FIVE REASONS THE IWW ARE CHALLENGING THE CULTURE OF THE UK LEFT (AND WHY YOU SHOULD BE TOO!)

We can’t put our faith in the ballot box The recent election of SYRIZA in Greece has invested a lot of hope in the emergence of a popular anti-austerity front across Europe. However the deep resistance that SYRIZA are facing to even the modest social reforms they are proposing from their European partners gives an indication of the intrinsic limits of parliamentary action alone to wider, and particularly deeper, social change. That is not to say that there are no important lessons to be drawn from this situation. Part of SYRIZA’s success story is in the way in which it has effectively capitalised on political ground that has been largely conceded by the parties of the social democratic centre in their widespread commitment to “responsible” economic policies and continuing austerity. This is a situation repeated across many European democracies. The so-called PASOKification of the centre left (in the UK and particularly in Scotland) has left a certain degree of political space “up for the taking”. The recent explosion in Green Party membership in England and Wales fits this story nicely: some might even find themselves feeling optimistic about alternatives to the Political status quo. Nonetheless, we need to be hard-headed in how we deal with these recent trends. Poverty, hopelessness and powerlessness have drawn many throughout Europe, including a considerable section of both our own and the Greek electorate, to the populist and far-right. Understanding why it was the left that triumphed recently requires more than looking to SYRIZA’s leadership and electoral strategies – we need to look at the way broader Greek anti-capitalist culture operates. For decades a vibrant network of extra-parliamentary parties, social movements and trade union groups have sustained the continuing case for basic social solidarity through the maintenance of left spaces, solidarity networks and other forms of community engagement. This genuinely life-sustaining work has highlighted the pragmatism of socialist ideas above the individualistic solutions offered by the far-right and pro-austerity left. The future of SYRIZA’s relation to these social and extra-parliamentary movements is very unclear at this stage. Similarly, but on a smaller scale, is it possible to understand the surge in SNP popularity following the independence referendum without also appreciating the explosion in grassroots activity that preceded it? In England and Wales the outlook is even bleaker. Not only is the left generally lacking in the basic forms of outreach and engagement that has empowered our Greek and Scottish friends, but the electoral system is stacked against any chance of even a modest swing in electoral sentiment. Even if the Green Party was to mobilise an army of supporters comparable to that seen in the Scottish referendum the “breakthrough” would be underwhelming, at most a victory of a handful of parliamentary seats. The splitting of the political centre ground, combined with the massive disenfranchisement brought about by austerity policies, leaves a great deal of potential for any movement offering real and practical non-parliamentary alternatives. As solidarity unionists we believe that grassroots engagement and direct action are not merely the means of realising that latent potential, they are the basis for the worker-run society we’re trying to build. Meaningful and lasting victories can be won through these activities in a number of highly adaptable and scalable forms – from the group of workmates who march on the boss to win back their tip jar to the occupied and collectivised factory employing thousands of workers, we’ve got a working model for building the society we want. 2. Whose movement is it anyway? Trade union membership in the UK has been in steady decline since the late 1970s. In the last decade membership figures have largely plateaued with a few thousand dropping off the figures each year. The most active and visible unions, as well as those with the largest memberships, are those employed in the now shrinking public sector. Since the 2008 financial crisis the TUC has offered little to nothing in the way of meaningful resistance to public sector cuts, stagnation in pay and attacks on workers’ rights. Tribunal fees, one of the earliest and most damaging legal changes introduced by the coalition government have been subject to a number of unsuccessful legal challenges by the larger unions but there has been no effort to mobilise collective opposition. One-day strikes and repeated, progressively dwindling protests and demonstrations against attacks on their pensions, pay and conditions have delivered nothing. At the IWW strategy conference three years ago it was resolved that the mission of this union was to organise “the unorganised, the abandoned and the betrayed”. For many of us in the IWW the first category is a familiar one as (like a massive section of service, hospitality and restaurant workers in the UK) our members frequently find themselves in workplaces without a union. That shouldn’t, however, detract from the fact that we are in desperate need of rank-and-file initiatives within the existing trade union apparatus that can affectively mobilise a cynical and worn out membership. Trade unions have wholesale retreated from actual day-to-day engagement and organising in favour of top down and institutional action. Our networks of dual-carders spread across the existing trade unions need to cut through the inertia and get workers mobilised and enthusiastic again. Not for a new officer or protest or lobby but for those principles that should be the bedrock of the labour movement: common action on the job to improve the conditions of your workmates. 3. We’re making gains where it counts The rules of the political game may have changed, but how we play in response to it remains the same. Building a mass movement for social change has to start with an active engagement with the issues that exist in our workplaces and communities. Your neighbours, workmates and fellow claimants need to see that action can and must be taken to re-build the broken links of social solidarity that have been so effectively dismantled over the past thirty years. In addressing those real, immediate challenges that people feel in their everyday lives we can start to work together to build alternatives. A modest but important example of this is the campaign that Sheffield GMB recently conducted against the owner of a local deli. The campaign was in response to a fellow worker who was unfairly (and possibly illegally) dismissed from the deli following an incident where they addressed the bullying and harassing behaviour of the owner. In spite of the limited scope of the focus – a single employer operating one business in the restaurant and hospitality sector – it became an incredibly vibrant and energising campaign that involved members from a number of IWW branches, a great turnout from the local community, ex-employees of the deli, TUs and many others too numerous to name. We believe that this additional momentum behind the campaign was due to a number of key factors;  The campaign filled a vacuum of Left engagement with local issues except on an electoral or purely symbolic level.  It was very focused with a clear measure for victory by having strictly defined demands. This focus allowed us to channel the energy from more general grievances associated with precarious and zero-hour work (particularly in the restaurant and hospitality sector where these issues are widespread) that might otherwise be seen as isolated and individual cases.  It sent a clear message to other restaurant owners in the city that unfair labour practices should not be accepted as normal and provides an example to others in precarious and zero hour work on how to take action.  The strength and passion of the response on the part of the union serves as a very real counter-example to the generally weak and capitulating attitudes of the TUC (even when the issues they deal with are far more serious abuses of workers’ rights). Contrary to conventional wisdom, it seems that there is not necessarily a blanket unwillingness to engage with radical alternatives. Rather, people’s faith has been tested too often. We need to demonstrate that we have the capacity, organisational skills and determination to win small in ways that allow us to think big. This allows us to credibly push the principle and practice of a fighting union across workplaces and in areas where union engagement is unknown. However, visible campaigns like the above shouldn’t detract from long-term, steady work of those organising amongst their workmates or the less exciting organising work that underpins the campaign itself. In both cases the principles of the IWW approach are underlined by a belief that in order to challenge capitalism we should not be looking “to the skies” but to how we can shift the balance of power in our everyday lives. 4. Thinking outside the box room of a pub What would a branch of one hundred Wobblies look like? This was a question that was considered largely academic to seasoned members over a decade ago when local meetings would be composed of a handful of members in scattered industries. The IWW is still a small (but growing) union. A healthy growth in membership has, however, led us to seriously address what a genuinely inclusive and active union culture at this scale should look like. As we grow, learn and experiment it is becoming increasingly apparent that many of the presumptions we brought from the activist milieu are just as unfit for purpose as those of the traditional trade union movement. A branch meeting dictated by the local paid officials and organisers can be as alienating as the mystifying codes and practices of consensus decision making. It has become apparent that structures need to be able to accommodate a culture of debate and grassroots democracy as much as they need to be balanced by a healthy and accountable centre. These challenges have also led us to question our own assumptions when it comes to internal organisational culture. This is particularly the case in terms of our experiences of a continuing attitude in the Left that meetings should be considered an end unto themselves. That simply attracting x number of people to a public meeting or holding a successful conference or gathering is a sufficient measure for organisational success. This is a dangerous approach not only for its basic insularity but also for its flattening of organisational success to the simple measure of “bums on seats”. If workers’ organisations are to be effective they need to be not only building greater but stronger levels of participation. That means raising the bar in terms of both the quantity and quality of membership, or as we like to say – aiming to turn every member into an organiser. Our measure of success should not just be the number of people who “get” what we are trying to achieve but how we have made them better equipped to do something about it through organising, campaigning, or rep assistance. 5. We’re finding balance Social struggle is hard work, but we don’t need to burn out. Any veteran of social justice activism who has endured a three/four hour meeting on decision-making process will likely agree that there seems to be a particularly masochistic bent to some of the more unique cultural practices of the contemporary Left. On a basic level this is symptomatic of a general level of disorganisation amongst the activist milieu as well as a tendency for political principles to be prioritised over a more grounded and sensible organisational practice. The idea that these things should be taken as par for the course stems from a wider mindset that associates political activity with a form of service or obligation. We feel that these are demobilising and exclusive attitudes that need to be challenged. We are all pressed for time in busy and stressful lives. Balancing work and family life is often hard enough without the additional obligations of political activism. We think it is important then that any time that a group of Wobblies get together we should aim for it to be a mobilising and empowering experience. If this is a public action it should be an affirmation of the alternative we want to offer, we should celebrate the fact that workers have felt confident enough to make their grievances public and that we are strong enough to take to the streets. If it is a meeting or a gathering it should aim to develop the membership, through skill-shares, education, training, union culture or even just hosting a vibrant social event. Members should always feel that they have gained something extra from their union. That’s not to say that if something isn’t “fun” it shouldn’t be done. Lots of aspects of union organising are quite stressful and demand a great deal of time and patience. What we don’t need, however, are martyrs who feel obligated to sacrifice everything for the cause but people who want to invest in union culture because they feel empowered by it. By newsyndicalist https://newsyndicalist.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/five-reasons-the-iww-are-challenging-the-culture-of-the-uk-left-and-why-you-should-be-too/

