The state of the unions. posted by lenin

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/11/ ... nions.html

Two recent firings of witch-hunted trade unionists, Karen Reissmann and Michael Gavan, bring to light the pressure from the state to break the resistance of public sector unions to pay cuts, diminished working conditions, and privatisation. It also reflects the politicised way in which the Labour government is approaching the problem - both were arguably targeted for being associated with Respect, a systematic challenge to Labour's hold on the left vote. The government can't afford to back down unless it is forced to back down, because a victory for the unions will both strengthen the left and damage the government's strategy of keeping Britain's economy running as a haven for international finance. For the last year, the government has kept public sector pay substantially below inflation, something that hasn't been achieved in the UK since the 'social contract' and the winter of discontent. The run-down of the postal service and other public services is leading to a growing rebellion by workers across the country. So, what are the prospects?

According to recent figures published by Labour Research, the TUC has since 2003 gently reversed its long-term decline in members. The main growth has been experienced in the teaching unions, particularly the NUT which grew by 6%, but also the construction union UCATT, which grew by a similar level. (The figures don't appear to include the RMT, for some reason). The new super-union Unite actually lost members on both sides, and the PCS lost a small percentage probably due to recent cuts - but it has to be said that the loss of 13,000 is very short of the 104,000 Gordon Brown wanted to cut in 2004, so while the fightback has a long way to go, it is holding back the government's attack. The same goes, I suspect, for the slight fall experienced by the CWU, whose members have braved successive attacks from the government brilliantly, despite an often indecisive leadership. The main growth over the last decade is supposedly in "associated professionals and managerial workers" - but this actually includes teachers, nurses, train drivers and media workers, whose conditions are increasingly under attack. It reflects the growing importance of the public sector in the labour movement, where employment has been on the up, while manufacturing has been allowed to crumble. As these jobs are particularly susceptible to government cut-backs, union struggles are increasingly politicised. The problem, regularly now, is a Labour government, which is why trade unionists have to keep asking themselves why they are funding the bullies. Unfortunately, the growth isn't keeping up with the growth in the jobs, so unless there is a massive drive to recruit new members, union density is still likely to fall after having picked up slightly.

It looks like there are two models of trade unionism which are competing here. The RMT's militant model is notoriously successful, leading to extraordinary increases in membership and density. It doesn't matter how much the Evening Standard pillories tube workers, you simply can't beat success. The more conciliatory model that seek sweet-heart deals and subordinates the interests of members to those of the Labour Party is not as successful. The old batch of right-wing leaders like the repellent Sir Ken Jackson, exemplified this model until deposed by the emerging "awkward squad". Increasingly, the question is raised among TUC-affiliated unions as to what can be done to take the government on politically. Yet, it is clear - as Mark Serwotka pointed out at the Respect conference - that even many of the more left-leaning union leaders are more concerned about keeping Labour in government than fighting for their members' interests. Only two union leaders explicitly advocate a socialist alternative to Labour - Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow. And there are worries that the Unite union, run by two moderately left-wing leaders both of whom are loyal to the Labour Party, will have an overwhelmingly decisive bloc in the TUC with the largest portion of its members. Unite's leaders are fully aware that Brown's strategy is destroying the manufacturing base they represent, but their answer seems to be propaganda rather than action, and adaptation rather than militancy.

The frontline today is the CWU. The heroic example of the postal workers should inspire others, and if they now oppose the proposed deal and fight on, I believe it will. The ballot closes on Tuesday, and until then the campaign continues up and down the country to send it back and prepare for further action. As Charlie Kimber writes, the sheer audacity of the postal workers in consistently upping their game every time the government and the bosses attacked is remarkable. They haven't had the leadership that they should have had, but still took unofficial action when they felt they had to. And, despite the fact that the government has introduced private competitors, the fact that they all rely on the more efficient Royal Mail to deliver the actual letters has meant that they can't perform when the posties are out on the picket lines. So, the postal workers still have the power to beat the government and its attacks. Yet, the dispute also illustrates why it isn't enough to have left-wing trade union leaders. Even the best of them, like Mark Serwotka, are still captive to their bureaucracy to some extent. No union has engaged in coordinated action with the posties, despite the clear importance of the dispute for all public sector workers. There are encouraging moves to engage in coordinated action in the future, but the basis of this will have to be strong rank and file organisation which enables a measure of independence from a leadership that is always under massive pressure to make concessions to the employers. This point is rammed home by the attempts of the CWU leadership to deflect attention from the Labour government's responsibility for the crisis - they accept Royal Mail's claims that it is in financial peril with pensions, but make no mention of the fact that Royal Mail management created the crisis and the government has a responsibility to protect the pension scheme. Even Billy Hayes has pointed out, somewhat reluctantly, that if this was Northern Rock the government would be pouring in billions. And it follows that the question of political independence can't be resolved soon enough - the unions need a political fund, but the ball-and-chain relationship to the Labour government is proceeding from absurd to masochistic.

