
actively encourage branches to create direct educational links with Palestinian educational institutions including nationally sponsored programmes for teacher exchanges etc.


European Union and Israel
This requires the Union to campaign for:

The restoration of all international aid to the PA and all its rightful revenues
No upgrade of Israel’s status with the EU while the occupation and human rights abuses continue
A moratorium on research and cultural collaborations with Israel via EU and European Science Foundation funding until Israel abides by UN resolutions


The Morning Star has the following report of the debate:

DANIEL COYSH writes:>.

DELEGATES at the newly formed university and lecturers' union defied their national executive on Wednesday evening and voted for a nationwide debate on whether to support a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

The debate on whether to hold a debate had always promised to be one of the more controversial aspects of the inaugural UCU congress and the hall was packed with speakers, delegates, observers and hacks, hungry for a juicy row.

In the event, most left disappointed. Strong opinions were voiced, but everyone managed to avoid the hysterical smears and name-calling that so often heralds the hijacking of discussion by hard-line Israel supporters.

Although many opposed any demand for a boycott, every speaker was insistent on their support for the Palestinian people and their condemnation of Israel's actions. Opponents of a boycott instead argued on the grounds that such a step was counterproductive, would divide the union or would stifle "academic freedom."

The boycott call was launched in April 2004 by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). It is supported by 60 Palestinian trade unions, NGOs and political and religious organisations.

UCU delegates discussed a motion calling on UCU to circulate the full text of the PACBI call to all branches.

The motion also condemned Israel's 40-year occupation of Palestine and its "denial of educational rights for Palestinians by invasions, closures, checkpoints, curfews and shootings and arrests of teachers, lecturers and students."

Opening the debate, University of Brighton delegate Tom Hickey welcomed growing international condemnation of Israel as an "apartheid state" and detailed the devastating effect of the occupation on the Palestinian people.

"If we do nothing and look away, we make ourselves complicit in it," he argued.

Executive member Mary Davis spoke against a boycott, calling the motion "divisive and disingenuous."

She said that, if the same principles were applied to Britain, then all British academia would be boycotted over Britain's shameful role in the attack on Iraq.

Instead, she proposed concentrating the union's efforts on pro-Palestinian activities, such as stopping arms sales to Israel and supporting the importation of goods produced in free Palestine, such as olive oil.

However, the final vote saw 158 delegates back the motion, with 99 against.

Speaking after the debate, Mr Hickey said that the next step would be to organise a series of regional debates over the next year, with as wide a range of speakers as possible, including academics from both Israel and Palestine.

He stressed that the form any potential boycott could take was up to the union, but he suggested that it could include such measures as a refusal to attend conferences organised by Israeli universities or a ban on joint grant applications with such institutions.

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt, who had spoken out against a boycott prior to the debate, commented: "Today's motion means all branches now have a responsibility to consult all of their members on the issue and I believe that every member should have the opportunity to have their say."

She also pointed out that a previous motion had endorsed an official policy on "greylisting and boycott" by the union's transitional arrangements committee, providing a series of "key tests" which would have to be passed before any boycott could be implemented.

Deputy leadership hustings

.
Last Saturday six of us from Swindon joined the Stop the War Coalition protest outside the Labour Party deputy leadership hustings in Bristol. We were expecting Gordon Brown to be there, but I don’t think he turned up. It is always nice for me to go to Bristol and meet up with comrades who I worked with in the past.

There were about 40 people present outside, and unfortunately the policing was unnecessarily heavy (Peter Hain is Northern Ireland secretary). Although, I estimate only half were members of the SWP, the fact that there were too many Socialist Worker placards and paper sellers gave the impression that it was a SWP protest, which is a bit of a counter productive image to project if trying to have a relationship with the Labour Party, and more than one non-SWP member expressed discomfort about it to me.

The logic of standing against Labour in elections has also seemingly undermined the strategic understanding that SWP comrades had about the Labour Party. As one Asian labour councillor drove past he was castigated in hostile terms for the fact that he had stood on an anti-war ticket to get elected, but was not active in the anti-war movement. This seems exactly the wrong tack to take: he should be encouraged for standing as an anti-war candidate, which is in itself a form of participation in the peace movement, even if he doesn’t go on demonstrations.

