By Onay Kasab
The Socialist Party has a long and proud record of defending our class. We have been to the forefront in defending jobs, services and pay. It is important that these victories are remembered. They show that we can win, that we do not have to accept a diet of cuts. But these victories also show the importance of leadership and correct strategy. In each bulletin, we will highlight these campaigns and the lessons they have for today.
SINGLE STATUS – A VICTORY FOR GREENWICH WORKERS
In 1997 local government employers signed a national agreement with the trade unions, the Single Status Agreement. National union leaders claimed that the deal was historic and that it would end low pay forever as well bringing equal pay for women. But Socialist Party members in Unison, the largest Union in Greenwich, correctly warned at the time that the agreement would in fact lead to pay cuts. The agreement was not funded, meaning that the employers would equalise pay by harmonising downwards, cutting the pay of men. We also warned that the employers would use single status as an excuse to cut conditions generally.
By 2006 a number of equal pay cases meant that local government employers were compelled to deal with equal pay. Greenwich Council put forward its proposals. They included:
Pay cuts of up to £130 a week
An increase in the working week with no extra pay
Reductions in annual leave
Cuts to car allowances
Withdrawal of overtime pay and enhancements for weekend and evening working
While this was supposed to be about fairer pay for women, even homecare workers, all of whom were women faced pay cuts. The modest car allowance being cut would also hit this group disproportionatly. A car is essential if homecare workers are to see all their clients in the extremely tight time allotted for travelling between clients homes. Incredibly one Labour Councillor said she only cared about women which was why she supported the proposals! Even more incredibly she claimed that anybody paid in excess of £3000 a year was well paid!
Unisons London regional officials, wedded to New Labour and keen to avoid any confrontation with their chums on the Council advised the union branch that it could be worse and that the local Unison branch, Greenwich Unison, led by Socialist Party member Onay Kasab must accept the proposals. This approach was rejected immediately. The Greenwich Unison Branch built mass meetings of Council workers where a strategy proposed by Onay Kasab to fight the Councils attack on its workers was agreed. The campaign included mass lobbies of the Council and a massive publicity campaign with several publications going out to workers at their home addresses. Crucially, the mass meetings agreed to fight the cuts with strike action if the Council went ahead.
The campaign agreed to reject “concession bargaining” and instead agreed the slogan “Not a single penny from a single member”. The branch agreed to make the old trade union tradition “United We Stand” a reality. The concession bargaining approach would have led to negotiating the rate of pay to be cut or the numbers of staff to have their pay cut. In a number of other Councils this approach has led to unions claiming a victory when the number of staff to have their pay cut has been reduced. But in Greenwich the approach was different. In Greenwich the approach was to protect every member. This approach united manual and clerical staff, men and women. This approach scared the national union leadership who feared it could spread. The level of paranoia was illustrated by threats from the union to discipline Onay Kasab for using the slogan “Not a penny from our pay, nor an hour on the day”. This slogan was used by the miners in the 1926 General Strike. By 2007, cowardly union officials decided that it had become a disciplinary offence. National and London Unison officials wanted Onay to act like the TUC did in 1926, where the workers were sold out by the TUC’s so called leaders. Unisons London leaders claimed that some workers would have to lose so that others could gain. Once again this approach was rejected by Onay Kasab. After initially threatening to impose the cuts, the Council eventually backed down. A total 100% victory was won by the Socialist Party led Greenwich Unison branch. The details of the final agreement were:
Immediate grade increases for all manual workers
All white collar job grades to be reviewed with a guarantee of no pay cuts as a result of lifetime pay protection. Many of these reviews have led to pay increases
Overtime payments, enhancements and pay for weekend and evening working to remain. In fact for many overtime rates increased as a result of the increase in the hourly rate following grade increases.
Compensation for past unequal pay. Some workers received lump sums of £17,000
No increase in working hours. The working week was reduced for manual workers from 36 down to 35, the standard white collar working week.
Annual leave for manual workers was increased to match white collar levels
Car allowances were protected for current staff.
Members were allowed to vote on the final proposals. This was in line with the principles of democracy enacted throughout the campaign. It was a major point for the branch that no agreement could be made with the employers without the members agreeing to it first. It is a tragedy that so many union campaigns end badly where negotiators reach an agreement with the employers then try to sell the agreement to the members. This is the wrong way around. It is the job of the trade union to put proposals to the members for agreement, not to agree with the employers beforehand. Another important lesson was that local stewards were involved in negotiations with the employers where the talks concerned their particular department. This ensured that the employers could not misrepresent negotiations to the workers.
This was the best “single status” agreement in the country. But the national union has failed to publicise this brilliant victory in Greenwich, despite the gains made for workers, especially the lowest paid. The reason is because the union at a national level prefers to compromise, which time after time means in reality agreeing pay cuts. But the victory in Greenwich has shown what can be done with the correct strategy and a fighting Socialist leadership.
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 May 2010
School student socialist
From this weeks The Socialist
Thursday 6 May was a very important day for me. Not only was the future of our country being decided, but I was standing for election, as a Socialist Party candidate. Granted, it was only my school mock election, but it was an exciting and, often, nerve-wracking experience nonetheless.
Anna Edgar
I stood as a socialist in this election because, from what I have read of it, the Socialist Party is a party that works for genuine change, unlike the three main parties which are, apart from a few minor differentiations, really the same. Furthermore, I think that the Socialist Party deals with issues head-on, rather than offering only verbal support.
Another reason I was interested in the Socialist Party was probably because of my background - my mum's Russian and grew up in the USSR, so I have heard from her about the positive aspects of the USSR government, as well as the negative aspects which Western media focus on.
As I go to a private school, I never really expected that the socialists would win there. Too many of my school friends have wealthy banker parents, whom the Socialist Party is not particularly well-disposed towards.
Nonetheless, armed with a hastily written speech and a bundle of posters and leaflets (thanks Suzanne) I stood for election.
Despite campaigning by myself and other school socialists, we came fifth out of six parties - followed only by the Green Party. The Liberal Democrats won, with the Monster Raving Loony Party taking second place.
The problem was that not enough people actually evaluated the policies of the individual parties, and made an informed decision on that account.