[Big Daz]

Intresting article, nice to see the term labour goverment used rather than labour party.

I want to see a Labour goverment , but that dosent mean i wish to see the current crew running the show.

I dont want to see a conservative goverment, but i cant help but feel being booted out of office will lead to changes within the labour party and those on the left of the party will rise up to form the shadow cabinet and eventually win a election.

I truly belive that any labour MP should be allowed to stand for leader and not have to rely on a certain amount of nominations.

If John Mcdonnel had ben able to stand then the TU turnout in the leadership elections might have been a lot higher.

Labour is a democratic socalist party , the Labour goverment must not lose sight of that.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Intresting article, nice to see the term labour goverment used rather than labour party.

I want to see a Labour goverment , but that dosent mean i wish to see the current crew running the show.

I dont want to see a conservative goverment, but i cant help but feel being booted out of office will lead to changes within the labour party and those on the left of the party will rise up to form the shadow cabinet and eventually win a election.

I truly belive that any labour MP should be allowed to stand for leader and not have to rely on a certain amount of nominations.

If John Mcdonnel had ben able to stand then the TU turnout in the leadership elections might have been a lot higher.

Labour is a democratic socalist party , the Labour goverment must not lose sight of that.

The thing is Daz, Labour have been kicked out of power before and they've never returned to power as 'left-wing'. I don't see Labour as a socialist party of any type. It might contain some socialists, but it isn't a socialist party. The Labour Government is made up of members of the Labour Party, many of whom started out on the left, like Mike Hall and Derek Twigg, then dropped the pretence once in Government. If Labour was a socialist party, I don't think they would have expelled the International Socialists or the Militant Tendency, Ken Coates, Dave Nellist, Terry Fields, Hugh Kerr and goodness knows how many other groups and individuals. Would Allan Leighton, Robert Maxwell or Shaun Woodward, Blair or Brown feel at home in a socialist party?
I heard John McDonnell address a meeting in Liverpool last February. As you know, he failed to win support from most trades unions (Aslef being one exception, but they say they are commited to a socialist society anyway) and the reason he failed to win support is because union leaders, like ours, are committed to the continuence of capitalism, which is why they are members of the Labour Party and not one of the socialist parties.
My dad used to say Harold Wilson was a Tory. I don't know what he would think if he saw this shower, but Wilson's legacy was the Open University, while Brown's will be the closed school.

[Tman]

.

If Labour was a socialist party, I don't think they would have expelled the International Socialists or the Militant Tendency, Ken Coates, Dave Nellist, Terry Fields, Hugh Kerr and goodness knows how many other groups and individuals.

They wanted (and we needed) them to be elected, and that was never going to happen all the while the various tossers you listed above were in the party.
Kinnock and Smith may be judged laughing-stocks by some, but all the while Eric Heffer (as just one) were there, Labour was unelectable.

Would Allan Leighton, Robert Maxwell or Shaun Woodward, Blair or Brown feel at home in a socialist party?

No, but would a Socialist party ever be in power for them to not feel at home in? Also no.

I heard John McDonnell address a meeting in Liverpool last February. As you know, he failed to win support from most trades unions (Aslef being one exception, but they say they are commited to a socialist society anyway) and the reason he failed to win support is because union leaders, like ours, are committed to the continuence of capitalism, which is why they are members of the Labour Party and not one of the socialist parties.

Spare us, please. The perfect example of the old "you're all out-of-step but me" maxim.
Have you even considered WHY those union leaders' views differ from yours?

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Have you even considered WHY those union leaders' views differ from yours?