The Real agenda of PCS union suspending elections for a year

SO the PCS union has alarmed many who care about union democracy and decency in the union movement w by suspending elections for a year all in the idea of "saving money". In a excellent article detailing the hows and why's PCS your voice a publication of the independent left in PCS who i believe have no party line as such wrote the following piece today i find it interesting reading given when i was a member of the socialist party it was talked for years there would be a situation like this happening. "The PCS National Executive Committee has taken the decision to suspend elections to the NEC and to Group Executive Committees for the coming year. Your Voice condemns this decision as a mistake and wholly unnecessary. The NEC made this and several other decisions at an emergency meeting on Thursday 18 December. The meeting also decided on staffing reductions and budget cuts, whilst confirming the sell off of the HQ building in Clapham. The rationale given for this was the scale of government attacks on PCS. A number of government departments are currently in the process of removing check-off, the facility to pay union subscriptions through payroll. This has left union reps rushing to sign members up to Direct Debit, with more and more other activity put on hold as the year has progressed, to combat a potentially massive loss of funds for the union. This threat, and in particular the fact that elections would take resources away from the Direct Debit campaign, has been used as justification for the suspension. The costs of elections were also brought up in favour of the decision. Whilst recognising dire threat that the removal of check off presents, alongside other measures such as union busting in HMRC, we nonetheless feel that suspending democracy was the wrong decision to take. On a practical level, we know that there is under-engagement in elections just as there is a shortfall of take up for Direct Debit. Could both issues not have been addressed together? An election campaign would surely present an ideal time to engage with members and promote the need to defend the union, while more simply Direct Debit forms and literature could have been included in the mail shots. In terms of cost cutting, there are no doubt any number of measures which could have made the ballots cheaper without doing away with them altogether. The savings may not have been as stark as the £600,000 quoted for this decision, but the loss wouldn’t be as great either. Democracy is not simply a cost to be reduced, but a necessary part of organising as workers. Your Voice believes in a union run by its members at a rank-and-file level, and that requires more democracy rather than less. This should be a fundamental tenet of what defines us, not a niceity to be discarded when inconvenient. There is much more that could be said on this issue. We are sure more will be in the run up to AGMs and Conference. In the meantime, we urge all those who oppose this decision to argue for their branch to adopt that same position and write to the NEC urging that they reverse it at their next meeting in January. Facing off the attacks on our union from this government mean not only standing our ground but advancing forward. If we take a single step backwards, in terms of democracy or organisation, then that is a concession too many to our foes. Further to this is the awkward situation or not so awkward if you are in favour of a lash up for the PCS with the unite union which for me has been the socialist partys aim for a long time to wrestle control of the biggest union in the country out of labours grasp. All this to aid in their dream of a new workers party i.e a labour party mark 2 but with the SP as its radical leadership of course. The independent left in PCS have wrote some good things on this issue and expose the sham for what it is. They continue. "The Independent Left believes that the NEC’s suspension of elections is related to the efforts of the central leadership to steer PCS into Unite (whatever NEC members were actually told regarding the suspension of elections – most of the 13 who voted for suspending democracy are voting sheep). The core leadership (the shepherds if you wish) need to submerge into Unite because: • Senior officers’ huge salaries and associated pensions would be protected. • They would be inside a financially secure trade union having handed over the proceeds from the sale of PCS HQ to Unite. • The ruling regime could look forward to running the Unite Public Sector Group and without having to ever accept its responsibility for the shockingly incompetent manner in which has led PCS (they would not willingly give up the leadership of an independent trade union to play second fiddle in Unite). • They would in fact preside over a wider and more securely based public sector membership. • The Socialist Party would have high hopes of dominating Unite’s own “left wing” grouping through the much bigger PCS Left Unity membership and indeed of linking up with those with an apparent desire to disaffiliate Unite from the Labour Party. • By effectively moving PCS elections to later in 2015 or indeed to 2016 (they are reserving the right not hold a vote for up to 12 months) the NEC move PCS more in line with the constitutional structures of Unite. • The suspension of elections and talk of bankruptcy might bring an otherwise recalcitrant PCS Conference into line on Unite merger and even if it doesn’t the self-elected NEC would be beyond Conference’s control if it steers PCS into Unite. The core leadership, Mark Serwotka and the Socialist Party, cannot risk an election as they might lose seats and so not be as dominant as presently they are, or worse still they might even lose the NEC. Rather than run that risk and therefore the chance to ‘save’ the union by destroying it by a lash up with Unite, they self-elect themselves into continuing power. If you can suspend elections you certainly ignore any conference decision regarding a (sub) merger with Unite. The core leadership is now going for broke; they are desperate to join up with that union. As their actions show they are sufficiently ruthless as to deny ordinary members a say in who runs the union; do you think they will allow delegates a greater say? Let members have a vote!! Further reasoning as to why the SP think this way and why they would set to benifit hugely from a potential PCS/Unite merger. Because they think they can take it over and break it from the Labour Party! Their analysis is that organised left grouping within Unite, the United Left is weak and they can take it over. As that grouping controls most of the Unite NEC they think they will take over the NEC. Once they have the NEC then they will break Unite from the Labour Party. Of course this is the sort of machine politics that the SP has successfully practiced in PCS (take over Left Unity, LU takes over the union etc). Therefore they believe that Unite will be just PCS writ large. Also they are pinning their hopes on all the public sector workers in Unite (council workers, NHS and former PCS) being put into one group. Such a hope is mentioned in a PCS bulletin and by their speakers. Of course they would hope to dominate this public sector group (PCS would be the biggest component of such a set up) and so be bigger fish in a bigger pond than at present in PCS. This group would be their power base within Unite and no doubt a source of full time officer jobs for their comrades. Of course all the above is mechanical (everything just follows from one thing to another; take over the United left, then the NEC etc.) and does not involve winning the members over but SP would believe that if you win the superstructure of the union and the organised left, then the members will follow – or at least they will not get in the way. We have a different conception of politics to the SP. Ours involves winning members and activists to ideas, creating a rank and file movement that really does control the leadership; not as a means to winning places on committees. Also as said the SP conception is mechanical. For example if they did succeed in winning the United Left in Unite they seem to think they could just take it over intact. But it is highly likely that the UL would split and a new ‘left’ would be created. Certainly the Labour Party and full time officials would not stand idly by and let SP operate unchallenged. So what would the members get out of all this? Well no doubt a SP comrade would argue that Unite under their control or if they had a significant voice within it, would be a radical union in the same way as PCS; that breaking from the Labour Party is a vital necessity for the working class. We have our doubts as to the former. Whilst PCS does take strike action it does not- as you would assume a radical union would- openly challenge other unions, appeal direct over the heads of other union leaders to the members in those unions, argue a radical change in the political system (the union’s demand for PR maybe part of such a change but in itself is not that radical change) and for a radical democratisation of the economy (saying that austerity should end is not the same thing as saying who should own what). The SP have made no substantive real case as to why a transfer to Unite would be better for members but, as we argue above, the proposed link up with Unite is not really for the members." This is not me having a swipe at my old party although i have many issues with them this should be something which concerns many union members who hold democracy close to their hearts of doing things. with thanks and solidarity to those over at your voice PCS and the independent left grouping in the PCS union their blog can be read at http://pcsindependentleft.com/2014/05/25/pcs-why-does-the-socialist-party-want-a-transfer-to-unite/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=1342&relatedposts_position=1

