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

Unite, Grangemouth and what we can learn from the last week and a bit

So the Grangemouth Oil refinery is to remain open but at what cost to the workers and the labour movement as a whole? Operator Ineos had announced on Wednesday that the plant was to shut, with the loss of 800 jobs, after union members rejected a survival plan. But the decision was reversed after the union agreed to Ineos's conditions. Ineos confirmed it would reopen the plant and the neighbouring oil refinery "with immediate effect", ending a bitter dispute with the Unite union which began over the alleged mistreatment of a Unite official. The company said the move to reopen the plant followed a "dramatic U-turn" by Unite and its "belated recognition" that the company's survival plan was the only way to ensure Grangemouth's long-term future. Jim Ratcliffe, chairman of Ineos, said there had been a "significant change in attitude" from the unions Unite Scottish secretary Pat Rafferty said: "Relief will ring right round the Grangemouth community and across Scotland today. "Hundreds of jobs that would have been lost can now be saved and £300m will be invested into the plant." The main points of the Ineos announcement included: • Ineos will reopen the petrochemical plant and oil refinery at Grangemouth immediately • An undertaking by Ineos to invest £300m at the Grangemouth site on a gas terminal to handle shale gas brought in from America • Workers agreed to a three-year pay freeze • The union agreed not to stage strikes at the plant for three years until the new gas terminal is built • Changes will be made to current staff pension arrangements • Up to 2,000 contractors who were laid off after the complex was shut will be re-hired First Minister Alex Salmond described the announcement as a "tremendous fillip for the workforce and the whole Grangemouth community, following what could have been a potential disaster". He said it had been "a great team effort from all concerned", including the unions and workforce, the management and governments. This shows to me the absolute weakness of the labour movement at this time with Britain’s biggest trade union caving in days after it said it would stand and fight is an absolute disgrace in my opinion. The 1,800 Grangemouth workers have found that neither the Unite union leaders, who they pay for, nor Labour or SNP representatives they voted for, would stand with them, if they decided to mobilise a real fight against Ineos. In an amazing display of solidarity and determination, the majority of the Unite members had voted to strike and reject the company’s blackmail. But within hours of their vote on Wednesday, the message from all sides was that there was no alternative to accepting destruction of living standards and the pensions of any future workers. A media outcry held the workers responsible for the fate of the 10,000 related jobs in the local area. So yesterday, their union leaders simply caved in. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey left earlier negotiations up to local officials but hurried up from London to capitulate in person. Within hours he had unreservedly accepted the company’s terms, “warts and all”. Shocking but true. McCluskey has breathed fire and brimstone since the ConDems coalition took power, threatening strikes, and civil disobedience, even a general strike against austerity, the public sector wage freeze and pension curbs. When it came to the crunch, he had no fight. Hot air and nothing more. I was a socialist party member up until a month or so ago and the party backed Len McCluskey in the last Unite general secretary elections I didn’t agree with backing him and couldn’t bring myself to voting for him in the end. It now turns out that I made a wise decision to note vote for either Len or Hicks. Its looking a little embarrassing now for the SP who had backroom meetings with Red Len to agree to back him now it looks a shameful stitch up from the unite leadership. No doubt Len and unite have one eye on the 2015 general election where they will be backing Ed Miliband and Labour to the hilt so any embarrassment for Red Ed must be avoided it would seem. As for the potential of an independent Scotland being better for workers it is hard to say but for as long as capitalism exists there will not be a better deal for workers in the UK or in an independent Scotland. SNP claims that a capitalist Scotland would be in some way better for Scottish workers have been exploded. Ineos, like all Scotland's key industries from oil to whisky, is not "Scottish". They are run by freebooting global capitalist transnationals with no care for local conditions, except where they impact on profits. The adjacent oil refinery, whose waste product is processed at the threatened plant, is owned by Petroineos, a refining and trading joint venture between Ineos and the Chinese government-owned PetroChina. Its other refinery is at Lavera, near Marseilles. As the recession continues and fracking throws cheaper US coal and gas on to the world market, who knows what will happen to the offshore oil refining business. There is no such thing as security for workers, whatever the status of their country's governance. The Unite members were ready to fight and their union could have organised an occupation to prevent the dismemberment of the plant, but they did not and will not. Independence will not change that. The state will always behave in the interests of the state. Holding hope that someone else can fix things for us is only going to lead to half-measures and the disappointment. It is only by building up our ability to take action together at the heart of the problem that will give us any real measure control of our lives. The way in which the unions and the politicians have behaved is not the victory for common sense that is being billed; it is a stitch-up against all of us as a class. The people on the shop floor know their business better than any union bureaucrat, better than any politician, and better than any boss. We should learn the lessons from this fight and stand in solidarity with workers at Grangemouth and beyond, lending them support where we can and taking their lead on how to fight this struggle and to hell with anyone that stands in their way.