According to the report in the Morning Star 250 trade unionists attended the hustings. This seems unlikely to me, I had a chat with one of the stewards from Amicus and had a look at his list, and from that I estimate attendance nearer the 100 mark.

The most unequivocally right-wing candidates, Alan Johnson and Hazel Blears, are both stressing their links with the trade unions, but not calling for any change in policy. Bizarrely, the Shop workers union, USDAW is backing Hazel Blears, seemingly simply on the basis that she is an USDAW member. But USADW also claims that: “Gordon Brown’s … brilliant management of the economy and undoubted leadership skills [show he] is the right choice to build on Labour's achievements since 1997 continuing to build a prosperous Britain and secure a fourth term Labour Government”. Britain’s fifth biggest union, with 360000 members, USDAW is clearly sending a message by backing Blears that there needs be no change of direction. Privatisation and PFI, growing inequality, no repeal of Tory anti trade-union laws, deregulation, attacks on civil liberties, wars of aggression, a housing crisis, and Labour’s vote falling to its lowest ever level are all signs of success for USDAW.

The other deputy leadership candidates are all to one degree or another wooing the activist vote. Hilary Benn has called for new legislation to bridge the pay gap, and improve flexible working rights, and has on that basis been backed by the tiny ceramics union, Unity, which has only 9000 members mainly in Stoke on Trent.

Peter Hain is being backed by ASLEF, BFAWU and UCATT. Hain himself is playing a funny game, both backing and opposing privatisation of the NHS for example. “As a very general principle I believe public services should be publicly provided unless there is a very good reason why not. For instance in Northern Ireland I used the private sector to clear a massive waiting list backlog, and that was absolutely the right thing to do”

Dagenham MP Jon Cruddas is backed by UNITE, the newly amalgamated T&G; and Amicus. Unite joint general secretary, Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector. Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour party's core supporters."

There has been some criticism of UNITE for backing Gordon Brown, and interestingly I seems to have been a decision of only the GEC of the T&G; and not Amicus who agreed to do so: “The Unite amicus section's political committee agreed .. that they would back Mr Cruddas, while the Unite T&G; section's decision to nominate Cruddas and Brown was taken by its General Executive Council.”

Too much can be read into union leaderships supporting Brown, as I wrote back in February : “The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.”

Jim Murphy and the role of trade unions...

What does lurk in the mind of Work and Pensions Minister, Jim Murphy? In his speech today at the TUC’s Disability Conference, he’s states:

"Unions represented many workers in traditional industries who went straight from work onto incapacity benefit. I want to explore whether unions can contract with government to support those on benefit get back into sustained employment.
So I invite you today. Why not use those skills to become providers of welfare to work services? The attributes you possess are invaluable."

According to the logic of Murphy, to be able to achieve the most effective and efficient service, both private and public sectors will need to take a role in providing welfare to work programmes, and that trade unions have much to offer in terms of experience and expertise…..

This amounts to confusion by Murphy about the function and role trade unions play. The role of the TUs is to keep workers in their jobs and not sacked due to “ill-health”. Otherwise to make sure employers provide an environment in which people can work at meaningful jobs where the disabilities that they face are worked around in a practical way and not used as a means of bullying and victimisation.

To quote an oft favourite line from EastEnders: “Er, what’s going on...Jim”?

Union demands no smoking in prison

.

The Prison Officers Association has always been a contradictory beast.

So at their conference this week, national chairman Colin Moses attacked 10 years of new Labour's broken promises, warning Prime Minister Tony Blair that he "should be ashamed of himself."

Moses told delegates that the government had treated the POA with "derision" since it came to power, and he pointed out that Gordon Brown, who had attacked officers' wages, was unlikely to give the union its trade union rights back when he becomes Prime Minister. "Enough is enough. We must demonstrate that this union has a voice and it must be heard. …. We will continue to campaign and we will take our fight to Europe, the government and the TUC. We will join with other unions for justice and fairness."

He also pointed out, in reference to the government's increasing use of the private sector to run Britain's jails, that "public services should not be run for profit."

So far so good, this is normal trade unionism, indeed the POA is backing the RMT initiated national Shop Stewards Network, with its next conference in July.

But the POA also represents those in the front end of enforcing the repressive role of the state, and often has less than enlightened views about prisoners’ rights.