No. I try to give anyone connected with the Labour Party as little consideration as possible. After ten years, what sort of dickhead still carries a membership card for that lot? I only went to the meeting because there were a couple of Stop The War speakers on the platform.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Tman with my Moderator hat off I have to say that is quite an arrogant post by you.

They wanted (and we needed) them to be elected, and that was never going to happen all the while the various tossers you listed above were in the party.
Kinnock and Smith may be judged laughing-stocks by some, but all the while Eric Heffer (as just one) were there, Labour was unelectable.

Was there any need to call people Tossers just because their definition of Socialism is different to yours, I am sure that there are some people on here who have the same view as the people you called tossers.

I agree we needed them to be elected to get rid of some of Thatcherite anti-union laws, and they said they would repeal them. 10 years later no repeal of any Trade Union laws at all.

No, but would a Socialist party ever be in power for them to not feel at home in? Also no.

I am also pleased you can tell the future. If perhaps the Labour Party did promote true socialism rather than the pale blue politics they are pushing at the moment, they would get most of the working class who feel disenfranchised so much that they no longer bother to vote

Spare us, please. The perfect example of the old "you're all out-of-step but me" maxim.
Have you even considered WHY those union leaders' views differ from yours?

I am sure both IWW and John McDonnell both have honestly held political beliefs, and they are not going to be the same as you and me but perhaps you could explain WHY those union leaders' views differ from John McDonnels (and perhaps IWWs)

[Tman]

Was there any need to call people Tossers just because their definition of Socialism is different to yours,

Maybe not. I would/should have called them far worse in reality, because they're the same people who made sure the Thatcher bitch was elected as many times as she was. I remember those years only too well, and despite the what the sheep say about this "lot" (and with some justification) they're still light years ahead of Thatcher.

I am sure that there are some people on here who have the same view as the people you called tossers

.

Apparently so, but that's OK. After all, if us "gossip-mongering turds" can take a little personal abuse without redress, then my sceptical views of the unspeakable Heffer etc must be acceptable, surely?

I

I am also pleased you can tell the future

.
Gladly, and here's another one for you then; the unspeakable BNP have more chance of forming a government than any past rendition of Socialism.
That concept, IF it ever did work, has been consigned to history. Even the very people who would have gained the most from a Socialist or even Socialist-leaning government, won't vote for it, and to say "ah, but that's Labour's fault" is both ludicrous and mistaken.
There's more interest in reality shows, etc.

[lovenotmoney]

The talk of the Labour Party being in any shape or form socialist is quite ridiculous. There maybe one or two socialists still rattling around in the Labour Party, but most of them left(or were kicked out!) a long time ago. We currently live in a one party state, a capitalist one. There is no ideological difference between Conservative/Labour/Liberal. Our union leadership believe in a capitalist system which is served by the aforementioned party(ies). This is why they have sought only minor concessions from the government and left us out to dry. We must also remember that our leaders are on the gravy train and until they get back in touch with their members and live on the same wages as us nothing is going to change!

[IWW Fellow Worker]

The talk of the Labour Party being in any shape or form socialist is quite ridiculous. There maybe one or two socialists still rattling around in the Labour Party, but most of them left(or were kicked out!) a long time ago. We currently live in a one party state, a capitalist one. There is no ideological difference between Conservative/Labour/Liberal. Our union leadership believe in a capitalist system which is served by the aforementioned party(ies). This is why they have sought only minor concessions from the government and left us out to dry. We must also remember that our leaders are on the gravy train and until they get back in touch with their members and live on the same wages as us nothing is going to change!

Very well said. These rightists who cling to the idea that somehow the Labour Party is the hope of the working class have no idea of the history of that party over the last sixty years or so either at home or in foreign policy.

[jemima]

History is important (we don't want to make the same mistakes twice), but looking to the future is imperative if we want to make changes to the system.

At the moment the government is listening to the global business community. However, it's experimenting with actively gauging public opinion instead of creating policies to be spoon-fed to the populace. People aren't yet used to the idea that 21st century technology is giving them the power to make their voices heard.

We may not have a socialist government now; but there's a clear way forward. If socialism can find a strong enough voice to appeal to the general population, it can show them how to make their influence felt. And there's no reason why that can't be done by people who are living on an average worker's wage.