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers

Solidarity with Grangemouth workers The dispute at the Grangemouth oil refinery started with Labour's fight with Unite in Falkirk, and shows us just how broken Britain is. Without a moment's thought to the human cost, Ineos bosses today have announced the closure of the petrochemical plant at Grangemouth with the loss of 800 jobs. They intend to put that arm of their business into liquidation meaning workers may face losing thousands of pounds in redundancy payments. The oil refinery and the jobs of another 600 workers remain in jeopardy, the result of a lockout by billionaire owner Jim Ratcliffe. The next hours and days are vital in ensuring the building of a mass campaign to fight to save the Grangemouth plant and retain the jobs and terms and conditions of the workforce. The announcement by Ineos that they intend to pull out of the Grangemouth petrochemical site with the threatened loss of up to 800 jobs is an act of corporate vandalism. The oil refinery remains shut and the workers effectively locked out. Ineos management and its majority owner, billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, are 100% responsible for this scandal. They have shut down the entire Grangemouth site to force the workers to accept savage cuts in terms and conditions. We should congratulate Unite members and their shop stewards at Grangemouth for their refusal to be bullied. Around 70% of Unite members rejected the 'sign or be sacked' ultimatum from Ineos management. There is still much to fight for and Unites role in all this is not without its faults. In an excellent Open Democracy article published today which I’d recommend all having a read of at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.Umf_V-lSW5Q "It began when Ed Milliband handed a report on the claimed irregularities on candidate selection in the Falkirk bye-election to the police. Since one of the key organisers maligned – and subsequently cleared – in that action is a shop steward at Ineos, the firm decided that if Ed Milliband can cast aspersions, they can act. Ineos suspended Stevie Deans on the grounds that it was believe he may have used a work email address to carry out some Labour Party business. (God help us all if using a work email for non-work purposes can get you suspended...) I shall refrain from elaborating further for reasons of care on specific allegations; suffice to say, there was more done to provoke the union. Given what can only be described as the political suspension of Deans, what position did Unite have to play? To accept it? To leave open unchallenged the impression that any union activists is fair game with no defence to be mounted? If Ineos did not recognise that these actions – absolutely unrelated either to the subsequent claims about the plant's profitability or the terms and conditions of its employees – was bound to push the union towards some form of response then it is shockingly naïve. And that is an adjective that has never been associated with Ineos. So let us assume that this was an intentional provocation. The union balloted and threatened strike action. The response of Ineos? To close down the plant. Switching off a refinery is a big deal and it may now take more than two weeks to get the plant operating again, if Ineos ever decides to restart. Thing is, the union had called off the action. This plant was not closed down by a union; it was closed down by the owners. Immediately after that they claimed the industrial-action-that-never-was was costing them a fortune. It is at this point that suddenly we are regaled with a PR drive which suggests the company is in severe distress and that employees must take significant cuts to pay and conditions. To cut a long story short, it goes to ACAS, the union claims a deal was close but/so Ineos walked out. It imposed a new contract on workers and told them they had three days (individually, not through the union) to agree the new contract or workers would be sacked and the plant (or half of it) closed down. A majority of workers rejected the deal. So today Ineos decided it was closing the petrochemical half of the plant (the bit it claims is loss-making) and keep the refinery open – but only on condition that workers sign away their right to strike in the future. And accept the imposed contract. That's for the profitable bit of the business, and it is far from clear that the rest of the plant is really as loss-making as is claimed. Ineos is majority owned by Jim Ratcliffe. In 2008 when the company was in some financial distress (possibly the result of finance strategies) it requested a one-year delay in payment of a VAT bill. The UK Government refused, so he paid for the relocation of his entire central staff to move to Switzerland. This is not a man who likes losing. It means that Ineos's financial situation is opaque – even business analysts (no friends of the trade unions) have been raising doubts as to how confident we can be in the claims that individual bits of the business are not profitable. What is certainly the case is that if there is financial distress it's not due to wage bills which make up only 1.6 per cent of costs. Is it worth mentioning that Ineos has avoided tax in Britain since 2010? You may well have assumed that anyway. Of course, this is my interpretation of what has happened and as always it's worth noting that I am not likely to have sympathy with aggressive management techniques. However, I