The week POA conference attacked the government's decision to allow prisoners to smoke in their cells once the smoking ban in public places and at work comes into effect on July 1 in England and Wales.

The POA complains that the exemption gives prisoners more rights than prison officers. Staff at Wakefield's maximum-security prison were banned from smoking last year when it became the first to introduce a clean-air policy. Warders cannot smoke anywhere in the jail, but prisoners are still allowed to light up in their cells.

General secretary Brian Caton told conference that prisoners should not be allowed to smoke in jail. "They have broken the law and been sent to prison as a result. That was their choice and they knew the consequences of their actions … Prisons are not hotels and it is wrong that prison staff are being treated like second-class citizens.”


The equation by the POA is entirely false that it is unfair that prisoners can smoke while staff cannot. Staff can nip outside for a smoke, and can go home each day.

It is important that prisoners have as much control over decisions about their own life and welfare as possible, this is necessary for self-esteem. As long as smoking is legal in wider society, then it should be legal for prisoners.

The difficultly is that the shift in social attitudes towards smoking has led to a widespread exaggerated misunderstanding of the real risk of second hand smoke, which has fed into the POA’s attitude. This is the government’s fault as they have colluded in exaggerating the understanding of risk in order to promote an otherwise laudable public policy objective.

The balance struck by anti-smoking legislation itself is correct over this issue, but the way that the public debate was conducted in an atmosphere of moral panic has created an issue of potentially serious friction between prisoners and staff.

Remploy factories to close

It was announced today that 43 Remploy factories will close. Remploy employs 5,000 disabled staff at its factories across the UK, which manufacture a variety of goods for firms. I was sent information regarding the closures as Unite T&G section represents some of the factories meant for closure as well as the GMB. And are also part of the Remploy Trade Union Consortium.

"The trade unions will now seek authority for a national official strike ballot in all 83 Remploy sites. The company and the government have taken no account of the advice given to them over the past 12 months".

What to me is utterly bizarre is the letter that appeared in the Guardian from organisations such as Mencap and MIND supporting these closures. And quite understandably TUs and workers alike are annoyed by this letter especially with the current attacks on welfare benefits and disability.

Whilst I know very little about about the other organisations who signed this letter, I do know MIND and when they say they represent and champion the rights of mental health users, don't believe the hype because they certainly don't listen to the demands and the needs of the very people they purport to represent!
I would be interested to hear what disability rights activists say and their take on this especially the organisation TUDA.

Whatever happened to the awkward squad?

What staggering hypocrisy. Woodley and Simpson have managed to get both wings of 'Unite' to support Gordon Brown, having opposed support for John McDonnel, in the Labour leadership contest. For Amicus it is "a pleasure" to announce its political committee's decision to support Brown, and their choice for Deputy, of John Cruddas.

The TGWU section of 'Unite' it is "proud" to have nominated Brown ( a deision taken by the General Executive Committee) and says it will give him "our full support as Prime Minister in working to tackle social inequality" and, of course, fighting for that all important fourth general election victory!

One again this stalwarts of what was once described as "the awkward squad" are facing both ways at once. Why? Is it lack of courage? Is it stupidity? Simpson says they are supporting Cruddas because he is calling for a change of direction". The joint press release says that Unite wants to see "a move ttowards an agenda which suoorts working people" yet supports a man who wants to press on with public sector "reforms" and the essentials of New Labour's neo-liberal programme.

It says it want to see "a halt to private sector involvement in public services" and NHS cuts, so the blindingly obvious thing to do was support the author of the government's privatisation programme!

It is difficult to see this as anything other than opportunism on the part of Woodley and Simpson. Perhaps they think by supporting Brown they can gain some influence over him. But to union members who are facing the consequences of the government's programme it will look like Turkeys voting for Christmas. In taking such a position they have once again placed the interests of the link with Labour above the interests of their members, and they have let off the hook all those union sponsored MPs who lined up to support Brown.

Interviewed on Radio 4 on their support for Brown, Woodley managed to avoid answering the question about the lack of evidence of any change of direction by him. The Trade Union leaders are going to plead with 'Gordon', of course, more in hope than expectation. The consequence of that will be that he treats them with the contempt that they deserve.

GMB & UNISON act together on leadership

Representatives of the political committees of UNISON and the GMB met in London today to consider the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party.