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed campaigning for the Socialist Party and finding out more about it - and maybe, someday, I'll be standing for election as a real socialist candidate!.
Thursday 6 May was a very important day for me. Not only was the future of our country being decided, but I was standing for election, as a Socialist Party candidate. Granted, it was only my school mock election, but it was an exciting and, often, nerve-wracking experience nonetheless.
Anna Edgar
I stood as a socialist in this election because, from what I have read of it, the Socialist Party is a party that works for genuine change, unlike the three main parties which are, apart from a few minor differentiations, really the same. Furthermore, I think that the Socialist Party deals with issues head-on, rather than offering only verbal support.
Another reason I was interested in the Socialist Party was probably because of my background - my mum's Russian and grew up in the USSR, so I have heard from her about the positive aspects of the USSR government, as well as the negative aspects which Western media focus on.
As I go to a private school, I never really expected that the socialists would win there. Too many of my school friends have wealthy banker parents, whom the Socialist Party is not particularly well-disposed towards.
Nonetheless, armed with a hastily written speech and a bundle of posters and leaflets (thanks Suzanne) I stood for election.
Despite campaigning by myself and other school socialists, we came fifth out of six parties - followed only by the Green Party. The Liberal Democrats won, with the Monster Raving Loony Party taking second place.
The problem was that not enough people actually evaluated the policies of the individual parties, and made an informed decision on that account.
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed campaigning for the Socialist Party and finding out more about it - and maybe, someday, I'll be standing for election as a real socialist candidate!.
BEGIN THE FIGHTBACK!
By Onay Kasab
The general election has produced a Con-Dem coalition that is preparing in turn to condemn our communities to years of devastation. Public services are going to be massacred. Jobs are going to be slashed. No section of the working class will be left untouched, young and old, unemployed or in work, we will be expected by the government to pay the cost of the economic crisis. There is a remarkable acceptance in the media that the budget deficit has to be paid for by us, despite the fact that we played no part in its creation. The economy, and indeed the capitalist system, had to be bailed out to the tune of billions following the greedy grabbing of bankers and financiers who thought of nobody but themselves when looting the finance system for their own personal gain. Now these same bankers are again making profits after being bailed out by the rest of us after their system came close to collapse as a result of their selfish greed. So why should we now pay for the debt left following the bail out? None of the major parties are willing to make the bankers pay. Instead, they are going to force us to pay through massive public sector cuts and job losses. While the coalition prepares to make the cuts, we should not let the Labour Party rewrite history. They made clear when campaigning during the election that they too would be making cuts. In Greenwich the Labour Council is preparing £30 million of cuts. Schools have already begun cutting jobs, care workers are to have their pay cut by £5000 per year, Youth and Play Services face privatisation and libraries face closure. The answer is therefore not to fall for the game of in and out played by the major parties who take it in turn to look after big business while cutting our services and attacking the working and middle class. While those with memories of the viciousness of the Tories under Margaret Thatcher held there noses and voted Labour in an effort to keep the Tories out, all three major parties give the same answer on the question of the economy. Clegg and Cameron have shown just how low they are willing to go in defending there class. The poor and low paid will be hammered while big business will be further protected with cuts to corporation tax. This is clear when you consider the cuts being proposed to welfare benefits. It is a fact that disability for many is accompanied by poverty. Disability Living Allowance is a non means tested benefit that does not impact negatively on other benefits such as Council Tax or Housing Benefit. It makes a huge difference to the lives of disabled people. Now the new government is considering measures to cut the numbers of disabled people allowed to claim it. While unemployment is over 2 million and 500,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a result of public sector cuts the government wants to force the unemployed to work for their benefits. This could mean a 35 hour week on less than the minimum wage. Cuts to housing benefit will lead to poorer families being housed in ghettos of low-rental homes. Even proposals to cut the income tax threshold to £10,000 will not benefit the lowest paid workers who are in receipt of rent rebates or council tax benefit. They will see no advantage as the increased net income will mean more of there income will be taken into account when calculating benefits. In fact some may have to pay increased council tax or rents as a result! The Lib Dems will not act as a brake on the anti working class policies of the Tories. The Tories had planned to cut tax credits for families who earn in excess of £40,000. The Lib Dems believe it should be set at £25,000!
Now is the time to begin the fightback. The Labour Party in opposition can not be relied on to lead a fight. We have already seen that they are just as willing to make cuts. What we need is community campaigns with the involvement of trade unions and those who rely on public services to lead the fightback. The Socialist Party will be at the forefront of this fight against the attacks on public services, jobs and our living standards. We will be building an Anti Cuts Alliance in Greenwich to fight the cuts. But we do need national action. We demand a national demonstration against cuts and attacks on our public services.
The general election has produced a Con-Dem coalition that is preparing in turn to condemn our communities to years of devastation. Public services are going to be massacred. Jobs are going to be slashed. No section of the working class will be left untouched, young and old, unemployed or in work, we will be expected by the government to pay the cost of the economic crisis. There is a remarkable acceptance in the media that the budget deficit has to be paid for by us, despite the fact that we played no part in its creation. The economy, and indeed the capitalist system, had to be bailed out to the tune of billions following the greedy grabbing of bankers and financiers who thought of nobody but themselves when looting the finance system for their own personal gain. Now these same bankers are again making profits after being bailed out by the rest of us after their system came close to collapse as a result of their selfish greed. So why should we now pay for the debt left following the bail out? None of the major parties are willing to make the bankers pay. Instead, they are going to force us to pay through massive public sector cuts and job losses. While the coalition prepares to make the cuts, we should not let the Labour Party rewrite history. They made clear when campaigning during the election that they too would be making cuts. In Greenwich the Labour Council is preparing £30 million of cuts. Schools have already begun cutting jobs, care workers are to have their pay cut by £5000 per year, Youth and Play Services face privatisation and libraries face closure. The answer is therefore not to fall for the game of in and out played by the major parties who take it in turn to look after big business while cutting our services and attacking the working and middle class. While those with memories of the viciousness of the Tories under Margaret Thatcher held there noses and voted Labour in an effort to keep the Tories out, all three major parties give the same answer on the question of the economy. Clegg and Cameron have shown just how low they are willing to go in defending there class. The poor and low paid will be hammered while big business will be further protected with cuts to corporation tax. This is clear when you consider the cuts being proposed to welfare benefits. It is a fact that disability for many is accompanied by poverty. Disability Living Allowance is a non means tested benefit that does not impact negatively on other benefits such as Council Tax or Housing Benefit. It makes a huge difference to the lives of disabled people. Now the new government is considering measures to cut the numbers of disabled people allowed to claim it. While unemployment is over 2 million and 500,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a result of public sector cuts the government wants to force the unemployed to work for their benefits. This could mean a 35 hour week on less than the minimum wage. Cuts to housing benefit will lead to poorer families being housed in ghettos of low-rental homes. Even proposals to cut the income tax threshold to £10,000 will not benefit the lowest paid workers who are in receipt of rent rebates or council tax benefit. They will see no advantage as the increased net income will mean more of there income will be taken into account when calculating benefits. In fact some may have to pay increased council tax or rents as a result! The Lib Dems will not act as a brake on the anti working class policies of the Tories. The Tories had planned to cut tax credits for families who earn in excess of £40,000. The Lib Dems believe it should be set at £25,000!