[Rob Ray]

I remember those years only too well, and despite the what the sheep say about this "lot" (and with some justification) they're still light years ahead of Thatcher.

No they aren't, they're a logical continuation of Thatcher (she even said of Blair 'he's one of us' and gave Brown her personal stamp of approval on the steps of Downing Street). They've carried on with precisely the same policies, they've just used the language of the liberals to do so.

PFI - now worth 60 billion. Tory plan, Labour implementation.
NHS privatisation - proceeding apace, Foundation hospitals, ISTCs, new outsourcing deals for all 'soft-service' personnel, introduction of more market-led values in cash management, PFI for all new builds.
Education - Academies, introduction of business/NGO/church running for all 'failing' schools despite no evidence that this improves grades. Further education sees student loan scandal, promised major increase to pay of educators falls by wayside.
Transport - All new building of transport links now PFI.
Post office - Enthusiastically sign up to be guinea pig for radical neo-liberal plan to privatise...

I could go on.

Fundamentally, New Labour have done nothing even vaguely left wing after ten years in power. To continue pretending they are markedly different in any way except talk from the old Tories is just silly, it was a rebranding of old policies, nothing more, nothing less.

[svennis]

you cant have socialism and capitalism at the same time.
A vote for labour is a vote to preserve capitalism

[borders]

I remember those years only too well, and despite the what the sheep say about this "lot" (and with some justification) they're still light years ahead of Thatcher.

No they aren't, they're a logical continuation of Thatcher (she even said of Blair 'he's one of us' and gave Brown her personal stamp of approval on the steps of Downing Street). They've carried on with precisely the same policies, they've just used the language of the liberals to do so.

PFI - now worth 60 billion. Tory plan, Labour implementation.
NHS privatisation - proceeding apace, Foundation hospitals, ISTCs, new outsourcing deals for all 'soft-service' personnel, introduction of more market-led values in cash management, PFI for all new builds.
Education - Academies, introduction of business/NGO/church running for all 'failing' schools despite no evidence that this improves grades. Further education sees student loan scandal, promised major increase to pay of educators falls by wayside.
Transport - All new building of transport links now PFI.
Post office - Enthusiastically sign up to be guinea pig for radical neo-liberal plan to privatise...

I could go on.

Fundamentally, New Labour have done nothing even vaguely left wing after ten years in power. To continue pretending they are markedly different in any way except talk from the old Tories is just silly, it was a rebranding of old policies, nothing more, nothing less.

take your eyes off the ball and in the meantime they will trouser the loot ----- by the way has anyone seen my Sun , how did Arsenal get on last night ???

[TrueBlueTerrier]

take your eyes off the ball and in the meantime they will trouser the loot ----- by the way has anyone seen my Sun , how did Arsenal get on last night ???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 118602.stm

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has been handed a touchline ban for his side's Champions League tie against Steaua Bucharest on 12 December.

The ban imposed by Uefa is a result of Wenger being sent to the stands after a row with the fourth match official as Arsenal lost 3-1 at Sevilla on Tuesday.

The offence carries an automatic one-match suspension and will also deny Wenger access to the dressing room.

A Uefa spokesman told BBC Sport the ban may be extended after an investigation.

It is the first time in his career that Wenger has received a touchline ban but the Frenchman will have three days to appeal, starting from the date he receives official notification.

The incident came when Wenger seemed angered by apparent time-wasting by Sevilla's Jesus Navas and remonstrated with Dutch official Reinold Wiedemeijer, who asked the Gunners' boss to move from the side of the pitch.

Wenger appeared reluctant to completely leave the area and watched the final minutes of the match from behind perimeter advertising boards, rather than in the stands.

Arsenal need to beat Steaua in their final Group H match, and hope Sevilla do not beat Slavia Prague, to finish top of their group and earn a potentially easier knockout match in the next stage.

The Gunners' defeat in Sevilla was their first of the season and meant they missed the chance to claim top spot in their group.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sevilla 3-1 Arsenal

Arsenal lost for the first time this season as Arsene Wenger's side missed the chance to claim top spot in Group H of the Champions League.

Eduardo gave Arsenal an early lead when the he slipped the ball home after he was picked out by Nicklas Bendtner.