Following the meeting Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, and Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the GMB, issued the following joint statement:

“The two unions, who between us represent almost 35% of the trade union vote in the electoral college, have agreed to co-ordinate the activities of both our unions around the election.

Both unions will also make nominations/ recommendations to our Labour Party affiliated members who will have a vote in this election.

Both unions will now draw up a list of issues that we will use to assess candidates covering privatisation, equal pay, employment rights, the NHS, public service workers pay and pensions.

Both unions will push for a new direction to enable the Labour Party to reconnect with the electorate to ensure that it can win a fourth successive general election victory.”

Crucial battle in Royal Mail

.
The Communication Workers Union (CWU)’s executive is balloting all members for strike action. If it goes ahead this would be the first national postal strike in a decade.

Interesting questions are raised by the build up to this dispute relating to New Labour's economic neo-liberalism, the failure of the unions to oppose this ideologically, and a new direction in the SWP's industrial policy.

Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward has said “Royal Mail has abandoned our agreed approach in favour of a short sighted Business Plan that amounts to a cost cutting frenzy, reductions in pay and a defeatist attitude towards competition. This Business Plan is designed to fail and demonstrates a real lack of vision by the people running the company”.

The agreed approach that Dave Ward is referring to is “Shaping the Future” by which the CWU agreed a shared framework with Royal Mail for dealing with the impact of competition and automation.

According to the CWU’s account: “a centre piece of the agreement was Royal Mail’s commitment to negotiate change, whilst focusing on higher basic pay and permanently raising the value and status of jobs by April 2007.”

Yet now, according to the CWU: “Royal Mail’s business plan will result in 40,000 job losses, attacks on pension arrangements, closures of mail centres and delivery offices and a reduction in pay for postal workers to ‘the market rate’. It will also result in a reduction and decrease in quality of service for the public. Royal Mail claim that postal workers are overpaid by 30%.”

The union is absolutely right to stand up to management, and should be actively campaigning for a YES vote for a strike.

But there is a need for serious questioning of the CWU’s approach, and how they have ended up where they are.

So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)

All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.

Despite “Shaping the Future” being hailed as a landmark agreement by the CWU, literally before the deal had even been approved by the membership, the Royal Mail management were imposing changes in work practices outwith the agreement, in pursuit of profitability. So why did the CWU recommend acceptance?

The Executive Committee of the union had instructed the union’s leadership to ballot the members for a national strike, and John Farnham, a Postal Exec member claims that the unions leadership failed to carry out the instructions of the EC. This was a very serious situation, but in fact there was no seriousness about a fight at the top and all but one member of the EC voted to accept “Shaping the Future”, including two members who are involved in the SWP’s Post Worker publication. The SWP’s Jane Loftus failed to attend the EC on the crucial day.

According to one of Post Worker’s supporters on the exec, Norman Candy, the EC were aware that the mood of postal workers was up for a fight, but they conceded the strategic arguments over competition and profitability, in exchange for some debatable tactical gains over pay. As a Socialist Worker leaflet correctly explained, management had retreated slightly on pay, but the other "gains" were simply to allow the CWU to continue to organise as before, and an efficiency agreement that might bring more take home pay, but at the expense of jobs.

It seems remarkable then that the CWU exec approved it, and there is some talk that Billy Hayes had shaken hands on a deal with a government minister even before the EC met, which was why the ballot never happened.

But the real issue here is that the CWU needed to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to defend themselves. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!

The role of the left in the union also needs to be examined. The SWP led publication Post Worker (PDF) took no position on the vital vote over “Shaping the Future”. Instead of a clear recommendation for a NO vote, Post Worker published a “debate”, giving most space to NEC members Norman Candy and John Farnan arguing in favour of acceptance.

In the face of the EC recommending acceptance, and no clear opposition coming from anywhere, not a single Royal Mail office voted against the deal.

The rationale behind the SWP’s “Rank and File” papers is that they bring together militants who are prepared to organise independently from the official union machine if needs be. Of course there is always a tension in that any genuinely independent grassroots group may disagree with the position of the SWP – as it did here. The SWP did oppose “Shaping the Future”. But there were several grassroots activists who wanted Post Worker to come out with a clear NO recommendation, and it seems the SWP stepped back from this because it would have meant breaking from theie supporters on the EC.