find it virtually impossible to believe that Ineos did not begin with the desire to provoke strike action for which they had prepared extensively (both in terms of business planning and PR strategy) and it is certainly hard to see anything in its behaviour that suggests it wanted a peaceful resolution. And so to the three lessons. First, this is a facility that provides 80 percent of Scotland's fuel – and it is in the power of one man to close it down at will. It is to the great credit of the Scottish Government that (given its limited powers) it has put pressure on the company, has looked to find a buyer if Ineos won't agree to operate the plant and has refused to rule out public ownership. While this last course of action is unlikely, it is another sign of the SNP shifting away from the free-market orthodoxy of British politics. This is not a facility (virtually a monopoly industry) about which we can afford to have no views or opinions about ownership. There is now a serious debate in Scotland about whether our key infrastructure is safe in private, often foreign, hands. The behaviour of Ineos has intensified that debate. Britain is in denial about the importance of the ownership of the economy. It is most obvious in the monopoly utility sector but the Grangemouth dispute shows that it's not just the power and phone lines that keep us moving. Should one man be able to cripple Scotland? The last time he tried to break the unions petrol stations ran dry. The energy companies have put this issue on the agenda UK-wide through their actions. In Scotland at least the questions are spreading further than this. Ownership in Britain is broken. We are one of the few countries in the world where key infrastructure is mainly owned overseas. But not as broken as industrial democracy in Britain. It's not like we're a bit bad; we're truly awful. The European Participation Index (EPI) has calculated the participation of workers in 27 EU and EEA countries by combining the aggregate scores of their plant-level participation, board-level participation, collective bargaining coverage and trade-union density. Britain scores 26th out of 27, second bottom with only Lithuania worse than us. In Denmark (for example) 65 per cent of companies with more than 500 employees have voluntarily committed to having a third of management boards made up of workers and have cooperation committees made up of half-worker, half-management and these manage day-to-day matters in the company. And here's the thing; all the countries in the EU with the best indicators of social and economic development come in the top half of the EPI league table and all the worst performers come from the bottom half. Studies have shown that like-for-like companies are 19 per cent more productive if they are unionised. Britain, of course, lags the average productivity of advanced economies by almost 20 per cent. At some point we will wake up to the fact that Britain is a basket-case when it comes to industrial democracy and our economic performance is poor as a result. Remember, we live in the second-lowest pay economy in the developed world. Finally, if you come from Scotland it is hard once again not to be shocked by the myopia of London. On Sunday when our media was absolutely dominated by a dispute that threatened to cut off 80 per cent of Scotland's fuel (and large proportions of the fuel supply to the North of England too), not a mention was made on the main BBC news bulletins. Apparently the Westminster parlour games of Nick Clegg pretending to be a little bit cross with Free Schools is of greater national significance of the possible collapse of both oil supplies and one of the last major industrial sites left in Scotland. Across the whole piece coverage has been negligible. To my shock, a new news anchor on BBC today asked the correspondent in Grangemouth “there's clearly great anger – is it directed towards the management or the union?” Even the correspondent on the ground looked shocked – it was a question that could only come through the London looking glass. Workers all reported that the manager that broke the information to workers was smirking throughout as he told them they were going to lose their jobs, their houses, their children’s' Christmas. Angry at their union? Does the BBC no longer have any understanding of working people at all? Do they all live in a Spectator-tinged alternative universe? Today at PMQs no mention was made. When there was an emergency question, David Cameron left the chamber. The Scottish Government has been all over this dispute; London appears to have done nothing other than press its 'randomised industrial dispute quote generator'. What is there left to be positive about in the British economy? People genuinely talk as if this might be the future that we may need to accept total dominance of employers with no recourse at all by workers. This is a vision of Britain where we're all like Mexican immigrants waiting at the side of the road for a truck to drive up and its driver to say 'one day of work – you, you and you'. But, as is par for the course in Britain with its far-right media and utter lack of understanding of how the world works beyond our shores, people seem to think we're normal. Yet one more time, the Grangemouth disaster shows one thing above all – Britain is not normal. Not at all. " With thanks to open democracy and their excellent article over at http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.Umf_V-lSW5Q

It’s not been a good week for red Len

Unites general secretary a figure many look to for change has not had a good week with labours reshuffle in its shadow cabinet Len should have been really happy with the removal of his so called blairites in the shadow cabinet the two he identified were Steven Twig and Liam Burn both now gone out of the shadow cabinet yet in their place come Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reaves Reaves being a former advisor to the bank of England and have both set out in interviews over the weekend labour will continue to commit itself to Tory light polices. Reaves who thinks no one should earn more on benefits than in work plays up to the Tory idea of the work shy and the lazy scroungers that the Tories set the narrative and labour chase after constantly. As for Hunt he has come out in favor of free schools and calming labour would promote its own version in government with parent run schools being key to labours thinking. So Len what happened to those blairites in the nest? Blairites apparently gone yet policies much the same? hmm Whatever happened to that general strike Len was organizing for again by the way? Didn’t Len get up on stage on the last TUC march where we all marched again listening to the great and the good sound off to a crowd in Hyde Park? Len was there on the day asking those who want a general strike put up their hands. So people did and yet the tumbleweed from that day on has been remarkable. As I like to say Big Len likes to chime but never strike. Also over the weekend further humiliation for the fighting left union which makes me laugh when I hear the phrase was another hugely embarrassing bit of news which unite oddly hasn’t been able to comment on strangely seeing as it was so loud on shouting about tax evasion Len McCluskey even accused one company of 'daylight robbery' in the Times over the weekend “Britain’s biggest union was accused of hypocrisy yesterday after it avoided More than £2 million in tax. The Times has learnt that Unite has been presented with a bill for £2.3 million by Revenue and Customs.HMRC ruled that Unite had been calculating its VAT in a grossly unfair and Unreasonable way. The union has condemned multinational companies for not paying their fair share of tax. Len McCluskey, its general secretary, even accused one company of Daylight robbery€.Margaret Hodge, Labour chairwoman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Which scrutinises public finances, called on Unite to pay the bill Immediately Where does this leave our good friend big Len who is so keen on tackling the tax evaders and reclaiming the labour party? In a pretty poor position I would suggest with little in the way of progress in the after mouth of Falkirk West which still hasn’t gone away with the local branch secretary of the labour party there still suspended from office I understand. Relations between Labour and its biggest donor the Unite union will only increase as the run up to the election and beyond grow closer. Clearly Red Len will not be losing too much sleep having just secured another term of office on his nice 6 figure salary and with an army of bureaucrats to support him and the labour party Unite is well placed to get labour back into power to deliver their version of austerity. Not in my name... I am a unite member and hugely oppose its link to the labour party and its constant blank cherubs it gives to the labour party. There is no democracy in terms of the political fund in the party. The changes Ed Miliband wants to force through to mean union members no longer have a collective voice but will have to opt in to fund the labour party could make things very interesting indeed. What Len and other union big cheeses will do next is unclear but clearly like all union leaders they ill not want to loose that seat at the top table with labour and Ed so I am sure there will be some fudged deal that allows Len to say to his members he's won something and while Ed Miliband will be saying we have a new way of funding labour and a party for the future. Who will win out? There is big contradictions between labour and unite which will only increase as time goes on. How will it end? No one knows.

Miliband, The labour party and the left

As a result of the Falkirk west nonsense over the labour party and Unite Ed Miliband is looking to weaken the trade union influence in teh labour party even more. In this weeks socialist there is a editorial on the whole matter and where as the socialist party we see things heading and what we feel is necessary to give workers a voice. Tonight at the Harlow Socialist party branch we will be discussing political representation, the labour party and where does the left go next. Ed Miliband's decision to rush through the end of trade union bloc affiliation to the Labour Party at a special conference next spring has all the symbolism of Tony Blair's 'Clause Four moment' in 1995. That was when Blair organised a special conference to abolish Labour's historic commitment, in Clause Four, Part 1V of the party's rules, to "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". It is not only symbolism that is involved in Miliband's move, however, but the content that is also the same; to continue (in fact, to complete) the process of transforming Labour into just another capitalist party. Clause Four summarised the collective interest of the working class in fighting for a new form of society, socialism, in opposition to the capitalist market system. Trade union affiliation (when democratically exercised by union members) enshrined the ability of the working class through the unions to control its political representatives. It was these characteristics that defined the Labour Party in the past as a 'capitalist workers party', with a leadership at the top which invariably reflected the policy of the capitalist class, but with a socialistic ideological basis to the party and a structure through which workers could move to challenge the leadership and threaten the capitalists' interests. Details have yet to emerge of the proposals being considered by a review led by former Labour Party general secretary Lord Collins to go to the special conference. But the central idea, to replace bloc affiliation in favour of trade unionists joining Labour as 'affiliated' or 'associate' individual members, would finally end the remnants of the affiliated trade unions' collective political voice within the party. The Falkirk affair, the ostensible reason for the changes, shows how far in fact this process has already gone. What happened in Falkirk - with Unite officials recruiting union members to become individual members of the constituency Labour Party (CLP) - actually had no connection with the union's affiliated status. In the past trade union branches would send delegates to constituency Labour parties (CLPs), alongside ward party representatives, to select a parliamentary candidate. This was the way, for example, that the Militant MPs Dave Nellist (now chair of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition - TUSC), and the late Terry Fields and Pat Wall, won their selection as Labour candidates in the 1980s. Democratic structure That democratic structure, which meant that healthy mass participation Labour parties like in Liverpool and Coventry were effectively local 'parliaments of the labour movement', was overturned in 1994 by the introduction of 'one member, one vote' (OMOV) rules for selecting candidates. Those changes, promoting passive membership over representative democracy (some OMOV selections have been decided by postal ballots, with prospective candidates having no chance to speak to members) were accurately described by John Prescott as being more important in changing Labour than the abolition of Clause Four. In Falkirk Unite members were being recruited as individuals to take part in a future OMOV ballot with no certainty, of course, as to how they would vote. But even that pale reflection of 'union influence' has been seized by Miliband as a chance to complete the job of effectively ending the union link. The Socialist Party believes that the Labour Party has already been qualitatively transformed from its roots as a capitalist workers' party, which is why we argue that a new workers' party is necessary. We support TUSC as a precursor of a new mass party that could unite together trade unionists, unorganised workers, socialists, young people, oppressed groups and community campaigners, as the only way to ensure that the working class today can achieve an independent political voice. But social formations can retain many of their old forms - even as their new content predominates - and residues of the past position of the unions in the Labour Party still remain. Affiliated unions have 30 votes out of 144 in Labour's National Policy Forum (NPF) for example (which will now be examined by the Collins review), and are directly represented on the national executive committee. And while the affiliated unions' 49% share of conference votes has been reduced from the 90% share in the past, if they rejected Miliband's proposals, which they should, it is not guaranteed that he could push them through the special conference. But unfortunately the Unite leadership in particular are not signalling opposition to Miliband's plans and in doing so are using arguments that are undermining the very idea of independent working class political representation. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, for example, has argued that he could not go "in front of TV cameras and pretend to speak on behalf of a million Unite members" since many of them do not vote Labour. That's true, they don't; but when Len speaks he is representing Unite's democratically agreed policies against cuts and privatisation, for repeal of the anti-union laws etc. In negotiating with employers, union representatives speak for the decision reached collectively by the union members, even though a minority may not have supported the finally agreed position. So why shouldn't the union be represented collectively in the political arena too? More power? Len McCluskey has also suggested that Unite could actually have more power by making its donations conditional on Labour's support for specific policies. But how would this be different to the position of the US unions, reduced to being just another lobbying group alongside corporate donors, giving millions of dollars to buy some alleged 'friends of labour' in the Democratic Party? Or for that matter the 19th century 'Lib-Labism' of unions before the formation of the Labour Party, seeking support for particular policies and parliamentary representatives within a capitalist party? Not the least danger of such an approach is that it reinforces the idea that the attacks of capitalism on workers' living conditions, jobs etc could be met by a few policy changes or reforms rather than an alternative programme for government - which requires an alternative party. Ultimately the only effective control over workers' political representatives is that exercised by workers' organisations through their collective decision-making structures. In Britain today that means the trade unions drawing the lessons of Miliband's 'Clause Four moment' and taking the necessary steps to set up a new workers' party.

The unite general secretary election

Very soon there will be an election for general secretary of Britain’s biggest trade union – Unite the current general secretary Len McCluskey who has only been in the post little over 2 years is holding a snap election to gain a second term. I do feel this is quite an undemocratic move even if his intentions are too sure up support for the left. Many have excused this move and said well we’d not be happy if the right wing did this but its ok for the left to? Seems a little contradictory to me. But putting this all aside the short time given for any challenger is all designed to make it as hard as possible for anyone to challenge Len’s record to date. So far only one has declared and has enough nominations and that is Gerry Hicks who stood last time and gained 50 thousand odd votes. I myself am a unite member and am in a community branch. The community membership set up last year to give the unemployed students and low paid workers a voice. So far this has not been a big success for Unite with only a few thousand joining since its launch. As for Len’s reclaiming the labour party only 5000 have joined the labour party since he urged unite members to join the party and exert influence. With what democratic structures len ? As with Kingsley Abrahams a Labour councillor in Lambeth who voted against cuts in the labour group not even in the council chamber was suspended for his actions yet Len told Kingsley to go back into the labour group therefore accepting the cuts agenda and unite cannot garuntee support to councillors voting against cuts. This is just not good enough for a union supposably against the cuts.It must put its money and support where its mouth is. The united left which is a broad left organisation of left unite members containing the socialist party is backing Len Mccluskey and the socialist party itself is giving critical support to Len. The socialist party did support Gerry Hicks back in 2009 in the leadership contest for what was Amicus back then Gerry stands for a lot of what the socialist party stands for repealing of anti trade union laws confronting them when necessary and for democratic election of all unin officials. To me our position to back Len McCluskey appears more tactical than strategic. There doesn’t appear to be a challenger from the right wing as yet no Les Baylis like before so the idea critically supporting Len will sure up the left in the union i’m not convinced on personally. I myself am torn I actually agree with allot of what Gerry Hicks is standing for. For example he pledges to stand on a average wage of a member in unite this for me is a very important principle and one of the reasons I joined the socialist party and their strength and feeling around this issue that no elected official should receive more than the ordinary man or woman in the street in that area they live in. Now Gerry seems to be quite open and clear about this as for Len I can’t find any mention of him pledging to do this if re elected. As far as I know Len is on a very nice 6 figure salary paid to him by our membership subs. While Len’s record is far better than his predecessors who wasn’t hard to do he still lacks in many areas for me. For example Len claims that unite do no longer give blank cheques to the labour party. This is simply not true Unite has given 6 million pounds to labour over the last 10 years and with no strings attached. His gushing speech for Ed Miliband at last year’s labour party conference really wound me up too claiming it was one of the best speech’s he’s ever heard was disgusting Given the fact that Labour will carry out the cuts if re elected Unite should be pulling its funding on the labour party until it pledges to reverse all cuts, if it does not then we look again at working class political representation . Len does support calls for a 24 hour general strike to give him his due but will this be more hot air from a leader who loves the big speech, the big moment the applause from the crowds yet has been found excusing Labours austerity light cuts agenda when around the Labour party. Unites role in the public sector pensions sell out can’t be ignored either of course it wasn’t down to one union but Unite had the weight it could have used. But McCluskey’s rhetoric doesn’t meet reality. He talks about coordinated national strike action. But back in March Unite’s leadership pulled the plug on action over pensions and isolated the PCS and NUT. The real reason for the election – and McCluskey has admitted this – is to avoid a clash with the general election in May 2015. But it would seem Len with his reclaiming labour project is missing a trick here if there was an election in the same year as the unite general secretary election unite could use its weight to force labour into supporting anti austerity policies. As it is it could be the case that Unite backs labour to the hilt in 2015 whether it supports the union’s policies or not that is an unhealthy relationship. I am for the breaking of the labour party link none of the candidates standing pledge to do that I think unite should be backing anti cuts candidates with a proud record of fighting all cuts. So I am still very unconvinced by Len yet I agree with a lot of what Gerry says I’m still not sure I can vote for him. I’ll have to decide between now and the election but at present the jury is still very much out for me with Len.

Unite the union comes out against all cuts and deals big blow to labours stance

In the last day or so Unite the Union has pledged its undivided support to no to all cuts. This flies in the face of the labour party and Ed Miliband too far too fast line that he seems incapable of not saying in any interview and Unite rightly have condemned this approach and made it clear that Britains biggest trade union which still backs labour sadly is against all cuts. So watch this space for the backlash from the right within the union and in Labour to this latest news.

Unite with its new leader Len Mcklusky is clearly on the left but has no idea how to organise it would seem. It is a chance now for all unions to revive themsleves and learn how to be a proper union again.
Below is the statement to come out of Unite and its executive this week.
I think this is major news and deals a huge blow to labours opposition or timid opposition to the cuts. As in reality we all know or should be told that labour do not oppose the cuts. Only for political point scoring do they. As if they were in power right about now they would be cutting very deep and hard too. The fact that as i have previously stated not one labour run council has voted against the cuts at a local level speaks volumnes to me that they are not a party against the cuts. Only in minimalising the impact. That is dividing workers and dividing the working class to choose which services and jobs it'd want to keep. What a awful choice. Shame on those labour councillors voting for cuts.


Unite’s Executive Council unanimously confirms its opposition to all Government spending cuts. We commit ourselves to fight this ideologically driven assault on our much valued public services and welfare state.

This assault on our class is designed to shift the blame for the economic crisis to the public sector and make working people pay for a crisis not of our making but caused by the negligent and irresponsible behaviour of financial institutions, gambling for profits in an unregulated market for financial products.

The consequences of these actions, coupled with the failure of both national and international regulators to prevent even the worst excesses of the free market and their promotion of self regulation, are now being felt by workers across the globe. Further, the economic crisis has given government the opportunity to promote and further its ideological attack on collective trade unionism, social and employment protection and the wider social fabric of our society.

Of course there is an alternative:

■collect the missing tax billions from the banks, multinationals, rich and powerful in our society and close the loopholes and avoidance scams that enable them to opt out of making their fair and proper contribution.
■introduce a Robin Hood tax to collect revenue from all financial transactions, bonuses and share options and raise tax rates at the top to ensure a fairer contribution from those most able to make one.
■maintain public spending and invest in our future, keeping people in jobs and growing our economy to create new ones. Supporting public services as well as our private sector, construction, manufacturing and support services is vital to rebalancing our economy.
We congratulate our General Secretary and this Executive Council in promoting our position of opposing all Government‟s cuts and the call for co-ordinated industrial action, but much more needs to be done:

1.Unite’s position on the cuts must be effectively communicated to our officers and staff, our constitutional committees, shop stewards and activists, within our political structures and to Unite MPs and councillors as well as within our wider communities. We have to end confusing messages being communicated within certain sections of our union sympathetic to the Labour leadership‟s message of “cuts too far, to fast” – the so-called “dented shield approach”.
2.We must do more to inform, inspire and engage with our lay representatives, shop stewards and activists across all sectors of our Union. We must equip them with the arguments they need to engage our members at work and within local communities if the fight back against the cuts is to be effective. This campaign requires leadership from the top but also grassroots activity at local level.
3.We encourage all workplaces, branches and constitutional committees to send resolutions to their Regional and National Industrial Sector Committees as well as to this Executive Council supporting actions for consideration.
4.We firmly believe coordinated industrial action is an essential tool in the fight before us and ask the General Secretary to write urgently to all officers, branches and constitutional committees with a strong message of encouragement to take up the fight and to initiate a series of communications and promotional materials to support our activists in developing the arguments for action. While decisions on industrial action will of course be taken by our members in democratic ballots, they must be confident in an alternative and know that they have their Union‟s full support in taking action. When members of any union are taking industrial action against cuts Unite members in workplaces not taking industrial action are encouraged to protest and show solidarity as far as they can.
5.Industrially, it must be clear that we will support all members fighting back. Unite recognises the importance of advancing our members interests by fighting for improved pay and conditions even in these difficult times, while in our public services specifically our full resources must be given to those fighting against job losses and compulsory redundancy, pay cuts and/or freezes and the privatisation or outsourcing of work.
6.We support the initiative in developing training for our activists. It is critical that we up-skill our officers and activists in preparation for delivering our fight back strategy. Providing evidence to support the fact that we are not “all in this together” such as the fact provided by recent evidence from the High Pay Commission that chief executives of FTSE 100 companies earn an average of £3.7 million which is 145 times the average wage.
7.We are seeing an employers‟ offensive unleashing itself against all workers – on their pay and conditions, their pensions and their collective bargaining rights. If workers vote to take strike action, they should be encouraged to co-ordinate strike dates with others in dispute to maximise their effect. We ask the General Secretary to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to enable such coordination to develop.
8.We particularly urge the General Secretary to ensure that this union immediately engages with other like minded public and private sector unions with a view to our working together on an urgent programme of co-ordinated strikes over pensions and pay cuts, redundancy, privatisation and outsourcing of work. This should however not stand in the way of Unite taking a lead or acting alone in the defence of our members interests wherever necessary.
9.We believe we must communicate our position within the Labour Party at all levels and make it clear that Unite cannot support a position based on government cuts being “too far, too fast”. We must seek urgent dialogue with elected councillors on ways in which, by working together, we can reach agreement on alternatives to cutting, outsourcing or privatising services and jobs. We are very clear that we will reject and fight any attempt by councils to use the economic crisis in an opportunistic way to attack and/or undermine trade unionism, our agreements or facilities.
10.We must ensure that Labour MPs and councillors receive an unequivocal message from our union supporting our policy of opposing all cuts. Elected councillors must know they will receive the full support of this union if they face disciplinary or other action for supporting union policy. We must ensure Unite fully supports councillors who oppose cuts to local services.
Finally, we are determined that Unite will never abandon those who face the most serious cuts of all; the poor and vulnerable in our society including the disabled, the unemployed and those on low incomes who are now beginning to suffer real hardship as the first £18 billion of Welfare Benefit cuts begin to bite.

Some are our members but many are not, our success in fighting the cuts will require us to stand shoulder to shoulder with those at the sharp end. We recognise that the most vicious cuts of all are hitting those who often have no voice.

We urge and encourage our activists, shop stewards and members to get involved in the fight back, linking up trade unionists with groups coordinating actions locally and nationally such as UK Uncut and the Coalition of Resistance, as well as students, pensioners, tenants associations, community groups, the unemployed and welfare claimants.

This is a fight to defend our class. We must redouble our efforts to ensure we will win that fight. This Executive Council and our unions leadership is fully committed to this strategy and must now ensure that this message runs through our union, at all levels and in everything we do.