Now is the time to begin the fightback. The Labour Party in opposition can not be relied on to lead a fight. We have already seen that they are just as willing to make cuts. What we need is community campaigns with the involvement of trade unions and those who rely on public services to lead the fightback. The Socialist Party will be at the forefront of this fight against the attacks on public services, jobs and our living standards. We will be building an Anti Cuts Alliance in Greenwich to fight the cuts. But we do need national action. We demand a national demonstration against cuts and attacks on our public services.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Unison witch-hunt: Employment Tribunal
Trotskyism on trial
From this weeks The Socialist
Trade union activists expect class bias in the courts and employment tribunals. But rarely has a tribunal delivered such a blatantly biased judgment based on class interest. The employment tribunal judge declared open season for the persecution of Trotskyists, whom he considers "unworthy of protection" in a democratic society.
Lynn Walsh
The case of the Unison four is now well-known in Unison and throughout the trade union movement. Their 'crime' was issuing a leaflet criticising the standing orders committee (SOC) for excluding vital branch resolutions from discussion at the 2007 Unison conference.
They were accused of racism and disrespect to the SOC. Subsequently, the four have been suspended from office for periods of up to five years.
As one line of defence, the four took an action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations on the grounds that they were discriminated against as well-known Socialist Party members and because of their Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs. However, the tribunal (presided over by Mr Weiniger) rejected the four's claims on several different grounds.
But the outrageous core of the judgment is that Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs, even if they generally come under the regulations, are repugnant and not worthy of protection in a democratic society. This, in effect, is a declaration of an open season for witch-hunting Trotskyists and other leftwingers in Unison and other unions.
Yet, despite the judgment, the hearings brought to light the full extent of the Unison leadership's manoeuvres. For instance, the judgment finds that the reply of Dave Prentis (Unison general secretary) to a questionnaire from the four "was inaccurate". Prentis wrote that neither he nor other officials were aware of the political beliefs and/or political party membership of those involved in producing the leaflet. The judge found that Prentis and other officials did, in fact, know: "Answers given by Mr Prentis in the questionnaire... were untrue."
Illegal strikes
One reason, according to the ET judge, that Trotskyists are not worthy of respect is that their "principles allow for breach of the law". The four, he complained, are willing to "engage in unlawful strikes" - unacceptable in a democratic society.
Trotskyists uphold all democratic rights: the right to free assembly and speech, the right to vote, and the right to organise in independent trade unions. The historical record shows, however, that these rights were won through struggle, in many cases in defiance of existing laws and in the face of repression.
Recent governments, both Tory and New Labour, have launched an assault on long-standing rights. The threat of terrorism, for instance, has been used to reintroduce draconian stop-and-search laws and unprecedented powers of state surveillance.
When it comes to trade union rights, Britain has arguably the most restrictive laws of any advanced industrial country. Shortly before Christmas, for example, British Airways cabin staff voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against massive job losses and pay cuts, by 92% on a turnout of over 80%. Despite this overwhelming support, a court ruled that the strike was illegal because of technical infringements in the balloting procedure.
This is the equivalent of the infamous Taff Vale case in 1901 - a move to financially cripple any union taking effective strike action. This attempt by the courts and the state to restrict trade unions led to a more intensive struggle to widen trade union rights and gain independent political representation for the unions.
In Britain today, workers are more and more forced to breach anti-trade union laws in order to take effective action to defend jobs and conditions. For instance, the strike of the Lindsey oil refinery and other engineering construction workers last year - organised democratically from below through a rank-and-file strike committee - broke through the legal restraints.
Three houses?
Another reason for Trotskyist views not being worthy of protection, according to the ET judge, is that they allow for "the deprivation of home and property from the individual". He took exception to a comment made during the ET that it is not acceptable for someone to own three houses when many people do not have a decent home. He clearly favours the accumulation of wealth through acquiring property.
Yet a recent opinion survey, commissioned by the Prince's Trust, of unemployed young people - currently one in five, nearly a million are out of work - said they believed they would never be able to buy their own home.
The judge also asserts that a socialist state would be an authoritarian state which would inflexibly allocate necessities like housing without reference to the needs of individuals.
In Stalinist states, like the former Soviet Union, housing was undoubtedly allocated by the bureaucracy on an arbitrary basis, without regard for the needs of workers and their families. But that is not at all what Trotskyists, who have always been distinguished by opposition to Stalinism, envisage in a socialist society.
Socialist democracy, with election of all political leaders and state officials, together with management of the economy by democratically elected management boards, would ensure the allocation of housing met the particular needs of all families and individuals.
Reward for endeavour?
The essence of the law for this judge is that it should guarantee "freedom of choice and of procuring reward for endeavour" for the individual. Trotskyists are not opposed to "reward for endeavour". We do not advocate a crude levelling. But we are opposed to an economic system that produces gross inequalities of wealth and income.