Over questions of tactics there is room for compromise and manoeuvre. But Post Worker should not have compromised on a question of strategy and principle and no ground should have been given to the idea of profitability and opening up Royal Mail to competition. If they had to break with some of their non-SWP supporters, then so be it. In actual fact, this seems a decisive break with the historical industrial policy of the SWP – but according to the reports of the SWP’s last conference, the industrial section heard no debate about this, although Socialist Worker did report how a postal worker has set up an anti-war groups at his sorting office!!

So the current dispute is a consequence of management pursuing profitability, which the CWU has already conceded in principle. Last year the issue was a bit abstract, and many posties may not have realised how “Shaping the Future” was going to affect them. This time around the issue is not abstract, it is a concrete and immediate threat to jobs, pay and conditions.

The CWU needs to work for the biggest possible vote for a strike, and the left in the CWU needs to consider how to raise the issue of opposing in principle the operation of the market.

This is a chance for the CWU, and the left in the CWU, to recover ground they lost last year.

FBU votes not to reaffiliate to Labour

.
The Morning Star today reports that Firefighters union, The FBU, has voted overwhelmingly to remain disaffiliated from the Labour Party but pledged to return to the issue at next year's conference after "the widest possible debate and discussion."

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said at their annual conference that it would be "premature to reaffiliate now. Rather, we ask for a period of discussion in which all sides can put their view. "Through engaging in such discussions, our membership will be more prepared to make an informed decision," he said. Mr Wrack claimed that disaffiliation has not "excluded us from the corridors of power and has not been as cataclysmic as some expected. We are still engaged in the political arena.

"Our relationship with FBU parliamentary chair John McDonnell operates on a number of levels and he has done outstanding work for this union. Our activists avidly read his parliamentary reports, especially on the trade union freedom Bill.

"And disaffiliation has not stopped us being involved in the campaign for a progressive Labour Party leader - the executive council has voted unanimously to support the McDonnell campaign," he reported.

Strathclyde delegate Jimmy Scott said that "our rulebook states that our ultimate goal is to bring about the socialist system of society. How are we furthering that goal by being affiliated to a party which has demonised refugees who are fleeing from countries that Britain has bombed?

"If we are to bring Labour back from the brink, we need to stand up and declare proudly and unashamedly that we are socialists," Mr Scott said.

Britain's biggest union backs Cruddas

.
Britain’s largest union, UNITE, has pledged support for Jon Cruddas in his campaign to be deputy leader of the Labour Party. I believe that Ed Blisset, influential London regional secretary of the GMB is supporting Cruddas, the GMB as a whole will decide at Congress in June. Tribune has also voted to support Jon Cruddas.

As I have argued all along: The union leaders want influence, and also want a change of direction. They will reason that backing Brown keeps them close to him, and they could maximise pressure on the new PM by backing a deputy leader closer to the unions’ agenda. As has been shown at the last two party conferences, the union leaders are very disciplined (or spineless, depending on your perspective) at sticking to their own agenda, and not supporting left initiatives over Iraq, etc. Cruddas himself has a good prospect of being not the “left candidate” but the “unions’ candidate”, in the same way that Callaghan was for leader. I think those union leaders wanting to pull Labour towards their own agenda may back Brown and Cruddas.

So why does Cruddas suit the union leaders' agenda? It seems many on the left have missed the fundamental dynamic. The Labour Party has institutionally embedded neo-liberalism into its DNA, yet this places the Parliamentary Labour Party in a prolonged structural antagonism with the Party’s base of support within the Trade Unions. Triangulation also means that Labour Policies are not engaged with the priorities of working class voters in safe seats, which leads to apathy, disengagement and even some voting for the BNP.

Despite his background as a Blairite, Cruddas does understand this dynamic, and has spoken against it. In his epilogue to the Rowntree Trust’s report on the far right Cruddas wrote: “The originality of New Labour lies in the method by which policy is not deductively produced from a series of core economic or philosophical assumptions or even a body of ideas, but rather, is scientifically constructed out of the preferences and prejudices of the swing voter in the swing seat. It is a brilliant political movement whose primary objective is to reproduce itself – to achieve this it must dominate the politics of Middle England. The government is not a coalition of traditions and interests who initiate policy and debate; rather it is a power elite whose modus operandi is the retention of power. … … At root the gearing of the electoral system empties out opportunities for a radical policy agenda. On the one hand, policy is constructed on the basis of scientific analysis of the preferences of key voters; on the other, difficult issues and the prejudices of the swing voter are neutralised. Labour have become efficient at winning elections and being in government yet within a calibrated politics where tenure is inversely proportionate to change. As a politician for what is regarded as a safe working class seat the implications of this political calibration are immense. The system acts at the expense of communities like these – arguably those most in need. The science of key seat organisation and policy formation acts as a barrier to a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change.”