The Trade unions the left and strikes and no strikes this week

In this post I wil examine the left and its attitude towards strikes and how they are failing workers as leaders in certain unions and are well off track in others. In this weeks Weekly Worker a online and I think paper of the CPGB who I don’t agree with on a lot of things often stumble across something which is spot on and this weeks article on Unison and the left is spot on in regards to this weeks strikes and non strikes as some turned out to be. “Well, it did not take much for the union tops to postpone local government strike action on October 14. Indeed it was not even a firm offer - merely a “proposal” that Unison had previously rejected, but has now been dressed up as an improvement. In the face of this there have been some rather stupid comments by sections of the left, to the effect that the union leaders sold out, while the mass of the membership was chomping at the bit. For example, a member of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, identified only as “a Unison local government member”, asserts that there had been “a determined two-week campaign by the bureaucracy to extinguish a fighting mood over pay”.1 As for the Socialist Workers Party, it stated: “It was wrong to call the strike off …. We should demand the strikes are reinstated and coordinated with other public-sector unions where possible.”2 Unfortunately, however, the reality is that it has been very difficult to build up any enthusiasm for strike action despite the wishful thinking of large parts of the left. There is now to be a double consultation on the revised proposal. Unison, Unite and the GMB will put it to their members next week, while the Local Government Association will consult its affiliates. The prospect for a bad deal is high, but there are reasons other than pay to reject this proposal despite our weak position. There are rumours that the bureaucracy has conceded in principle various proposals that will not feature in the consultation with union members. Proposals that fit in entirely with the employers’ workforce strategy, but grant the unions something they desperately want: their feet under the negotiating table. There have been accusations of deliberate misinformation on the part of Unison’s Heather Wakefield in the run-up to the proposed strike. She had claimed that Unite had pulled out of the October 14 action, while the GMB was wavering, and it was thought that delegates at Unison regional briefings would be presented with a motion to suspend the strike. However, at the October 9 London briefing the Wakefield statement was withdrawn and delegates were informed that Unite and GMB were definitely on board and so all three unions would be out. A majority of London delegates wanted the strike to go ahead and thought they could deliver some kind of successful action in the capital, even if some thought it would be weaker than the July 10 strike. It seems that, even whilst the London meeting was taking place, a postponement of the strike was being discussed with the employers. Later that same day it was announced that the strike was off.3 Despite our own weak position and only the remote prospect of achieving any movement on pay, I felt that the Tuesday actionshould have gone ahead. It was part of a coordinated campaign across large sections of the public service that culminates with the TUC demonstration on October 18. It would also have acted as a morale boost for NHS strikers, including members of unions calling industrial action for the first time, who had taken part in a four-hour action on the Monday. As things stand, the employers have completely outmanoeuvred the unions and are clearly confident of achieving everything they want - for no more than they originally offered and probably less than they budgeted for. They look to be on target for a win, win, win. However, as usual, the left seems incapable of acknowledging the strength of the employers and their strategic and tactical superiority. Neither do they acknowledge the parlous state of our organisations and the widespread belief that we are not in a position to defend past gains. Instead the left just seems to hope that workers’ lack of confidence will be overcome if only we got a fighting lead from the union tops. Eschewing a proper analysis that might reveal the employers’ strengths and our own weaknesses, it blames it all on the bureaucracy. The offensive against the working class has progressed over the last 25 years without let-up. Objectively the conditions for a fightback ought to be good, but the strike-happy left routinely and repetitively commits the same errors and is consequently ignored by the vast majority of workers. They just do not buy the aimless, ultra-enthusiastic posturing that proffers a fantasy rather than a sober assessment of what is and is not possible, given both the subjective and objective conditions. Workers want and need the truth, not patronising nonsense. The left, as epitomised by the two largest organisations, the SWP and SPEW, have an excuse for a strategy. It is this: enthuse and embolden the workers with good-news stories about action - any action, but preferably a strike - because they will then learn in struggle and come to accept the leadership of the ‘revolutionaries’. This elitist approach leads these organisations to vastly exaggerate and put a gloss on everything, effectively to trick the workers into taking action and, hopefully, recruiting some of them. The bullshit has been thoroughly internalised so that many rank-and-file members of the SWP and SPEW actually believe the crap that they come out with. I remember a disastrous local strike action a few years back, when 90% of workers crossed the picket line. An unmitigated disaster, yet it was described by one leftwing blogger as “well supported”, “fantastic” and “a great success”. She even posted a photo of about 12 forlorn demonstrators standing outside the town hall as proof positive that we had all done very well indeed. In a subsequent ‘assessment’ of that strike SWP and SPEW members were unable to keep up the pretence when confronted with undeniable facts, but they quickly resorted to that other excuse: “We recruited 50 members to the union,” they proudly said - only to be told that we also lost an equal number as a direct consequence of the foolish action. Did they learn anything? Unfortunately no. We still get the same over-enthusiastic, unrealistic, puerile nonsense. Facts may be uncomfortable, but you need them to plan anything useful. There is a disconnect between the unions and their members. You can see it in ballots, inquorate and poorly attended meetings, insufficient stewards and health and safety reps, and in a host of other areas. Representative democracy barely exists and the left is entrenched within a hollowed-out shell of an organisation. They take the easy road, accommodating to that weakness and lack of democracy which substitutes for workers’ self-organisation, whilst exhorting the union tops to do better and blaming them when they don’t. It is important to understand the nature of the current situation. We are under relentless attack from all angles, in every area of life. All the forces of the state and most of the employers are determined to weaken, sideline and neuter the unions. On our side the unions have resorted to the provision of largely useless ‘services’ and quick fixes through amalgamations, while a declining, ever fragmenting left seems incapable of learning anything. There will be a turn-around, but only if we make it happen. We are not yet sufficiently organised and equipped to mount a counteroffensive. Notwithstanding the odd, isolated victory here and there, the current strategy has to be defensive: maintaining, organising and cohering forces, so that we are able to mount a counteroffensive when we are ready. We have to overcome the disconnect and that means being honest and forthright.” Extracts in quotation marks from this article over at the Weekly Worker publication of the CPGB. http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1030/unison-left-carry-on-regardless/ Notes 1. www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/19481. 2. Socialist Worker October 14. 3. The proposal is available at www.unison.org.uk/njc-14-51.

TUC Side With Bosses To Back Tory Workfare Scheme

Posted on August 2, 2014 by johnny void “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” In an astonishing and genuinely sad day for the trade uni0n movement, the TUC have teamed up with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to issue a statement supporting unpaid work. The TUC have sided with the bosses to sing the praises of the Tory Traineeship programme. This unpaid scheme can involve up to five months full-time work, sometimes for giant profit making companies like BT or Virgin. The placements are used to ‘prepare’ young people to be Apprentices, although there is no guarantee that they will be offered even this at the end of the scheme. Just like Margaret Thatcher’s despised YTS schemes, Traineeships represent a wealth grab by greedy employers. Once companies recognised they had to pay young people whilst they trained – now the tax payer will pick up the tab whilst the worker gets nothing. And just like the YTS programme was used as political cover to strip benefits from 16/17 year olds, Traineeships will be used to undermine social security payments for those under 25. George Osborne has already announced that under 22 year olds who refuse a Traineeship will soon face the prospect of six month’s workfare somewhere else instead. Despite Osborne’s announcement, the TUC say in the statement that Traineeships should be voluntary. As claimants themselves know, very little is voluntary such is the current mass benefit sanctioning culture at the DWP. This doesn’t seem to bother the scabs running the TUC who seem to have decided that Traineeships aren’t workfare, and even if they would rather they were voluntary they appear to back them anyway. This is an appalling attack on not just young unemployed people, but all workers who will see their own wages and conditions undermined by an army of unpaid staff. It is hardly surprising that the CBI are salivating at the prospect of this huge subsidy for business at the expense of the working class. Tory Skills Minister Nick Boles has joined them saying he is ‘delighted’ that the TUC support this scheme. They no doubt dream of a day when they don’t have to pay people under 25 at all. That day may not be far away and that the TUC are helping to bring it closer is as shocking as it is shameful. This blog has no sources of funding so here’s a quick reminder that you can help ensure it continues by making a donation. Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

Another march from A to B is the best Britain’s Unions can offer this year

So the TUC will be holding another set piece demonstration/march from A to B this October the 18th. This for me shows where we are at on so many levels. It’s the last thing we need another arch in central London to go to Hyde Park to listen to Ed Miliband once again and all go home feeling thoroughly deflated. This will be the third big national demonstration since the con-dem government came to power and I do suspect the size of this one could be smaller still. The first demonstration march for the alternative back on March 26 2011 I went on full of optimism that this could be the start of things has quickly faded into my mind. The feeling after that demo and all the militant talks by union leader after union leader that we must strike together now after marching together rings rather hollow. Also who can forget in 2012 Len Mcckluskey of Unite calling for a general strike by a show of hands almost seems laughable now that people actually took that seriously at the time. For me this is all rather depressing it feels like we are going around in circles and in many wyes we are while the government and the state run rings around us laughing all the way to the bank quite literally in many cases. The title for this year’s march from A to B will be called Britain needs a pay rise so we're no longer marching for an alternative just a bit of a pay rise. How much it’s not clear. Clearly this will be channeled into voting for labour next year for this to happen no doubt. So you may ask what I think should be done instead if March’s don’t work? Well I think that fighting for ourselves not looking towards leaders to lead us all the time taking control of our own struggles where we can be it in our communities or our workplaces. Many people are at breaking point that will be able to afford to come up to London to go for a march again anyway? Will those being threatened with eviction due to the vicious bedroom tax which still rumbles on despite labours claims to abolish it be able to come along for a nice day out listening to Mr. Ed? No doubt many of the trot parties out there will talk this up as the chance to prelaunch the anti cuts movement and cease it as another hot bed to sell papers and recruit some poor souls who can be easily mislead. As Karl Marx once said it is for the workers and the workers themselves to change society not a self appointed top down leadership. Also I’m sure we will hear those calls for a 24 hour general strike from the usual suspects again. This is just not going to happen by calling on the TUC to organize it from the top down. Of course it would be welcome but we’d be far better building it from below going around the union tops if need be. Let’s start today by organising in our towns and cities without the tired old leaderships. We have the power when we get together to affect change. A march in a cold October will change nothing and the unions know this. It’s a way of letting off steam. Lets by pass them.