Tony Blair, whose New Labour government promoted free-market policies and presided over a grotesque growth of inequality, bought his third house, "a small stately home" in Buckinghamshire for £5.75 million. This was in addition to his two London houses in Connaught Square, for which he paid £4.45 million. Is this situation "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?
A new survey commissioned by the government reveals that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. "The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2 million, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (age 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000" (The Guardian, 27 January 2010). Does this square with any idea of social justice?
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Wealth is more and more concentrated into the hands of the ruling class and its associates. The ET judge's approach to the law is based on defence of 'individual rights' abstracted from real society. In practice, this means the right to accumulate property and income, regardless of its effect on wider society or the majority of the population.
Revolution
In his judgment, Mr Weiniger asserts that the kind of society desired by Trotskyists would be an authoritarian state that would expropriate the property of individuals and impose rigid conditions on society. This assertion was embodied in the judgment despite the fact that there was no examination of this issue during the course of the tribunal.
The judge has arbitrarily decided that the kind of state envisaged by Trotskyists would be, in fact, a Stalinist type state, totalitarian, lacking democracy, imposing rigid conditions on society from above.
According to the judge, the views of the four, if implemented, would "deprive [the] individual of his or her rights and freedoms by the imposition of government practicing such extreme or repugnant views".
What distinguishes Trotskyism as a political trend is its implacable opposition towards Stalinism, the bureaucratic, totalitarian deformation of a state based on the ideas of Marx. When Trotsky participated in the Soviet government after the 1917 revolution, it was based on democratic workers', soldiers' and peasants' soviets. However, its democratic character at that time did not prevent the US and European powers, including Britain, sending armies of intervention to try to destroy the new Soviet state and restore the tsarist autocracy. However, from 1923, Trotsky led an opposition to the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state, and in particular the policies and totalitarian methods of Stalin.
The Left Opposition led by Trotsky stood for the democratisation of the state with the election of all representatives and officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on their salaries. He also stood for workers' control and management in industry, and opposed the ruthless top-down economic methods of Stalin's regime.
As a response to this opposition, Trotsky, his family, and many thousands of supporters faced repression from Stalin's regime. Tens of thousands of supporters of the Left Opposition were executed or died in labour camps. Trotsky himself was assassinated by Stalin.
According to Mr Weiniger: "the fundamental essence of revolution is undemocratic, as it supposes the change of government by means outside the constitutionally structured democratic process".
But, as Trotsky himself explained many times, revolutions are not brought about by small groups of conspirators, or just by political parties alone. We are against undemocratic coups d'état. Revolutions arise from a fundamental crisis in society and a breakdown of the established structures of government.
In an advanced capitalist country like Britain, a successful socialist transformation could only be carried through on the basis of the overwhelming mass support of the population. Trotskyists advocate socialist democracy, not totalitarian rule. This would mean the democratic election of a workers' government, together with the election of all state officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on salaries.
Trotskyists believe that a socialist planned economy should be managed by democratically elected planning bodies, including representatives of consumers and society at large. We advocate democratic workers' control and management of industry. We reject the repressive methods of Stalinism, and support the freedom of all political parties, apart from fascists.
Conclusion
We are on the verge of massive class battles, as the crisis of British and world capitalism develops. The offloading of the banks' losses onto the public sector threatens massive job losses and cuts in public services. The Unison leadership has no idea of how to effectively resist the onslaught and defend workers' interests. It will come under increasing pressure from the membership, which is demanding democratisation of the union and a determined fight against attacks.
The employment tribunal, through its judgment, has tried to hand the Unison leadership a lifeline, justifying a purge of the left. This will not succeed. Far from being seen as "repugnant", or held in contempt, or seen as "unacceptable in a democratic society", the four, together with Socialist Party members and other left activists, are held in the highest esteem by Unison members. The fight to lift the ban on the four will continue, as will the drive to democratise the union and equip it with fighting policies capable of defending public-sector workers and the wider interests of the working class.
From this weeks The Socialist
Trade union activists expect class bias in the courts and employment tribunals. But rarely has a tribunal delivered such a blatantly biased judgment based on class interest. The employment tribunal judge declared open season for the persecution of Trotskyists, whom he considers "unworthy of protection" in a democratic society.
Lynn Walsh
The case of the Unison four is now well-known in Unison and throughout the trade union movement. Their 'crime' was issuing a leaflet criticising the standing orders committee (SOC) for excluding vital branch resolutions from discussion at the 2007 Unison conference.
They were accused of racism and disrespect to the SOC. Subsequently, the four have been suspended from office for periods of up to five years.
As one line of defence, the four took an action under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations on the grounds that they were discriminated against as well-known Socialist Party members and because of their Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs. However, the tribunal (presided over by Mr Weiniger) rejected the four's claims on several different grounds.
But the outrageous core of the judgment is that Marxist-Trotskyist beliefs, even if they generally come under the regulations, are repugnant and not worthy of protection in a democratic society. This, in effect, is a declaration of an open season for witch-hunting Trotskyists and other leftwingers in Unison and other unions.
Yet, despite the judgment, the hearings brought to light the full extent of the Unison leadership's manoeuvres. For instance, the judgment finds that the reply of Dave Prentis (Unison general secretary) to a questionnaire from the four "was inaccurate". Prentis wrote that neither he nor other officials were aware of the political beliefs and/or political party membership of those involved in producing the leaflet. The judge found that Prentis and other officials did, in fact, know: "Answers given by Mr Prentis in the questionnaire... were untrue."
Illegal strikes
One reason, according to the ET judge, that Trotskyists are not worthy of respect is that their "principles allow for breach of the law". The four, he complained, are willing to "engage in unlawful strikes" - unacceptable in a democratic society.
Trotskyists uphold all democratic rights: the right to free assembly and speech, the right to vote, and the right to organise in independent trade unions. The historical record shows, however, that these rights were won through struggle, in many cases in defiance of existing laws and in the face of repression.
Recent governments, both Tory and New Labour, have launched an assault on long-standing rights. The threat of terrorism, for instance, has been used to reintroduce draconian stop-and-search laws and unprecedented powers of state surveillance.
When it comes to trade union rights, Britain has arguably the most restrictive laws of any advanced industrial country. Shortly before Christmas, for example, British Airways cabin staff voted overwhelmingly to take strike action against massive job losses and pay cuts, by 92% on a turnout of over 80%. Despite this overwhelming support, a court ruled that the strike was illegal because of technical infringements in the balloting procedure.
This is the equivalent of the infamous Taff Vale case in 1901 - a move to financially cripple any union taking effective strike action. This attempt by the courts and the state to restrict trade unions led to a more intensive struggle to widen trade union rights and gain independent political representation for the unions.
In Britain today, workers are more and more forced to breach anti-trade union laws in order to take effective action to defend jobs and conditions. For instance, the strike of the Lindsey oil refinery and other engineering construction workers last year - organised democratically from below through a rank-and-file strike committee - broke through the legal restraints.
Three houses?
Another reason for Trotskyist views not being worthy of protection, according to the ET judge, is that they allow for "the deprivation of home and property from the individual". He took exception to a comment made during the ET that it is not acceptable for someone to own three houses when many people do not have a decent home. He clearly favours the accumulation of wealth through acquiring property.
Yet a recent opinion survey, commissioned by the Prince's Trust, of unemployed young people - currently one in five, nearly a million are out of work - said they believed they would never be able to buy their own home.
The judge also asserts that a socialist state would be an authoritarian state which would inflexibly allocate necessities like housing without reference to the needs of individuals.
In Stalinist states, like the former Soviet Union, housing was undoubtedly allocated by the bureaucracy on an arbitrary basis, without regard for the needs of workers and their families. But that is not at all what Trotskyists, who have always been distinguished by opposition to Stalinism, envisage in a socialist society.
Socialist democracy, with election of all political leaders and state officials, together with management of the economy by democratically elected management boards, would ensure the allocation of housing met the particular needs of all families and individuals.
Reward for endeavour?
The essence of the law for this judge is that it should guarantee "freedom of choice and of procuring reward for endeavour" for the individual. Trotskyists are not opposed to "reward for endeavour". We do not advocate a crude levelling. But we are opposed to an economic system that produces gross inequalities of wealth and income.
Tony Blair, whose New Labour government promoted free-market policies and presided over a grotesque growth of inequality, bought his third house, "a small stately home" in Buckinghamshire for £5.75 million. This was in addition to his two London houses in Connaught Square, for which he paid £4.45 million. Is this situation "worthy of respect in a democratic society"?
A new survey commissioned by the government reveals that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%. "The top 10%, led by higher professionals, had amassed wealth of £2.2 million, including property and pension assets, by the time they drew close to retirement (age 55-64), while the bottom 10% of households, led by routine manual workers, had amassed less than £8,000" (The Guardian, 27 January 2010). Does this square with any idea of social justice?
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class. Wealth is more and more concentrated into the hands of the ruling class and its associates. The ET judge's approach to the law is based on defence of 'individual rights' abstracted from real society. In practice, this means the right to accumulate property and income, regardless of its effect on wider society or the majority of the population.
Revolution
In his judgment, Mr Weiniger asserts that the kind of society desired by Trotskyists would be an authoritarian state that would expropriate the property of individuals and impose rigid conditions on society. This assertion was embodied in the judgment despite the fact that there was no examination of this issue during the course of the tribunal.
The judge has arbitrarily decided that the kind of state envisaged by Trotskyists would be, in fact, a Stalinist type state, totalitarian, lacking democracy, imposing rigid conditions on society from above.
According to the judge, the views of the four, if implemented, would "deprive [the] individual of his or her rights and freedoms by the imposition of government practicing such extreme or repugnant views".
What distinguishes Trotskyism as a political trend is its implacable opposition towards Stalinism, the bureaucratic, totalitarian deformation of a state based on the ideas of Marx. When Trotsky participated in the Soviet government after the 1917 revolution, it was based on democratic workers', soldiers' and peasants' soviets. However, its democratic character at that time did not prevent the US and European powers, including Britain, sending armies of intervention to try to destroy the new Soviet state and restore the tsarist autocracy. However, from 1923, Trotsky led an opposition to the bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet state, and in particular the policies and totalitarian methods of Stalin.
The Left Opposition led by Trotsky stood for the democratisation of the state with the election of all representatives and officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on their salaries. He also stood for workers' control and management in industry, and opposed the ruthless top-down economic methods of Stalin's regime.
As a response to this opposition, Trotsky, his family, and many thousands of supporters faced repression from Stalin's regime. Tens of thousands of supporters of the Left Opposition were executed or died in labour camps. Trotsky himself was assassinated by Stalin.
According to Mr Weiniger: "the fundamental essence of revolution is undemocratic, as it supposes the change of government by means outside the constitutionally structured democratic process".
But, as Trotsky himself explained many times, revolutions are not brought about by small groups of conspirators, or just by political parties alone. We are against undemocratic coups d'état. Revolutions arise from a fundamental crisis in society and a breakdown of the established structures of government.
In an advanced capitalist country like Britain, a successful socialist transformation could only be carried through on the basis of the overwhelming mass support of the population. Trotskyists advocate socialist democracy, not totalitarian rule. This would mean the democratic election of a workers' government, together with the election of all state officials, subject to the right of recall, and limitations on salaries.
Trotskyists believe that a socialist planned economy should be managed by democratically elected planning bodies, including representatives of consumers and society at large. We advocate democratic workers' control and management of industry. We reject the repressive methods of Stalinism, and support the freedom of all political parties, apart from fascists.
Conclusion
We are on the verge of massive class battles, as the crisis of British and world capitalism develops. The offloading of the banks' losses onto the public sector threatens massive job losses and cuts in public services. The Unison leadership has no idea of how to effectively resist the onslaught and defend workers' interests. It will come under increasing pressure from the membership, which is demanding democratisation of the union and a determined fight against attacks.
The employment tribunal, through its judgment, has tried to hand the Unison leadership a lifeline, justifying a purge of the left. This will not succeed. Far from being seen as "repugnant", or held in contempt, or seen as "unacceptable in a democratic society", the four, together with Socialist Party members and other left activists, are held in the highest esteem by Unison members. The fight to lift the ban on the four will continue, as will the drive to democratise the union and equip it with fighting policies capable of defending public-sector workers and the wider interests of the working class.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Fighting for Socialism around the world
The London Socialist Party is hosting a meeting of Committee for a Workers' International speakers
Speakers include:
Segun Sango - Democratic Socialist Movement, Nigeria
Johan Rivas - Socialismo Revolucionario, Venezuela
Jagadish - New Socialist Alternative, India and Tamil Solidarity
10 December 2009
University of London Union (ULU)
Malet Street
London, WC1E 7HY
Speakers include:
Segun Sango - Democratic Socialist Movement, Nigeria
Johan Rivas - Socialismo Revolucionario, Venezuela
Jagadish - New Socialist Alternative, India and Tamil Solidarity
10 December 2009
University of London Union (ULU)
Malet Street
London, WC1E 7HY
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Rallying for struggle, solidarity and socialism
This year will be remembered for the "re-awakening of the industrial working class" declared Keith Gibson, a leader of the Lindsey oil refinery construction strikes in February and June, at the Rally for Socialism on Saturday. All of the rally speakers talked about the heroic fightbacks that began this year against the bosses' onslaught in the wake of the financial meltdown.
Up and down the country workers are standing up and being counted, from the 'unofficial' strike action at Lindsey, to the occupations at the Visteon and Vestas factories, to the successful battle to reinstate sacked union convenor Rob Williams at the Linamar plant in Swansea and the determined strike action shown by postal workers and bin workers.
Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), had just returned from South Yorkshire. FBU members there are involved in a "bitter dispute" over imposed shift changes and the fire and re-hire threats of the Labour Party-run council to get them through.
Internationally the fightback is underway too. The election of Joe Higgins to the European Parliament by the Dublin working class was a stunning victory on the political field. At the rally Joe spoke of this achievement, which followed the tireless involvement of the Socialist Party in Ireland in the struggles of ordinary people over many decades.
Young people in struggle
Tracy Edwards, a member of the Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ) campaign steering committee, spoke of the brilliant example set by the young workers at Vestas in occupying their factory to defend their jobs. Tracy said that the demonstration called by YFJ on Saturday 28 November has the potential to be a turning point in the struggle of young people.
Matt Wrack reported that youth in the FBU are entering into struggle. He spoke of the dozens of young firefighters who had been on the picket lines determined to see the struggle through to the end and rubbished the attempt to portray the new generation as "Thatcher's children" with no interest in struggle or socialism.
The fighting spirit developing among the new generation was shown in a text message read out by Keith Gibson from a young striker at Lindsey: "I'm not giving my life, my kids' life or my girlfriend's life up for no one. Together we'll win, together we'll get a slice of the pie instead of the crumbs they want to take away from us."
Senan, Tamil Solidarity international coordinator, spoke of the tremendous movement of young Tamils rising up in Britain against the barbarity being inflicted upon the Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka, and the campaign of international solidarity that has been organised. As Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party, pointed out, all of this puts a lie to the idea that class struggle and the ideas of Marxism, socialism and internationalism have been "buried under the rubble of the Berlin Wall".
A political voice for workers
Brian Caton, the left-wing general secretary of the Prison Officers Association (POA) spoke of the shackle the anti-trade union laws are to the efforts of his union members to defend their pay and conditions. "Trade union rights are human rights".
Criminally, many workers' disputes have received only half-hearted support from the majority in the trade union leadership. The reason for the timidity of these right-wing trade union leaders is bound up with their continuing support for the Labour Party and the abandoning of a socialist perspective.
Peter Taaffe argued for a "militant class struggle policy for the labour movement" and the need to link that to the ideas of socialism. Keith Gibson warned that although a tremendous victory had been won at Lindsey, the bosses would be back and that "a political voice is needed as well as an industrial one".
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport workers' union (RMT) announced that, in five weeks time, he will be recommending participation in a coalition for the 2010 general election to the RMT executive. This coalition, which will include the Socialist Party and others, is a practical step on the road to solving the crisis of working class political representation.
Anticipating the accusation from pro-Labour union leaders that any challenge to Labour will let the Tories in, Bob declared defiantly: "New Labour has let the Tories in with their betrayal!" Joe Higgins congratulated the RMT on its bold stand and implored the RMT, the Socialist Party and the other coalition partners to "declare early" to ensure the most successful electoral challenge possible.
Capitalism in crisis
Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party general secretary addresses Socialism 2009, photo Rob Emery (Click to enlarge)
Peter Taaffe, in analysing the world economic crisis explained that the Socialist Party had anticipated the devastating collapse of the capitalists' bubble economy. In contrast to the arrogance of the 'banksters', Peter compared the Socialist Party's warning to the lone phone call from the Isle of Wight warning of the impending 1987 hurricane that devastated Southern England. That warning too was scorned and laughed at but ultimately proved correct.
Peter also warned that not since 1922 with the 'Gedes axe' budget have such cuts been proposed. The result of that budget? Four years later the famous general strike of 1926 where the workers of Britain stood on the threshold of power.
Tracy showed where extra money could be found if there really is such a public spending crisis - £100 billion in uncollected taxes, £4.6 billion every year on war, £12 billion on PFI deals in the NHS and of course the £1.4 trillion poured into the banks!
Speakers condemned the divisive role of the far-right racist British National Party. Brian Caton described how the POA has "sought out and kicked out" BNP members within its ranks. Keith Gibson described how rank and file trade union members chased the BNP away from the Lindsey pickets. But crucial to stopping the rise of the BNP is the development of a mass political alternative that would raise the ideas of working-class solidarity to counter the BNP's divisive racism.
What unites all the issues facing the working class and young people of the world is the need to replace the rotten capitalist system with an alternative.
Peter explained how socialism is not a utopian idea but "flows from the incapacity of capitalism" to deliver. Young people and workers will again find the ideas of Marxism and socialism and the traditions of solidarity and class struggle. The Rally for Socialism was a celebration of recent victories, but it was also a call to the future, a future that those present will doubtless have been inspired to ensure is a socialist future.
The fightback begins
"WHICHEVER PARTY or combination of establishment parties win the next general election, they are all saying working-class people must pay for the crisis in the capitalist system. Tories, Labour and LibDems all plan around £90 billion of cuts each year - the equivalent of the entire NHS budget."
This stark warning was spelt out by Campaign for a New Workers' Party secretary and Socialist Party councillor, Dave Nellist, at the Sunday closing rally at Socialism 2009, entitled 'the fightback begins'.
But what are we going to do about this situation? To paraphrase TV comedian Harry Hill: "Fight"! That was the message from the platform speakers.
Rob Williams, Unite convenor at the Linamar car components factory in Swansea, explained that despite the worst economic crisis since the 1930s his fellow workers were prepared to go on all-out strike to secure his reinstatement, following his unjustified sacking earlier this year. The Linamar workers clearly understood that if Rob was removed the employers would see it as open season on jobs, wages and pensions.
Commenting on the attacks on workers' conditions during this recession, Rob's advice was: "The worst thing is to lose without a fight... Because the employer will come back for more."
Another group of workers occupying the headlines has been the postal workers who, having suffered the imposition by management of 'modernisation' (ie cuts) in many Royal Mail offices, said "enough is enough" and went on strike.
London divisional secretary John Denton spoke to the rally: "We balloted our members for action and won. We took 18 days' strike action, with each postal worker typically losing over £2,000."
John said that the agreement between Royal Mail and the CWU union concedes to some of the union's demands. He reckoned it was a "significant step forward, but if we don't make progress the strike ballots are still live."
Also in the media spotlight are the British Airways workers. Cabin crews are currently balloting for strike action following the imposition of job and pay cuts - while BA boss Willie Walsh continues to enrich himself.
BA's 'New Fleet' working arrangements will mean new cabin workers will receive only half the wages of current crews. Heathrow Airport GMB workers' rep, Chris McNulty, pointed out that the man involved in Royal Mail's vicious modernisation plans - Tony McCarthy - has been head-hunted to British Airways!
Chris told the audience that airport workers are determined to resist the biggest ever assault on their working conditions. However, he warned that some trade union leaders "seem more determined to sue for industrial peace by making concessions [to satisfy the Labour government] than in standing up to the employer."
But it is not only the current but a new generation of workers whose future is in jeopardy because of the bosses' crisis, as Sean Figg of Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ) explained.
Sean pointed to Sunday's Observer headline that revealed the Labour government is secretly cutting funding to its own flagship youth job creation programme. He slammed TV celebrity bosses like Alan Sugar who peddled "the idea that young people simply have to project a better image of themselves" as a "patronising big lie."
YFJ's response to one million young unemployed in Britain is to organise a march for jobs and free education on Saturday 28 November. "The bigger the demo, the bigger the wake-up call," said Sean, appealing to all young people, trade unionists and anyone who cares about future generations to attend.
Summing up the rally, Socialist Party deputy secretary Hannah Sell said there is a battle royal looming in the public sector after next year's general election. The Socialist Party has a vital role to play in advancing workers' struggles.
However, under this system workers will continually face attacks and be forced to battle back "unless and until a new generation of fighters succeeds in transforming society along socialist lines."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been a very encouraging environment where you can ask a question without the worry of it being asked before. It's definitely convinced me to join the Socialist Party.
- Meryl, Birmingham
It's been really inspiring to have the opportunity to participate in discussion about what needs to be done in the future.
- James Nash, Manchester
It's the best socialism event that I've been to. More people here than ever before, lots of young people all active and all wanting to play a role in fighting for socialism.
- Roger Bannister, Unison NEC (pc)
This year there is a real mood of optimism and for trade unionists, it's definitely a great place to come.
- Julia, West London
I had a great time and met some really amazing people. It was a very good event, one of a kind.
- Alex Rosado-Thornhill, Harwich
Up and down the country workers are standing up and being counted, from the 'unofficial' strike action at Lindsey, to the occupations at the Visteon and Vestas factories, to the successful battle to reinstate sacked union convenor Rob Williams at the Linamar plant in Swansea and the determined strike action shown by postal workers and bin workers.
Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), had just returned from South Yorkshire. FBU members there are involved in a "bitter dispute" over imposed shift changes and the fire and re-hire threats of the Labour Party-run council to get them through.
Internationally the fightback is underway too. The election of Joe Higgins to the European Parliament by the Dublin working class was a stunning victory on the political field. At the rally Joe spoke of this achievement, which followed the tireless involvement of the Socialist Party in Ireland in the struggles of ordinary people over many decades.
Young people in struggle
Tracy Edwards, a member of the Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ) campaign steering committee, spoke of the brilliant example set by the young workers at Vestas in occupying their factory to defend their jobs. Tracy said that the demonstration called by YFJ on Saturday 28 November has the potential to be a turning point in the struggle of young people.
Matt Wrack reported that youth in the FBU are entering into struggle. He spoke of the dozens of young firefighters who had been on the picket lines determined to see the struggle through to the end and rubbished the attempt to portray the new generation as "Thatcher's children" with no interest in struggle or socialism.
The fighting spirit developing among the new generation was shown in a text message read out by Keith Gibson from a young striker at Lindsey: "I'm not giving my life, my kids' life or my girlfriend's life up for no one. Together we'll win, together we'll get a slice of the pie instead of the crumbs they want to take away from us."
Senan, Tamil Solidarity international coordinator, spoke of the tremendous movement of young Tamils rising up in Britain against the barbarity being inflicted upon the Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka, and the campaign of international solidarity that has been organised. As Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party, pointed out, all of this puts a lie to the idea that class struggle and the ideas of Marxism, socialism and internationalism have been "buried under the rubble of the Berlin Wall".
A political voice for workers
Brian Caton, the left-wing general secretary of the Prison Officers Association (POA) spoke of the shackle the anti-trade union laws are to the efforts of his union members to defend their pay and conditions. "Trade union rights are human rights".
Criminally, many workers' disputes have received only half-hearted support from the majority in the trade union leadership. The reason for the timidity of these right-wing trade union leaders is bound up with their continuing support for the Labour Party and the abandoning of a socialist perspective.
Peter Taaffe argued for a "militant class struggle policy for the labour movement" and the need to link that to the ideas of socialism. Keith Gibson warned that although a tremendous victory had been won at Lindsey, the bosses would be back and that "a political voice is needed as well as an industrial one".
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport workers' union (RMT) announced that, in five weeks time, he will be recommending participation in a coalition for the 2010 general election to the RMT executive. This coalition, which will include the Socialist Party and others, is a practical step on the road to solving the crisis of working class political representation.
Anticipating the accusation from pro-Labour union leaders that any challenge to Labour will let the Tories in, Bob declared defiantly: "New Labour has let the Tories in with their betrayal!" Joe Higgins congratulated the RMT on its bold stand and implored the RMT, the Socialist Party and the other coalition partners to "declare early" to ensure the most successful electoral challenge possible.
Capitalism in crisis
Peter Taaffe, Socialist Party general secretary addresses Socialism 2009, photo Rob Emery (Click to enlarge)
Peter Taaffe, in analysing the world economic crisis explained that the Socialist Party had anticipated the devastating collapse of the capitalists' bubble economy. In contrast to the arrogance of the 'banksters', Peter compared the Socialist Party's warning to the lone phone call from the Isle of Wight warning of the impending 1987 hurricane that devastated Southern England. That warning too was scorned and laughed at but ultimately proved correct.
Peter also warned that not since 1922 with the 'Gedes axe' budget have such cuts been proposed. The result of that budget? Four years later the famous general strike of 1926 where the workers of Britain stood on the threshold of power.
Tracy showed where extra money could be found if there really is such a public spending crisis - £100 billion in uncollected taxes, £4.6 billion every year on war, £12 billion on PFI deals in the NHS and of course the £1.4 trillion poured into the banks!
Speakers condemned the divisive role of the far-right racist British National Party. Brian Caton described how the POA has "sought out and kicked out" BNP members within its ranks. Keith Gibson described how rank and file trade union members chased the BNP away from the Lindsey pickets. But crucial to stopping the rise of the BNP is the development of a mass political alternative that would raise the ideas of working-class solidarity to counter the BNP's divisive racism.
What unites all the issues facing the working class and young people of the world is the need to replace the rotten capitalist system with an alternative.
Peter explained how socialism is not a utopian idea but "flows from the incapacity of capitalism" to deliver. Young people and workers will again find the ideas of Marxism and socialism and the traditions of solidarity and class struggle. The Rally for Socialism was a celebration of recent victories, but it was also a call to the future, a future that those present will doubtless have been inspired to ensure is a socialist future.
The fightback begins
"WHICHEVER PARTY or combination of establishment parties win the next general election, they are all saying working-class people must pay for the crisis in the capitalist system. Tories, Labour and LibDems all plan around £90 billion of cuts each year - the equivalent of the entire NHS budget."
This stark warning was spelt out by Campaign for a New Workers' Party secretary and Socialist Party councillor, Dave Nellist, at the Sunday closing rally at Socialism 2009, entitled 'the fightback begins'.
But what are we going to do about this situation? To paraphrase TV comedian Harry Hill: "Fight"! That was the message from the platform speakers.
Rob Williams, Unite convenor at the Linamar car components factory in Swansea, explained that despite the worst economic crisis since the 1930s his fellow workers were prepared to go on all-out strike to secure his reinstatement, following his unjustified sacking earlier this year. The Linamar workers clearly understood that if Rob was removed the employers would see it as open season on jobs, wages and pensions.
Commenting on the attacks on workers' conditions during this recession, Rob's advice was: "The worst thing is to lose without a fight... Because the employer will come back for more."
Another group of workers occupying the headlines has been the postal workers who, having suffered the imposition by management of 'modernisation' (ie cuts) in many Royal Mail offices, said "enough is enough" and went on strike.
London divisional secretary John Denton spoke to the rally: "We balloted our members for action and won. We took 18 days' strike action, with each postal worker typically losing over £2,000."
John said that the agreement between Royal Mail and the CWU union concedes to some of the union's demands. He reckoned it was a "significant step forward, but if we don't make progress the strike ballots are still live."
Also in the media spotlight are the British Airways workers. Cabin crews are currently balloting for strike action following the imposition of job and pay cuts - while BA boss Willie Walsh continues to enrich himself.
BA's 'New Fleet' working arrangements will mean new cabin workers will receive only half the wages of current crews. Heathrow Airport GMB workers' rep, Chris McNulty, pointed out that the man involved in Royal Mail's vicious modernisation plans - Tony McCarthy - has been head-hunted to British Airways!
Chris told the audience that airport workers are determined to resist the biggest ever assault on their working conditions. However, he warned that some trade union leaders "seem more determined to sue for industrial peace by making concessions [to satisfy the Labour government] than in standing up to the employer."
But it is not only the current but a new generation of workers whose future is in jeopardy because of the bosses' crisis, as Sean Figg of Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ) explained.
Sean pointed to Sunday's Observer headline that revealed the Labour government is secretly cutting funding to its own flagship youth job creation programme. He slammed TV celebrity bosses like Alan Sugar who peddled "the idea that young people simply have to project a better image of themselves" as a "patronising big lie."
YFJ's response to one million young unemployed in Britain is to organise a march for jobs and free education on Saturday 28 November. "The bigger the demo, the bigger the wake-up call," said Sean, appealing to all young people, trade unionists and anyone who cares about future generations to attend.
Summing up the rally, Socialist Party deputy secretary Hannah Sell said there is a battle royal looming in the public sector after next year's general election. The Socialist Party has a vital role to play in advancing workers' struggles.
However, under this system workers will continually face attacks and be forced to battle back "unless and until a new generation of fighters succeeds in transforming society along socialist lines."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been a very encouraging environment where you can ask a question without the worry of it being asked before. It's definitely convinced me to join the Socialist Party.
- Meryl, Birmingham
It's been really inspiring to have the opportunity to participate in discussion about what needs to be done in the future.
- James Nash, Manchester
It's the best socialism event that I've been to. More people here than ever before, lots of young people all active and all wanting to play a role in fighting for socialism.
- Roger Bannister, Unison NEC (pc)
This year there is a real mood of optimism and for trade unionists, it's definitely a great place to come.
- Julia, West London
I had a great time and met some really amazing people. It was a very good event, one of a kind.
- Alex Rosado-Thornhill, Harwich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)