Get that: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change” It doesn’t matter whether or not Cruddas is sincere, or whether he will deliver. A vote for him is a vote for a change of direction from New Labour towards: “a radical emancipatory programme of economic and social change”

The importance for the left is that it is the trade unions who are providing the main ideological opposition to neo-liberalism, against private equity, against PFI and in favour of immigrant rights. If the union leadserships and trade union branches and committees send a clear signal that they are opposed to the main thrust of Gordon Brown's agenda than that increases the chance of real opposition to the government.

A Union Ideas Network One-Day Conference

Building Stronger Unions - Organising in the Context of Global Capital

17 May 2007: 10.30-4.30

London Metropolitan University
Calcutta House, Room CS501, Old Castle Street, London E1 7NT

The challenges for unions organising in the context of global capital
* Frances O' Grady, TUC Deputy General Secretary

Global Campaigns: organising along supply chains
* Doug Miller, International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation
* Paula Hamilton, International Transport Workers' Federation

Organising in Europe
* Professor Jeremy Waddington, Manchester University
* Bronwen McKenna, Director of Organising and Membership, Unison

Organising amongst low paid and subcontracted workers
* Professor Jan Wills, Queen Mary, University of London
* Martin Smith, National Organiser, GMB

Union Futures: a new TUC pamphlet will be launched: introduced by Sheila Cohen

To register, contact Debbie Clearly at the TUC on 020 7467 1361 or email dclearly@tuc.org.uk

Union Ideas Network (UIN) is the online website bringing together trade unionists and academics to exchange ideas and information to stimulate debate and support action. Find out more by registering at www.uin.org.uk

Cleaners fight back in the City

I work in the borough of Tower Hamlets, one of the poorest London areas. Generally I walk from my workplace, which takes me through parts of East End to the City. One minute poverty the next minute it is transformed to City opulence. The heart of banking and exploitation. While walking towards Lloyds HQ I heard whistling and banners being waved. The lively bunch were T&G; members (with merger between the T&G and Amicus, from the 1st of May the name is now Unite) who are cleaners.

I just caught the tail end of the protest, as a fellow Unite member joined in to offer solidarity and chatted to some of the Justice for Cleaners activists. The company MacLellan is contracted to clean Lloyds yet it is the only cleaning company in London that is refusing to talk to the union. The cleaners earn minimum wage working unsocial hours, no sick pay and basic annual leave. Health and safety is non existent. And MacLellan won't recognise the union and if cleaners have joined the union they have been subjected to intimidation by the bosses.

MacLellan on their website states (using that patronising corporate language):

"MacLellan employees are encouraged to consider the values as part of their daily working lives and employees are regularly rewarded with 'Values In Action' certificates for consistently demonstrating company values".

Gee, how quaint, stick that certificate on the wall of the accomodation you can barely afford. I mean, who needs a living wage, terms and conditions and a recognised union when you have a piece of paper that demonstrates your reward for sticking to company values? These capitalist parasites take the piss! And I am sure their bloated shareholders do very nicely thank-you-very-much out of this utter exploitation.

There is another protest planned soon outside Lloyds HQ. Another is planned at Canary Wharf on the 23rd May 2007 from 3pm and more activities in June. I will keep comrades up-to-date with plans for protests.

(The pics on Indymedia are much much better than mine as it was taken on my rinky dinky Motorola Pebble..)

Tolpuddle Green Camp

Every year the Tolpuddle festival in Dorset gets better. This year the TUC and National Union of Students are organising a course of Trade Unions and the environment between 11th July and 15th July. The course has been developed by the TUC with the support of the Trade Unions Sustainable Advisory Committee.

The course will address how as trade unionists we can promote sustainable policies at work. Workplaces burn energy, use resources and generate waste, and are one of the most obvious places where energy saving can make a big impact. This also has the strength of building upon people’s individual attempts to reduce their carbon footprint, and direct the same approach in a more collective way.