But by half-time Sevilla were ahead, Seydou Keita scoring with a superb shot hit with the outside of his foot and Luis Fabiano glancing a header home.

Late on Frederic Kanoute won and converted a penalty for Sevilla.

The Andalucian side might be well off the pace in the Spanish league this season, but the Uefa Cup holders' brand of razor-sharp attacking proved just too potent for Arsenal.

Keita was the dominant player in midfield and the link-up between Jesus Navas and Daniel Alves on the Sevilla right regularly unhinged the Arsenal defence.

Sevilla's victory pushed them to the top of the group with 12 points, two points ahead of Arsenal, a result that confirmed the Spanish side's place in the knockout stages alongside the Gunners.

Arsenal had come to Spain hoping to win the group and Wenger entrusted the task to a team includeing Philippe Senderos, Eduardo, Gilberto, Bendtner, Armand Traore and Justin Hoyte.

These are players who have played cameo roles for Arsenal this season, though Bendtner and Eduardo were quick to remind Wenger they are very capable of taking leading roles.

The preamble to Eduardo's goal involved some eye-catching combination play on Arsenal's right wing as Emmanuel Eboue's ambitious backheel released Bendtner.

The Dane picked out Eduardo with a flighted pass and Arsenal's Brazilian-born Croatian held off Alves to slide the ball past Andres Palop.

If Bendtner and Eduardo looked sharp, Senderos and Gilberto had a more sluggish first-half as they tried to come to grips with the thrusts of Sevilla's attacks.

The Swiss defender's awful miskick gave possession to Navas and his cross was only partially cleared by Gilberto allowing Keita to bludgeon a shot home with the outside of his left foot.

More poor defending from Gilberto gifted an opening for Fabiano, but the Brazilian's effort was straight at Manuel Almunia.

Fabiano proved less generous to Arsenal when the next chance came his way.

Fabiano's darting run enabled him to get to Alves' free-kick ahead of Kolo Toure and the Brazilian striker's glancing header eluded Almunia's desperate dive.

Having frittered away their lead. Arsenal's discipline began to fragment and Hoyte was yellow carded for treading on Adriano Correia after a late tackle from the Sevilla player.

The second-half had a frantic start as Eboue claimed a penalty and Denilson picked up a booking for a nasty two-footed tackle.

Midway through the second half Sevilla claimed their own penalty, arguing Senderous handled the ball in the area, but that call also went unheeded by referee Eric Braamhaar.

The Dutch official appeared to give the penalty, before reversing his decision and awarding a drop ball.

But with three minutes left Braamhaar pointed to the spot when Kanoute went down under the combined challenges of Toure and Bakari Sagna.

Kanoute, who had missed numerous chances in the preceding 87 minutes, showed an altogether more deadly nature as he tucked away the penalty.

Just prior to Kanoute's goal Wenger was ordered to leave the technical area for remonstrating with the fourth official.

# Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger:

"I had no exchanges with the referee.

"I don't know why I was sent off, I was really surprised.

"The fourth official was really difficult for the whole game, I said to the referee 'will you explain to me why I have been sent off?'."

Sevilla: Palop, Daniel, Fazio, Dragutinovic, Crespo (Mosquera 63), Jesus Navas, Poulsen, Keita, Adriano Correia (Marti 90), Luis Fabiano (Kerzhakov 75), Kanoute.
Subs Not Used: De Sanctis, Renato, De Mul, Kone.

Booked: Crespo, Adriano Correia, Palop, Keita.

Goals: Keita 24, Luis Fabiano 34, Kanoute 89 pen.

Arsenal: Almunia, Justin Hoyte (Sagna 66), Toure, Senderos, Traore, Eboue, Fabregas (Rosicky 56), Silva, Denilson, Eduardo (Walcott 81), Bendtner.
Subs Not Used: Lehmann, Diarra, Flamini, Song Billong.

Booked: Justin Hoyte, Denilson.

Goals: Eduardo 11.

Att: 65,000.

Ref: Eric Braamhaar (Holland).

[dvbuk55]

----- by the way has anyone seen my Sun , how did Arsenal get on last night ???

They lost - and incidentally it is more expensive to go and watch Man U. At Arsenal I am told if your get there by 2.45pm on a Saturday you may get the chance of a game .................. but hey I've never been south of birmingham.