The potential for the IWW and revolutionary unionism

During this time of massive upheaval I do believe there is a time of reassessment all that has gone before has not worked up till now and new ideas and tactics are to be re looked at and rightly so. For one I think revolutionary unionism as a movement may make a comeback of sorts. The idea that people will continue to look towards the bureaucratic and hierarchical trade unions of today such as the TUC in the United Kingdom will always be the case is somewhat missing the point. Workers will not stick blindly and loyally by a system of organising that is not producing any progress or results. While the IWW is a small movement and is a long way from making a big comeback I do feel however the conditions for horizontalism and non bureaucratic unionism is possible as we stand today. Where many political parties from the mainstream to the non mainstream including left sects on the fringes are becoming more and more discredited why cant revolutionary unions make a comeback and start to influence the workers movement? It is entirely possible and entirely necessary in my opinion. To organise away from the huge bloated bureaucracy of traditional unions of the TUC is sometimes desirable but also quite necessary. The example I give is the IWGB who at the university of London have organised away from Unison the recognised union there at the workplace but have don little to nothing and often become a obstruction on struggle for the workers involved who have been out sourced to a private company who are not recognising the new union there and their demands still till this day. However big strides have been made in their struggles a and I do firmly believe they will win and win well and shine a light to other workers in similar positions across the land. Each step the class struggle takes forward owes itself to the step taken before it. As Rosa Luxemburg related waves of struggle in revolutionary Russia in her essay The Mass Strike, each wave recedes but leaves “sediment” behind for the next wave to rise from. As it is for Wobblies. The last few years of struggle have washed to shore a great deal of sediment packed full of invaluable "nuggets" of organizing wisdom. Revolutionary organizers would do well to mine these nuggets out, analyze their content, and synthesize the best of it. They can compare these nuggets from different waves of struggle and single out some similarities which they can apply to practice. They test them, share them with other organizers, synthesize what they learn, and develop a distinct, transmutable organizing approach - or method - over time. We believe that we are beginning to establish this method now. The IWW has in recent years made a long-overdue return to the stage of history. Since the 1950s, we Wobblies barely plodded along - almost for the sake of just existing - but gradually got back on our own feet as an organization that organized. Small skirmishes with employers - and some victories - occurred here and there over the last decades of the 20th century. Wobblies made short-lived but impressive advances in the courier industry and among restaurant workers; put the IWW on the map for non-members when they organized low-wage baristas into the Starbucks Workers Union; developed an organizer training program to share past organizing lessons and improve organizers’ skillsets, and engaged in much other significant activity. The generation of Wobblies who established these developments broke new ground on a long-dormant tradition of revolutionary union organizing. Alongside an uptick in membership and activity in the late 1990s and early 2000s came the prominence of "Solidarity Unionism,”5 a grassroots organizing approach which put workers themselves in charge of their own struggle for justice in the workplace. A relative flurry of activity and a wave of new members accompanied this significant new development. Naturally, this activity waxed and waned, but the IWW and its practice of solidarity unionism established itself in the contemporary labor movement (even if it’s still on the margins). Much has happened in and around the IWW in the last several years. New high-profile organizing drives have taken off, some won, and some failed (though we challenge rigid discernments between victory and failure). The Starbucks campaign, for example, inspired new organizers to establish similar unions in several low-wage workplaces that most other unions ignored. Where Wobblies worked in unionized workplaces, they organized among the rank-and-file along IWW principles, winning gains through direct action that their “official” union could not or would not pursue. On the national scale in the US, IWWs played visible roles in both the Wisconsin Uprising and the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country and brought an unprecedented many thousands of everyday working people onto the streets and into political life. Through all this, the IWW has learned much, and organizers have improved their skills a great deal. The IWW is not what it used to be. The organization has gone through stages of historical evolution, and in order to understand the current situation it’s necessary to be aware of its place in this history. The early IWW of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Vincent St. John, Ben Fletcher and so on, from which Wobblies draw so much pride and tradition, no longer exists. It is a memory - one that is essential to hold on to because of its importance to the history and culture of the working class, but as an organization it is no more. Decades of ruling class repression, containment of working class rebellion through state (legal) channels, capitalist advancements in managerial control and internal IWW conflict--subjects critical to an understanding of how the IWW got here, but which are beyond the scope of this piece--drove the IWW to a point in the 1980s where it could claim few members, little activity, and almost no power in the working-class. Though the union still held on to relics of the original IWW in the form of Joe Hill's ashes and membership records, and on paper the organization was technically the same one that was founded in 1905, its content had drastically changed. What was once a powerful, revolutionary force for organized class struggle, stretching across the continent with influence throughout the world, had long since faded to a withered husk - an organization better characterized as a labor history club than a revolutionary union. Let's stop to note that this observation is not meant as an attack on anyone who was a member during the 80s, or an attempt to say that everything after World War I isn't the “real” IWW. It is just as real of an organization, but a different organization, which changed over time due to a multitude of historical factors, not least of which being the relative strength and consciousness of the American working-class, which had reached a similarly low point in the 1980s. Individuals who were members of the organization had ultimately very little capacity to do much within those limits, and can't be held responsible for what was the product of historical dynamics far out of their control. But it's important to recognize that the IWW had reached a demise. Though not a final demise, since it was brought back from the brink and into a new stage of development in the 1990s. Rising class-consciousness and growing interest in “radical” politics attracted more members to the IWW starting in the 1960s, with membership spiking in the mid to late 90s. The spike in the late 90s was largely activists - some of them politicized workers - immersed in the anti-globalization and anti-war protest movements. But while the organization’s membership scale increased, its content was still fundamentally different from the content of the union that led the Bread and Roses strike8. Those traditions of struggle had been broken and the union was forced to re-establish itself in a barren terrain. The 90s IWW largely functioned as a history club of greater size, but took on another dimension that sharply diverged from the union's organizing roots; increasingly (but not exclusively) the IWW became an activist organization. Here we use the term “activism” critically, in our examination of a kind of activity that is not rooted in class struggle, but instead devoted to expressing moral outrage at the capitalist system's superstructural contradictions. At its most basic, a union is “an organization of workers formed to protect the [...] interests of its members”11 over time. Where an instance of self-activity could dissipate or pass, unionism is the practice of consolidating workers into an organization that acts to protect their interests on an ongoing basis. In recent decades, this has often meant that union representatives do the “protecting” in the form of negotiating with management on the workers’ behalf, thus “unions developed a life independent of their membership and began to operate over their heads”. Solidarity Federation calls this tendency the representative function of unions as we know them now, in contrast to the (once more prevalent) associational function of workers relating directly to each other without the mediation of an entrenched bureaucracy12. This distinction is useful as it demonstrates that unions can have diverging trajectories, leading to them playing very different roles in society. While many ultra-Left positions13 take the representational function of unions for granted, understandably portraying them as backwards institutions who have a stake in maintaining capitalism, clearly there have also been many workers’ organizations throughout the history of capitalism that have retained their associational function and represented a genuine threat to capital. Whether we call it a council, a union, or anything else doesn’t change the fact that it is possible to create and maintain “an organization of workers formed to protect the [...] interests of its members” - and that such a formation can retain its autonomy from the State and its allied institutions, can win improved conditions for workers under capitalism, and, further, can facilitate the development of a revolutionary politics amongst the workers. The fact that such formations must come up against limitations under this system does not render them irrelevant, ineffective, or “infantile”. Clearly, we believe self-organization is the cornerstone of unionism, and it is the premise upon which we base our argument for Wobblyism. We draw on a rich tradition of working class self-organization in the US, from the Knights of Labor14 Its true that the IWW is small and largely unheard of in the UK but I do believe its method of organising and the idea of revolutionary unions is something all revolutionaries should revisit and take a moment to think can this be of any use to our struggle or for us wishing to change society as I believe it can be if taken seriously. I’d encourage all to read up more on this via this excellent new document put out at http://libcom.org/library/wobblyism-revolutionary-unionism-today

Groveling to the bourgeois media

All last night I was reading my twitter after the big NHS demonstration at Tory party conference numbers seem large it’s hard to put a figure on it but its widely thought it was 50 thousand plus with many coming from all over the land to show their anger to the Tories. In one of the only big demonstrations for a long time this was going to be big as there has been little else going on on a national scale anyway. But yet all I was reading last night is how angry people were that the BBC apparently didn’t film the protest. This is quite remarkable really the BBC has not covered any of the changes to the NHS and the planned privatisation up till now so why all of a sudden will they start covering a protest against it? Appealing to the likes of the BBC and sky news even more hilariously is going too far since when have the bourgeois press given workers movements and struggles a fair hearing? They haven’t and they never will. Unless there is violence or damage to buildings like a window smashed or something they won’t bother reporting. In other words if there is no shit smashed up there is no interest here no narrative to sew. These are just moderate trade unions on a day out in the sun being lead up the garden path once again only to be lead down with no action planned or named to follow. I wasn’t there as I say but was strike action named or even suggested from various trade union, community and labour party figures? I doubt it somehow. I am sure we were told how nasty those Tories are despite the labour party laying the grounds for a lot of what is happening to the NHS today. The hypocrisy of union leaders and labour party officials knows no boundaries I’m afraid especially when it comes to boosting your own popularity. March’s from A to B with a few rousing speech's from the likes of Owen Jones and Len McClusky is not my idea of radicalism. For those who wish their struggles to be covered how about setting up our own alternative radical media outlets? There is a few about already with Novara media being my pick of the lot. This is all amateur run with volunteers from radical traditions student movements contributing to an excellent production every week. Websites and twitter streams can be useful tool in a protest with actions being covered and reported. Although covering shouldn’t be putting us at risk to the police by having a live stream which can be used to identify protesters the police may have their eye on. But I was not surprised that the likes of the BBC and Sky did not cover this demonstration they are at the end of the day backers and supporters of big business and ultimately capitalism and the regime in power I’m not surprised so neither should you all. Let’s think about covering our own protests with good coverage in our own publications and media independent of the ruling class. Taking control of our own battles is a start a means to an end if the BBC and others choose to cover things we do that are up to them but let’s not sew illusions in them that they are in any way on our side. They are not. Ultimately the NHS will not be saved by holding illusions in labour undoing anything the Tories do or holding March’s up and down the land we need mass action. Strikes should be firmly on the table with local strike committees in hospitals set up with a mass drive to recruit to the unions within the workplace. Building confidence is a must. NHS workers are under huge pressure so allowing them to express how they feel and what they feel is possible even on a limited scale to start with is a good place to start. Calling for all out strike action at this point would be jumping head of the situation on the ground. Organizing will take time going hospital to hospital but it is I’m afraid necessary to building a fight back within the NHS and beyond. Linking up with community campaigns is key too with patients being kept on board at all times. There will be support shown to NHS workers if they take action as yesterdays March showed there is the numbers there if confidence is built on. We will see what comes of anything after this march. I am not holding my breath.

What has the TUC ever done for us?

What has the TUC ever done for us? Is a very good question indeed right about now with attack after attack coming all the time the TUC which over sea’s the trade unions and keeps them in check has done much to prevent struggle I would argue and in my view is a barrier for change in a big way. Before I get labelled ultra left I think it’s worth bearing in mind since 2010 anyway since modern austerity has begun what role the TUC has played. In many ways the TUC has been that lever that has let off steam from workers anger from below. That’s not to say that there’s a constant and an ever bubbling class anger as some on the left like to constantly claim. If only those pesky trade union leaders would just call a 24 hour general strike their minds tick over and over. Yet the TUC has had its role historically as a mediator in the class struggle it is a capitalist body which was absorbed into the system many moons ago. It is there not to facilitate struggle but to actively police it. In September 2012, TUC Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for co-ordinated national action, up to and including a general strike. It’s nearly 88 years since the last General Strike in Britain was sold out by the leadership of the Labour Movement. Countless times since then, trade union leaders, like the Grand Old Duke of York, have marched us up to the top of the hill with fighting talk and the promise of victory, then marched us down again, demobilising struggles and selling out rank-and-file members. We must learn from history, not repeat it. As workers, we need to directly control our own workplace and community struggles by organising direct action (e.g. indefinite wildcat strikes, solidarity pickets, occupations, blockades). That means having confidence in our ability to take matters into our own hands and organise resistance to austerity and exploitation, without relying on the ‘official’ channels. I am a firm believer in workers controlling their own struggles once you allow a bureaucrat to decide what is best for you you loose all sense of power and identity in the struggle all attempts to co opt power in the hands of a bureaucratic elite must be resisted n my view. Histories shows, the only way to ever make a difference are by direct action, whether it is on the streets, or in the workplace. Posturing and words alone achieve nothing. We all know that any fightback will not come from the Labour Party (or any other party); it’ll be from workers, public service users, parents, pensioners, students, the unemployed. If we see a mass working class fightback, we can expect the trade union leaders to be there, at the rallies and demonstrations, urging us forward. But looking at the struggles of the past few years, should this fill us with confidence? Are these union leaders behind us? Some recent defeats and ‘almosts’ In 2009, Visteon factories in London and Belfast were occupied. After dragging its heels and giving poor legal advice, Unite encouraged workers to leave the occupied factories. Eventually a deal was done behind closed doors and the union recommended acceptance of a partial offer that left the crucial issue of pensions untouched. In 2008, strikes were prepared across the public sector. Workers in Unison, NUT and PCS all took action against the government’s 2% pay-cap, sometimes even on the same day. After only two days of strike action Unison, the biggest of the three unions, took its dispute to ACAS. The arbitrating body’s decision being legally binding, this effectively removed its members from the dispute. The other unions soon followed suit. In 2007, as the government threatened 40,000 job cuts at Royal Mail and attacked pay and pensions, wildcat strikes spread across Britain with postal workers refusing to cross each others’ picket lines. The CWU soon called off all action to enter ‘meaningful negotiations’ which lasted weeks and came to no firm conclusion. Demoralised and demobilised posties accepted an agreement basically unchanged from the first one. But the CWU declared victory: they were guaranteed a ‘consultation’ role in the cuts. These are just some examples; you can pick many more from recent and not- so-recent history. And they all raise the question: why are our unions so bad at what we expect them to do? Not being a force for revolution or anything, but bog-standard, Ronseal-advert, doing-what-it-says-on-the-tin, fighting for their members’ interests. Union troubles, outside and in.. Trade union officials will blame the membership, saying they don’t want to fight. This might be true sometimes but didn’t the wildcatting posties want to fight? The Visteon workers, after occupying their factories, didn’t want to fight? There’s more going on than just the ‘workers aren’t up for it’... It’s not all the unions’ fault. Since the Thatcher years we’ve seen so many new laws restricting strike action that British industrial relations legislation is amongst the most anti-worker in the developed world. Where once wildcat strikes and secondary picketing were common, now they are a rarity. Even things like forcing ballots to be done in secret, posted from home, where workers can’t sense the solidarity of their workmates, is intended to discourage militant action. But there’s a problem with this argument too. These laws were pushed through as a result of working class defeat, a defeat that the unions were complicit in. Unions had been disciplining their members for decades before these laws were even a twinkle in Thatcher’s eye. Whether it be NUM official Will Lawther’s 1947 call to prosecute wildcatting miners “even if there are 50,000 or 100,000 of them” or the UPW slapping members with fines totalling £1,000 and threatening expulsion from the union (thus losing their jobs, as it was a closed shop) for refusing to handle post during the 1977 Grunwick strike, one thing seen time and again is union leaders moving against the militant action of their members. Putting it down to legislation passed in the last 20-30 years does nothing to explain such actions before then. Bureaucrats So the problems aren’t just external: we can’t just act like proud parents and say they fell in with a bad crowd. The fact is the unions have come to resemble the companies we expect them to fight with highly paid executive decision makers, a downward chain-of-command and a career ladder that goes beyond the union and into the halls of social democratic governing institutions (think-tanks, Labour Party etc). Such a structure needs people to fill it: bureaucrats, who by definition are separate from the lives of the workers they represent. This is true even of former shopfloor militants. Having left the workplace, their everyday experiences are not the same as those they used to work alongside. Their priorities and, more importantly, their material interests are not the same. A victory for a worker means an improvement in working conditions; a victory for a bureaucrat means a seat at the negotiating table. But this seat for the bureaucrat doesn’t necessarily mean any improvement for the worker, as the CWU’s consultation ‘victory’ proves. To say union bureaucrats have different priorities and interests is not just spite. It’s to underline that it’s not about them being “baddies.” Many committed militants become union officials because they want to be employed spreading struggle rather than just working for some arsehole boss. But the trouble is that ‘struggle’ and ‘the union’ are not the same thing and spreading the latter does not mean encouraging the former. This has always been the case. The contradiction between workers and union bureaucrats has been going on in the UK for over a century. One such example was with the anarchist John Turner, an unpaid leader of the United Shop Assistants Union for seven years who in 1898 became a paid national organiser, travelling up and down the country recruiting to the union. Though it grew massively, Turner had also started to change his approach. As conflicts flared up so would branches of the union; but as conflicts died down so did the branches. To keep a stable membership, he introduced sickness and unemployment benefits as perks of union membership. The plan worked. A stable membership was established and by 1910 the Shop Assistants Union was the biggest in the London area. But the nature of the union had changed. And even if Turner couldn’t see it, the workers could. The union bureaucracy became seen by many as an interference with local initiative and in 1909 Turner was accused of playing the “role of one of the most blatant reactionaries with which the Trades Union movement was ever cursed” . The tragedy of John Turner1 is not as simple as him ‘selling out’; he remained an anarchist to the day he died. But as a full-time organiser paid by the union his priority began to be perpetuating the union rather than organising conflicts and soon his union was no different from the other unions. This is because in the eyes of a trade union official, the union is not just the means to encourage struggle but the means through which struggle itself happens. Building the union is top priority and stopping things which get the union in trouble (like unofficial action) take on the utmost importance; after all, if the workers get the union into too much trouble, how will struggle happen? Of course, an individual can take on a full-time union job and concentrate on organising conflicts rather than just recruitment. But full-timers aren’t freelancers, their bosses (the union they work for), like any other boss, needs to see results. And ‘results’ doesn’t mean class conflict, it means membership recruitment and retention. Because without members, official trade unionism can’t do what it most needs to. Meeting employers half-way Criticisms of the bureaucratic nature of the trade unions are not uncommon on the far-left. Many conclude that we need to democratise or ‘reclaim’ the existing unions, while others more radically conclude that we need new unions, controlled by the rank and file. However, this misses the point about what bureaucracies are and why they happen. Unions don’t play this role because they’re bureaucratic, they’re bureaucratic because of the role they play. That is, they try to mediate the conflict between workers and their bosses. The primary way this happens is through monopolising the right to negotiate conditions on behalf of the workforce. What is crucial when trying to do this is maintaining as high a membership as possible, regardless of how detached from the workplace such a union becomes. As union density drops generally, unions solve this problem with endless mergers as high membership figures help maintain their influence with management (not to mention the TUC and the Labour Party). If a union is to secure its place as the negotiator in the workplace, it not only has to win the support of its members but also show bosses that they can get the workforce back to work once an agreement is reached. By having membership figures which they can point at to make sure management recognise them as the body able to negotiate wages and conditions, unions are also able to use this position to retain and attract members. Equally, this influence with the workforce is what’s useful to management. Union bureaucrats offer stability in the workplace, diverting workers’ anger into a complex world of employment law, grievance procedures and casework forms. As Buzz Hargrove, leader of the militant Canadian Auto Workers union, wrote in his autobiography: “Good unions work to defuse [workers’] anger – and they do it effectively. Without unions, there would be anarchy in the workplace. Strikes would be commonplace, and confrontation and violence would increase. Poor-quality workmanship, low productivity, increased sick time, and absenteeism would be the preferred form of worker protest. “By and large, unions deflect those damaging and costly forms of worker resistance. If our critics understood what really goes on behind the labour scenes, they would be thankful that union leaders are as effective as they are in averting strikes.” The legal restrictions on unions mentioned earlier are often called “anti-union” laws. However when looked at like this, it becomes apparent that these laws are not so much anti-union as anti-worker. If anything, it strengthens the union’s hand by giving it a total monopoly on all legally recognised (and therefore protected) forms of action. The same laws which help employers maintain order in the workplace can also be seen helping the union maintain its half of the bargain with the employers. As a result, pro-union radicals often propose the ‘wink and nod’ strategy: that is, the union officially saying “come on, back to work, the union doesn’t condone this...” while giving a sly little wink while the boss isn’t looking. But if bosses don’t think a union can keep up its end of the bargain then they won’t recognise them as negotiating “partners.” Why would they? Why would anyone repeatedly reach an agreement with someone else if they knew that person wouldn’t uphold their side of the bargain? In order to function as representatives of the workforce, unions have to play by the rules including, where necessary, policing the workforce and directing militancy into the “proper channels.” The anti-strike laws reinforce this pressure by threatening unions with financial ruin if they don’t rein in legally unprotected actions. This is where the pressure to discipline members comes from. It’s not a question of the right leaders with the right politics or of having the right principles written down in a constitution. It’s not about individuals, it’s about how structures work to fulfill their needs. From John Turner through to today via the French CGT, American CIO, Polish Solidarnosc and countless others, unions have turned, through their role as mediators, away from their origins as expressions of class anger and into organisations disciplining the working class against its own interests. Notably, the unions that avoided this fate are those that adopted explicitly revolutionary perspectives and consciously refused to play a mediating role, such as the Spanish CNT’s refusal to participate in works councils and union elections2. So what then? This article is just the start of a wider criticism of unions. But where unions seek to act as mediators and representatives they necessitate the creation of bureaucracies to take on this task and bureaucrats, separated as they are from workers’ lives, have different interests from them. They need primarily to maintain their seat at the negotiating table. Therefore it’s no surprise that where gains have been made (even within a union framework) it has been through the threat or actuality of unmediated direct action: from the Lindsey Oil Refinery strikes to the wildcat-prone refuse workers of Brighton to the solidarity of truck drivers not crossing Shell truckers’ picket lines. And most recently the sparks dispute which won big gains was won through rank and file organisation. These strikes, which ended in unqualified victories for the workers, pushed the boundaries of trade union action, breaking anti-strike laws and taking place outside the official union structures (even if organised by lay-reps at local union level). Our task is to encourage this sort of independent activity, to encourage the control of struggles through workplace meetings of all workers affected (regardless of union affiliation) and to encourage the use of direct action to get results. These should be the guiding principles for us in workplace organising. Leave ‘reclaiming the unions’ to the ones who have time for that sort of thing , they can build career ladders for bureaucrats. If union density is what creates militancy then the UK (at 27%) would be far more militant than France (8%). Clearly this is not the case. We’re done building new bureaucracies; we need to take action without them. With thanks and credits to http://libcom.org/library/red-flags-torn-brief-sketch-some-problems-unions-ed-goddard

Rebuilding the trade unions

When you mention trade unions to Joe public you’re either met with abuse or complete bemusement. Far fewer people are part of a union these days and we have to ask why. Of course the deindustrialisation played its part with far less manual labour jobs being about the highest density of union membership is in the public sector where you’re in the minority if you’re not in a union. It’s interesting to find out why this is. I think a lot of peoples jobs now are not seen as jobs for life and quite often you’re in and out of a job so joining a union even if you knew about what union is for you may not join simply as you don’t have the time or the funds to do so. I think unions must change and look to reach out to these workers. But as socialists I do think we could be doing more too. Instead of calling for 24 hour general strikes which may be the right thing at some point but doesn’t look likely anytime soon with the current leadership of our unions. I’d suggest focusing on rebuilding the trade union movement from the bottom up. For example we could be on the work gates at the start and end of the working day looking to recruit to the union explaining the benefits and that we are stronger together. This will not only boost the union membership but will also show we ourselves are serious about rebuilding the unions too. If we are actively getting involved in recruiting instead of raising slogans like a 24 hour general strike when some workers are not even involved in a union it’s difficult to link the two together. It’s quite a jump for some workers new to the movement. Not that many don’t want to fight back but we must be patient with some who may be coming into unions for the first time. I don’t see why we cannot have a due pronged attack with a rank and file level trying to raise the agitating and propaganda at a bottom up level and also having that appeal putting demands on the union leadership to struggle to improve things for the members. A 24 hour general strike with further action is totally necessary but the more I hear the slogan I do wonder if it’s being pitched in the right way. Are we explaining what we men when we say it? I think many are scared off by the slogan in some ways as they automatically think of a all out general strike which the last one in 1926 led to a huge defeat so workers are naturally wary of such terms. I think we must be explicit in explaining what we mean and what generalising all the fight backs would mean for the struggle we face. I do think we need a new rank and file movement the NSSN which we participate within is good but is not a proper rank and file body. It does support rank and file workers don’t get me wrong but it doesn’t at this point have representation in all unions with a commanding influence as yet. Workers do not see the NSSN as a genuie rank and file movement as yet maybe they will but certainly it’s a factor in the movement but not yet a decisive one. So far its been used by the socialist party and other leading union officials to put pressuer on the TUC. This can be one role of a organisation like the NSSN but it could also be building ral links in the bodies of theseunions generalising struggle linking disputes together and lending solidarity. In this day and age of workers being divided it must be for bodies like the NSSN to draw workers closer together from different sectors and try to destroy barriers tat are put up to divide us and look for common struggles to link workers together. Solidarity is key here too. Of course having a union which fights for you is member lead and does what it’s supposed to will have better success in recruiting to its union but even not so good unions can still recruit. Even during a time when most unions have abandoned the idea of struggle and some have even a no strike agreement with the labour party to save them any embarrassment before the next general election some unions have still seen a growth in membership. I know Unison has had a recruitment drive with television adverts and a big push in the media too which has given them a boost. Every so often this is necessary even for a right wing lead union like unison as the bureaucracy at the top fears a declining membership for its own selfish reasons as the members pay their highly inflated salaries so a falling membership is in their interests even if just to cement their own comfy positions at the top. There is positive news though out last week. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS] says union membership in the private sector increased by 63,000 in 2012 to 2.6m, after falling sharply – by 450,000 – between 2007 and 2010. The proportion of female employees who were in a trade union was around 29% in 2012, compared with 23% for male employees. This marks a significant gender shift. In 1995, 35% of male workers were union members and 30% of female workers were in a trade union. The annual BIS report says in total around 6.5m people were trade union members in 2012, which is up by 59,000 from 2011. According to the report, the proportion of employees who were trade union members was highest among Black or Black British ethnic groups at 28% in 2012, compared with 26% for all employees. Officials say the rise in trade union membership follows four consecutive annual falls in membership of more than 100,000 following a period of broad stability between 1995 and 2007. The report also notes that the economic downturn has had an uneven effect on membership. The BIS says union membership levels have kept pace with an overall increase in the numbers of UK employees between 2011 and 2012, because the number of private sector employees who were members increased faster than the numbers who were non-members. Union members continue to enjoy a wage “premium”, according to the BIS. Of every £10,000 earned by a non-union member in the public sector, on average a union member earned around £1,690 more in 2012 and an additional £430 in the private sector. In the public sector, union membership levels were broadly stable in 2012, after falling sharply by 186,000 in 2011. A long-term decline in private sector membership had been blamed on the loss of jobs and union members in the UK manufacturing industry, where membership is now around one third of the level in the mid 1990s. In addition, around 0.5m members have gone from the construction, finance, transportation and storage industries. Historically, large proportions of workers in these sectors had been union members. The report also notes that the average age of union members is rising. About 36% of trade union member employees were aged over 50 in 2012, compared with 22% in 1995. People working in professional occupations were more likely to be trade union members last year than employees in other occupations. The BIS says employees in the professional occupations account for 49% of all union members, although only for 20% of all employees in the UK worked in this sector. With reference to union news Uk and the office for national statistics

Why do we no longer talk about a shorter working week?

It’s been something which has been on my mind for a while a demand that has really gone completely off the radar. As socialists we talk about creating more work and decently paid jobs and so on but should we not also be looking to demand a shorter working week to say 20 hours or even the old 35 hours which is still very common in France still despite being under threat. All this would of course be for no loss of pay. Solving a jobs crisis and how much leisure time or time spent on politics learning and developing ourselves as a society too. It seems a clear demand we could and possibly should be raising more. The idea that work is the only way to run society and if your not working your somehow at a disadvantage is a interesting point of view. As we know many capitalists do not work and sit and live off the profits of their factories and industries. But a social wage is a concept which interests me a lot in a future socialist society pushing these demands when work is gradually being more and more automised under capitalism and we see our labour power fetching less and less value. While all nation states compete to drive labour power down to a low enough level to increase profits we as workers need to see that work isn’t the only way society can be ordered and that a reordering of society should involve a reduction in the working week. It just seems obvious that the likes of the TUC should be pushing this idea it’s something that could be extremely popular and gain a lot of support. By tackling several issues not least a job’s crisis by the idea of job sharing with the same rate of pay for all for similar tasks performed by the worker. I know I certainly do not want to be working all my life and I don’t imagine many others do too and why should we? At present the age of retirement is estimated to about 70 for me and my generation and it only looks like it will increase as austerity which is the norm now for as far as the eye can see. Capitalists who are in affect on an investment strike to take a Keynesian phrase for a moment will look to drive down any of their costs any way they can right now that includes deflating wages and the like. So a shorter working week will not be popular with the boss’s of course but much like gaining support from the media this is not and should be the deciding factor to whether a demand is correct or not. Allowing for a shorter working week would provide workers with a lot more free time to begin to organise society along socialised lines and starting to put in the building blocks for building a much fairer society that can start to me the needs of the many.

Solidarity on workers memorial lday 2013

Every year workers around the world celebrate their fallen comrades injured or killed at work. This is a opportunity to reflect and remember the dead but most importantly to continue to fight for the living. The real scandal is the 20,000 people who die each year in the UK due to injury or diseases linked to their work. The government of millionaires is attacking our health and safety legislation. The Health and Safety Executive's budget has been cut by 35%. There has been a 50% cut in the number of workplace inspections and the number of prosecutions have fallen by the same amount. The bosses are demanding many more safety regulations be swept away. Workers' Memorial Day is held on 28 April every year. The TUC says: "the day serves as a rallying cry to remember the dead, but fight like hell for the For centuries working people have demanded justice for those slain in the workplaces by the bosses whose sole motivation is profit. If we don't fight to maintain the gains of the past then the bosses and their government will surely take them away. Every year more people are killed at work than in wars. Most don't die of mystery ailments, or in tragic "accidents". They die because an employer decided their safety just wasn't that important a priority. Workers’ Memorial Day (WMD) commemorates those workers. Workers' Memorial Day is held on 28 April every year, all over the world workers and their representatives conduct events, demonstrations, vigils and a whole host of other activities to mark the day. The day is also intended to serve as a rallying cry to “remember the dead, but fight like hell for the living”. The TUC coordinates activities across the country, publishing a comprehensive listing of events and suggestions. A listing of the global activities is available from the Hazards website. Every year, two million men and women die worldwide as a result of work-related injuries and diseases. Workers' Memorial Day held annually on 28 April, is a day when all over the world workers and their representatives conduct events, demonstrations, vigils and a host of other activities to remember this toll. The TUC says in the UK over 20,000 people die prematurely every year as a result of injuries or accidents caused by their work. This year it has called on unions and safety campaigners to make 28 April a day of action to defend health and safety from attacks by the press, politicians and employers. The union body is concerned that the UK's workplace safety record could be about to get worse as a direct result of government policies. Not only do funding cuts - both to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and to local authorities - mean there will be fewer official safety inspections, the government has also said that workplaces like shops, offices, schools, docks and farms no longer need to be routinely visited. TUC adds that 'health and safety bashers' should be reminded what safety law is really all about - not pointless regulation but necessary protection to stop employers taking risks with workplace safety and which prevents people from being killed, injured or made ill as a result of their work.

TUC- the Useless congress

This week the NSSN lobbied the TUC general council and again made the appeal for a 24 hour general strike which would be the start of rolling action not simply that and nothing else which is what some ultra left’s think we are calling for. It would only be a start. But given that at the most the TUC would call a one day of controlled militancy with a very top down approach are our attempts to lobby this bureaucratic body really having an affect? No doubt more know about the ideas of a 24 hour general strike now it is still largely misunderstood I think and many rank-and-file union members are still unaware of the in’sand out’s of what it would actually mean. I still don’t feel we have explained what it would mean very well despite a number of comrades best efforts. We are simply to small to gain that amount of influence within work places. We do some excellent work but I do think we are missing a trick by only appealing to union tops and most of which are right wing union leaders very few are left union leaders those that are do a good job but are still wedded to the bureaucracy despite their best rhetoric. The simple truth is that the TUC is there deliberately as a block on workers taking action I can see this very clearly so I can fully understand comrades frustration when lobbying some very well to do union leaders. In my view it should be the rank-and-file we should be looking to win over to build and support action from below to go beyond the structures of the TUC if need be. Only by forcing action will union leaders take note if you’re simply appealing for them to lift their tiny finger a slight bit it may happen but asking them to take subsequent follow up action would be even harder. Their answer will be we’ve gone out on strike once and we did not win so we can’t win. Much like on November the 30th many union tops will say we went on strike and the government didn’t back down. Well no they didn’t as many of you sold out and thought it was more about damage limitation than actually trying to win. The old saying if you don’t fight you can’t win but if you do fight at least you got a chance to win is very apt today. I don’t think we should have one strategy of simply lobbying the TUC every few months its clear its not having much affect at all despite my part the socialist party thinking it is I see very little evidence for this. I do think we have the tendency to talk up a situation being better than it is sometimes I think its sub continues that we’d like to think we’re far stronger than we actually are. This is not very Marxist as we are always told to tell things how they are and if we are not very strong we should recognise that fact. Then if you recognise where you are you can then start to build from there not from where you’d like to be. Union density especially in the private sector is terrible and calling for a general strike when most of the population are not in a union may draw more towards you but could also alienate many too if we’re not careful. The way this is posed is very important. Considering only 6 million out of a working population of millions more could create more divisions than unity if it is not carefully explained and won over the best layer of workers who can bring their colleagues along with the on any action. I don’t think lobbying the TUC is a total dead end it can be a good propaganda tool to bring militant workers towards us but many will soon come to see the difficulties I feel as I have done now. I will always support our actions but have now realised their limitations and difficulties. The fact is the TUC is not a vehicle for struggle like it once may well have been the TUC takes in militant workers and tries to pay them off into comfortable positions of bureaucracy where they are watered down and restrained from action. It takes a strong vanguard with an organised cadre of militants to gain any affect. At present our rank-and-file movements are far too weak to call any action on our own at this stage. Deepening our links and our influence in unions should be our priority winning positions but also gaining influence among the rank-and file should be key to rebuilding the trade union movement. I meet many young people especially who do not even know what a trade union actually is and often believe the views of the capitalist media that all unions do is go on strike and disrupt things. Well that is just one side of them and knowing the actual background is just not there for many. It’s our job to re educate the class to popularise the ideas of struggle once again. Explain what unions can do for you and how you can fight within them for change. Unlike the labour party unions can be reclaimed for their members as the all be it limited democratic structures in some unions do still exist today. This will not be a short term fix and there will be moves forward and backwards in the struggle but winning back our unions is key. Working outside the TUC structures must not be ruled out either the working class when blocked off on one route can take any number of other routes to fightback we should not dismiss this if it happens but look to be there when they do move and look to arm workers with ideas of socialism and what is needed at each stage. Workers will come to their own conclusions no doubt so a calm patient tone is always necessary. But certainly I can fully understand many workers dis-trust and even anger at the TUC and its representatives it’s been a long time since they have represented workers. For us to appeal to that can feel very disheartening but it’s a means to an end not an end in itself which is why I haven’t completed written it off. We will have to see if from under pressure any action is called the pressure is building from below no doubt and union leaders may have to act to let the steam off from below. But this can be done in many ways. One thing is for certain workers are waking up slowly and will look for their traditional structures at first if they are not there or not working for them several options will present themselves. We must support them all the way if we are to win influence and ultimately change society towards a socialist society.

The true story behind Britain’s unemployment figures

We were told this week that official unemployment jumped-up this week to over 2.5 million in Britain but this is a false figure in many ways. You are classed as employed if you do two or three hours a week that is so called employment. If you are self employed and sell a few things a week that is seen as employed. Also if you don’t sign on for Jobs seakers allowance JSA you are not picked up by the system so effectively not classed as unemployed even though clearly you are the government simply are not aware of you. All this is designed to mask the true figures of unemployment in this country. For a long time the official unemployment figures have defied gravity with the real economic situation seeming to not fit with the labour market figures. I’ve blogged before how much business’s m may be hoarding labour as the cost of re hiring and retraining would be extensive. As the crisis deepens and no sign of a recovery of any real magnitude is forthcoming these workers will be let go. unemployment could be as high as 6.3 million in the UK if a different counting measure was used, highlighting the true scale of joblessness, according to a new report from the TUC. The TUC said the higher figure - more than twice the official total - was revealed using an American measure, which includes people in part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work and recent redundancies. The jobless total increased to 2.5 million last week and is expected to rise again in the coming months as the cuts deepen. But the TUC study suggested the actual number of unemployed people in the UK could be 6.3 million, which would be higher than any point since the early 1990s. Under-employment, which counts those doing temporary or part-time jobs because they cannot find permanent, full-time work, has risen to a record 1.9 million, according to the research. The TUC said temporary jobs were better than unemployment, but added that they tended to be low paid, insecure and offered little or no career prospects. Officials called on the Government to acknowledge the scale of the jobs "crisis" rather than repeat the "ill-informed" claim that there were plenty of jobs available. This jobs crisis is not confined to those out of work. Nearly two million people are being forced to take low-paid, insecure, short hours jobs because of the lack of proper full-time employment. This means people are taking home much less pay, which is putting a real strain on family budgets. "When ministers say there are plenty of jobs out there, they are ignoring the sheer numbers of people looking for work, as well as the suitability and location of the jobs available. "Rather than seek to blame unemployed people for being out of work, the Government should start helping them by putting proper resources into employment schemes. The report followed a study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development which showed that job prospects are set to worsen in the coming months as firms make workers redundant. A survey of 1,000 employers also revealed a further widening of a North-South divide in the jobs market. There are 600,000 more people working part-time who say they want to work full-time, compared to three years ago, said the organisation. Graeme Cooke, IPPR Associate Director, said: "Every month that goes by, the urgent need for the new Youth Contract continues to grow. It is now almost a year since the Future Jobs Fund stopped giving young people a job guarantee after a year of unemployment. "The next priority should be areas of the country experiencing the combination of both high unemployment and a low number of vacancies, while the prospects of those over 50 and unemployed for more than a year are also of serious concern. "The longer someone is unemployed, the less likely they are to ever return to work. Being out of work for more than a year can have a scarring effect, making it harder to get a job as well as having a negative impact on one's health and well-being. This means that even when employment starts to pick up again, they will find it hard to compete with other jobseekers and could find themselves permanently shut out of the jobs market.

march 26 2011 a look back, TUC vacated struggle for now

2 years ago today we were on the embankment in London lining up to march against the cuts the first major demonstration since the con-dems came to power. There was great noise and expectation that this could be the start of a mass fight back by the unions and the working class as a result. Yet today looking back 2 years on we’re left wondering what was it all for? Hearing big grand speeches from union leader after union leader we need to go further one march is not enough one day strike action is not enough yet barring November the 30th 2011 was a big march up a hill and back again. The TUC disgracefully has still not responded to the consultation on the consideration of a general strike agreed at last year’s TUC congress in September which the NSSN lobbied. I hear today unison one of the biggest public sector unions has the lowest days lost to strike action in its history at this present time one strike and one strike ballot live at present apparently. That for me sums up the trade union leadership absolute capitulation to the cuts a willingness to rush into negotiations before fighting. November the 30th sell out by right wing trade union leaders set our movement back a huge way from a point we were at a weak point anyway before. Thinking back to march 26th 2011 I was full of optimism I’d just joined the socialist party and felt the working class was awakening again to take on this vicious undemocratic government yet we’re in this big lull at the moment waiting and intervening where we can waiting to see which way the class turns . But I can’t help feeling March 26 and the following year was a big disappointment and an opportunity lost. The following year in October of 2012 there was far less on the demonstration a “future that works” was the title not march for the alternative this time and from a demonstration of 500 k plus in 2011 was probably less than half of that who c amen on October the 20th. No doubt disillusioned and disheartened by the continued sell outs of union leaders and a failure to take the struggle on. While labour politicians used both platforms to spout their too far and too fast line rightly miliband got booed on the last demo. No pro cuts MP should be invited from now on in my view it disarms us. We will again be lobbying the TUC with the NSSN this April on the 24th when the general council meets again. We cannot let these bureaucrats off the hook. If it has to be we will go it alone PCS has already shown it is prepared to fight even if no other unions are alongside them. This is far from ideal and PCS must be supported with solidarity and other unions joining the action next time. The Tories are out for unions like the PCS so they need our solidarity and what better way than to get other unions to join the action. Unity is strength in this case. March 26th will live long in the memory for me one of my first big demonstrations and inspirational in some ways yet it could have been so much more. We must remember that going forward learn from our setbacks so we do not make the same mistakes again.

Mass trade union response to austerity needed to channel anger

There is the real danger of peoples anger which is growing by the day in Britain to spill out in unconstructive ways including riots and other counter productive expressions. We do not condone riots as socialists but they could become all too real again if peoples anger at the cuts mass privatisation and hefty austerity is not opposed in a positive constructive avenue. The Socialist Party has consistently called for the unions to organise and coordinate strike action, including a 24-hour general strike against austerity. This is urgent. Even more than the two million-strong N30 strike in November 2011, effectively a one-day public sector general strike, this type of action would get huge support across the public and private sectors. The N30 strike rallies and demonstrations were massive but since then people's anger against Con-Dem cuts, including in the NHS and now the hated Bedroom Tax, has only increased. There is huge potential to build support for generalised strike action among the wider working class, large sections of the middle class and especially the youth. Measures are needed to help precarious workers facing intimidation to unionise. Youth Fight for Jobs has begun this work with its Sick of Your Boss initiative showing the potential for trade unions to reach out to unorganised workers. A 24-hour general strike would be a mighty demonstration of the power of the trade unions and their appeal would grow enormously. But since N30 there has been no follow-up national coordinated action by the unions although there were numerous local and sectional disputes, securing a number of victories such as that of the sparks against the construction companies' vicious attempt to slash a third of their pay. PCS members have organised group action in many government departments, often securing significant concessions or even outright victories, such as preventing compulsory redundancies in the DWP. However, millions of other workers will be asking, 'What about me?' By April 2014, all public sector workers will be paying increased pension contributions, another pay cut on the back of a five-year pay freeze or below inflation pay rises. Tory minister Pickles has just imposed a 1% pay rise on millions of council workers - a 2% pay cut in real terms - with strings! Teachers are facing attacks on all fronts - on pay, through academisation and on workload. In September 2012 the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) brought 1,000 union activists to Brighton to lobby TUC Congress in support of the POA motion that called for the "practicalities of a general strike" to be considered. The TUC General Council of union leaders is meeting on 24 April to discuss each union's submissions on this after it was passed. The anti-trade union laws present a certain obstacle - as they have done in southern Europe. But as has been shown in Greece, Spain, Italy, etc, the ability of the government and employers to use the anti-union laws depends on the concrete balance of forces. When prison officers, who have no legal right to strike, organised action on 10 May 2012, the government did not dare to use the law against the POA, as they knew it would escalate the struggle. As the Socialist party has said, if the TUC was to name the day for a general strike, and then make it clear to the government that if any unions or workers were threatened for participating in the strike the TUC would immediately call another 24-hour general strike, the anti-trade union laws could be pushed aside, losing their power to hobble the trade union movement. The left unions won the vote at a recent TUC executive to get the left legal experts Keith Ewing and John Hendy to the April General Council to explain their opinion on how a general strike could be legal. We welcome this discussion - but there is already the potential to build mass joint action. This could start in the public sector on pay, privatisation, redundancies, etc, and then the appeal could go out to workers in the private sector to ballot on the innumerable grievances that face them. For example, the CWU facing planned privatisation of the Royal Mail and the RMT and the other rail unions have the prospect of the devastating McNulty Report. The NSSN is calling for a lobby of the 24 April TUC General Council meeting. It will demand that the trade union leaders do not just consider the general strike submissions but name the date. But the union leaders don't need to wait for that meeting; they should already be discussing coordinating ballots and action for late June. PCS is following up the recent 20 March budget day strike with a half-day stoppage on 5 April - the final day of the tax year. As PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka outlined at a TUC pre-budget rally, this will herald a series of group and departmental actions of various durations, in the build-up to a likely one-day strike on 26 June, when Osborne sets out the next phase of the cuts in his Comprehensive Spending Review. Since then the NUT and NASUWT teaching unions have announced regional strikes, starting with the North West on 27 June. This should be turned into a national strike, coordinated with the PCS, who have appealed to other unions to strike with them. Activists will not be content to sit and wait while the TUC deliberates and living standards are eroded. It was pressure from below that forced the trade union leaders to vote for the POA motion and even greater pressure must be applied to force them into taking the much-needed action. Branches and workplace meetings should pass resolutions urging their union leaderships to take up the call from the PCS for serious discussion among the left unions' leaders. Those unions should go to the April General Council with the confidence and knowledge that their members and the rank and file of other unions will not be satisfied with anything less than a strike date. Some on the left, with the financial backing of Unite, are pushing the People's Assembly on 22 June as a vehicle to resist austerity, organised a week before the NSSN's 7th annual conference. The Socialist Party and the NSSN will use every opportunity and platform to put pressure on the union leaders to call decisive action. But there is a danger that this event, which will give an uncritical stage to Labour and Green politicians as well as the union leaders, could be a talking shop, helping to kick the idea of mass strike action even further into the long grass. There is no alternative but mobilisation around a serious strategy to coordinate and escalate action by the most powerful organisation in British society, the labour movement. The trade union leaders should not hand leadership of the anti-cuts movement to an unaccountable, unrepresentative nebulous People's Assembly but organise action themselves. A 24-hour general strike could transform the situation. The Con-Dems have had some success in their pernicious attempts at division: young against old, low-paid workers against unemployed, etc. Coordinated action by even a section of the 6.5 million workers in the unions would make the case for united struggle and undermine the Con-Dems' divide and rule tactics. It would instil confidence in the anti-cuts campaigns and it would show this hated and despised government that they cannot get away with destroying our lives. This will be the key issue for discussion at the NSSN conference on 29 June because it is the key question facing the working class. What is needed now is a real 'Workers Assembly' - a 24-hour general strike at the end of June, which can mobilise mass demonstrations in every town and city - a movement of millions to force this government back and open up the way to a victory against the cuts. With extracts from this week’s editorial of the socialist http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/757/16343/20-03-2013/trade-unions-must-lead-anti-cuts-fightback