Of course the big day of the Festival will by Sunday 15th when thousands of trade unionists from round the country will gather to pay tribute to the martyrs, and speakers include comedian Mark Thomas, Tony Benn, and they will be joined by entertainment including (of course) Billy Bragg, and Chumbawumba.

To attend the course contact South West TUC on 0117 947 9521.

Even if you don't go on the course, come to Tolpuddle, it is a fantastic day out for any labour movement activist, even better come and camp for the whole weekend.

Labour's priorities: deaths up 25%, prosecutions down 75%.

The building workers union, UCATT , recently published a report
they had commissioned from the Centre for Corporate Accountability

The report was published on 28th April, which is workers memorial day, commemorating workers who are killed at work. In the construction industry alone there have been 80 deaths during the last twelve months.

Remarkably UCATT’s report finds that in a six-year period from 1998 to 2004 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecutions in construction deaths plummeted from 42 per cent to just 11 per cent. The study covered the deaths of 504 construction workers. It often takes over three years following the death of a construction worker before a company is brought to trial and convicted.

So convictions have dropped by 75%, and during the same period work related deaths have increased by 25%.

The worst year for prosecutions following the death of a worker was 2001/2 when just 9 per cent of companies were prosecuted. The conviction rates are far below the HSE’s own research which estimated that in 70 per cent of construction workers deaths management failures caused or contributed to the deaths. Although prosecutions are not always possible a recent HSE internal audit , estimated that prosecutions should occur three times more often than the current reality, creating a target of 60 per cent.

As Alan Ritchie, general secretary of UCATT, says: “The failure of the HSE to prosecute companies who kill their workers is profoundly shocking. The HSE are clearly failing to follow their own rules and guidelines on prosecutions. Serious questions must be asked about why the HSE is so spectacularly failing to prosecute more companies.”

Whether or not there is a prosecution is often entirely a question of whether or not the HSE has the will to do so, which is illustrated by the striking regional variation in the likelihood of a company being prosecuted when a construction worker is killed. It is three times more likely that a conviction will occur in the South West (31 per cent) than in the East Midlands (9 per cent). While convictions rates for England and Wales are both 22 per cent, in Scotland they are only 18 per cent.

Being able to go to work without endangering your life is a basic human right. Yet ten years into a Labour government we don’t see the situation improving, we see it getting worse. As a question of deliberate policy the HSE has fewer inspectors, carrying out fewer inspections, and prosecuting less often.

When enforcement notices are issued then companies ignore them, secure in the knowledge that the labour government will not make the enforcement of workplace safety a priority. To draw attention to this, on 1st May the GMB are calling a protest outside the head office of Marks and Spencer, because M&S;'s supplier, Bakkover Park Royal, has ignored no less than seven HSE enforcement notices, and several workers have been injured.

The yawning gap between the reality of New Labour, and the hopes and aspirations of its working class supporters could not be clearer.

"TUC promotes business benefits of unions to employers"

Call me old fashioned but I was brought up with the notion that building trades unions meant convincing workers to join them, and getting them involved. However, in the wake of the news that union membership has declined by around 100,000 despite all these wonderful New Labour 'union friendly' policies, Brendan Barber has come up with a startling new plan to build up union membership.

The TUC is going to ask employers to organise workers! It saves us the effort doesn't it.

The TUC is targetting non-union companies in "a concerted attempt to convince reluctant employers that, rather than posing a threat to them, union involvement in their workplaces could actually prove to be an asset to their businesses".

"An employers' introduction to trades unions" tells these ill-informed bosses that union reps can settle individual disputes and save them going to time consuming and expensive Tribunals.

Union reps have "a positive benifit on the UK economy", and save days lost though accidents.

Brendan Barber says that over 2,500 companies have realised that working with unions makes sound business sense" chosing to recognise unions. Perhaps it's a slip of the toungue but Brendan "hopes that this marketing drive" will convince more to do the same.

Perhaps somebody should tell Brendan this is not a new idea. The EEPTU/AEU used to approach employers rather than workers to get recognition agreements. The only problem was that the workers were denied the right to chose which union represented them. A small price to pay for a 'partnership' which is directed at achieving success in the global market place, I suppose.

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry.