The Radical Lefts and the Current Postal strike.

[Martin Walsh]

Lets get this straight it was not the swp , workers liberety, wrp or any other left wing group. It was not the leadership Dave or Billy or the PEC it was a handful of divisional reps, some branch secretaries and area reps and local reps and members who had enough of being attacked and fought back and led strikes which dragged the rest of the union to agree a ballot at confernce and then to ballot the members.

Whenever we have had rank and file meetings over things including the employee agenda and other issues that was never led by the left wing parties either, unlike other unions unison etc we still have industrial reps who lead and ensure headquaters follow.

[Red Postie]

Your conception of of a struggle against Hayes and Ward is essentially replacing one set of bureaucrats with another.

Merson says Workers Power wants to replace one set of bureaucrats with another and cheerleads Jane Loftus and the SWP, ceding them the leadership of any future rank and file movement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not every article will repeat our position like a formula, otherwise it would just read the same every time! Worse, it would be abstract since different situations require different tactics. But then someone can always take a few selective quotes and make this look like it shows illusions in the bureaucracy. I would suggest Merson wants Workers Power to have a left bureaucratic approach (what is called broad leftism) rather than a rank and file tactic and so "reads" our stuff that way.

Rather than just have a debate that goes in circles, here are a few resources that anyone interested can judge for themselves. Of course there is much more in the archived articles and bulletins, particularly from last year, including our pamphlet on the lessons from the 2007 strike.

Jane Loftus and SWP

"This is not the first time Jane Loftus has put her loyalty to the bureaucracy and Hayes & Co above workers struggle and democracy. She voted against the Pay and Modernisation Agreement that sold out last year’s strike but refused to campaign against it when other members of the PEC did. A socialist organisation is measured by its programme and its internal regime, which in part means how it holds its leaders to account. Any organisation whose elected leaders such as Loftus do not struggle “from above” using their positions in the union bureaucracy will not be able to lead a successful revolution “from below”. Figures like Jane Loftus or the Socialist Party leadership in the PCS that stick to the union status quo and do not fight for a rank and file movement to dissolve the trade union bureaucracy, such “socialist” trade union leaders just end up as part of the bureaucracy’s leftwing.
The SWP has few activists in the post but unlike Loftus these are not bureaucrats but genuine class fighters who have not bent the knee on pensions, privatisation etc, even if they are left disarmed by the SWP’s lack of a programme and thus fail to warn the workers of the bureaucracy, call for necessary demands such as all-out strike action etc. To these workers, to other militants and activists who have read Post Worker or believe we need such a left in the union, we appeal to them to fight for a real rank and file network that can lead the struggle to save our industry and union from the axemen Labour is sending our way."
from Post Worker’s Broad Left Strategy fails postal workers
Contradictions come to the fore at 2008 CWU conference

Rank and file movement

"A rank and file movement would allow the militant minority who have always defended our union and conditions in the breach to have a tool to bring the bulk of the union’s strength out behind them. This is what we did not have in our last strike, leaving the heroic efforts of branches like Liverpool in October 2007 to be isolated."
from Where next for the CWU left? WP report 2009 CWU Conference

"Workers Power alone from the beginning called for strike committees to run the dispute locally and nationally, made up of delegates elected from workplace meetings. Without developing such organisations, even an all-out strike could be foiled by the leadership - as the fizzling out of the wildcats showed.
As the strike developed, we linked this as the strike developed to the proposal for a rank and file conference of militant workplaces and activists that could hammer out a strategy to win. It could lay the basis for a movement to replace the bureaucracy with accountable, i.e. recallable fighters, paid the average postal worker's wage."
from The left and the strike

For a Rank and File Movement in the CWU - WP CWU bulletin 2009 Conference

[Red Postie]

Dingo's right the left is weak in the CWU and the network of militants extends far beyond it and has been responsible for leading the union in 2007 and now again in 2009. It would be arrogant and just living in cloud cuckoo land for the left to state it leads! However there are a couple of qualifications to that.

The SWP has a leader Jane Loftus on the PEC, as does the Socialist Party with two on the Telecoms side. In addition the SWP have members in leading positions in a couple of areas. The left could have done much more over the last few years, however punches below its weight because of its failure to develop a rank and file movement for the last few turbulent years with militant strikes (2003, 2007, 2008 mail centre crisis, now 2009 national strike).

For instance under pressure from reps and workers, the London leadership has been forced to push forward strikes since Spring (no doubt for some, willingly) but in 2007 the London officialdom overwhelmingly refused to recommend a no vote to the sell out deal, out of loyalty to Dave Ward. A ballot was held on Labour affiliation last month as promised, but it was indicative, ie they pulled the trigger and fired a blank. Or the cancelled 2008 Mail centre strike.

A rank and file movement is essential to allow the militants, reps to organise themselves and debate out their tactics. It would have to be independent of the bureaucracy and demand any officials who wanted to join it agreed to submit to its democratic decisions and fight for its policy, standing on the wage of a worker, rather than allowing them to use it as a vehicle for their own electioneering and careers.

By the way this is just completely wrong and not how socialists see the unions:

As for the CWU i do not make a fetish out of the form of the Union. While not being opposed to unions per say, these organisations have not been a vehicle for socialism, in many ways they are obstacles. I beleive that in the coming struggles new organisations that are independent from the bureaucracy will form. Socialism will not come about throu the CWU. In many ways it will come about in a struggle against it

Workers Power believes the CWU is the 140,000 members, not the Wimbledon apparatus, £100k leaders like Hayes and Ward, or left bureaucrats like Loftus and Keenlyside. Talking about splitting it and campaigning against it as strategically necessary - and what's more at the start of a strike - is just plain wrong. Nobody is loyal to the form a workers' organisation takes - if it was possible and necessary for the workers to leave this leadership and apparatus behind, then it would be right to campaign for it, and that time might come in the future, but that is not the situation and in fact would be harmful at the moment. Why couldn't workers win control of their union, and win it to the fight for Socialism?

Basically Merson's mistake is to identify the CWU solely with its leadership. Like Dingo says, there is an extensive militant layer in the CWU which walks out, demands strikes, demands a vote on Labour without and against the wishes of the national leadership. But without democratic control of the union, the militants, activists and so on are not able to consistently advance (and therefore we get the indicative ballots etc) or hold the line against sell-outs, delays. The struggle is against the leadership not the union!

[Martin Walsh]

The London leadership led and was not in any way forced to fight the attacks. We carried the policy in December last year that if they took executive action in any of our division then we would ballot the whole of London. When they took Executive action in May we balloting for strike action and including today have taken 15 strike days . We also have strike action next wednesday.

With regards to our ballot we have not fired blanks we have a 96% yes vote and have written to the GS asking for a meeting where we will be seeking the nation wide ballot.

Now about 2007 and our loyality to Dave ,well only 9 branch"s voted no and 2 of them were from London. Moreover you have to remember at the time their was wide spread unofficial action in London where people had been out for over a week so the deal dealt with some of that and some branch"s believed it suited them to re engage and some did some good deals and reap the benefits for 12 months before Royal Mail came back to attack. Funny enough a PEC member who a lot of left were praising for his stance about a no vote however his Branch voted yes.

Now with regards to Jane well yes she is of the SWP but I wouldt say you was a leader of this campaign if face in my view apart from a handful on the PEC this dispute has thus far passed them by. Hopefully now they will catch up.

[merson01]

Dingo's right the left is weak in the CWU and the network of militants extends far beyond it and has been responsible for leading the union in 2007 and now again in 2009. It would be arrogant and just living in cloud cuckoo land for the left to state it leads! However there are a couple of qualifications to that.

The SWP has a leader Jane Loftus on the PEC, as does the Socialist Party with two on the Telecoms side. In addition the SWP have members in leading positions in a couple of areas. The left could have done much more over the last few years, however punches below its weight because of its failure to develop a rank and file movement for the last few turbulent years with militant strikes (2003, 2007, 2008 mail centre crisis, now 2009 national strike).

For instance under pressure from reps and workers, the London leadership has been forced to push forward strikes since Spring (no doubt for some, willingly) but in 2007 the London officialdom overwhelmingly refused to recommend a no vote to the sell out deal, out of loyalty to Dave Ward. A ballot was held on Labour affiliation last month as promised, but it was indicative, ie they pulled the trigger and fired a blank. Or the cancelled 2008 Mail centre strike.

A rank and file movement is essential to allow the militants, reps to organise themselves and debate out their tactics. It would have to be independent of the bureaucracy and demand any officials who wanted to join it agreed to submit to its democratic decisions and fight for its policy, standing on the wage of a worker, rather than allowing them to use it as a vehicle for their own electioneering and careers.

By the way this is just completely wrong and not how socialists see the unions:

As for the CWU i do not make a fetish out of the form of the Union. While not being opposed to unions per say, these organisations have not been a vehicle for socialism, in many ways they are obstacles. I beleive that in the coming struggles new organisations that are independent from the bureaucracy will form. Socialism will not come about throu the CWU. In many ways it will come about in a struggle against it

Workers Power believes the CWU is the 140,000 members, not the Wimbledon apparatus, £100k leaders like Hayes and Ward, or left bureaucrats like Loftus and Keenlyside. Talking about splitting it and campaigning against it as strategically necessary - and what's more at the start of a strike - is just plain wrong. Nobody is loyal to the form a workers' organisation takes - if it was possible and necessary for the workers to leave this leadership and apparatus behind, then it would be right to campaign for it, and that time might come in the future, but that is not the situation and in fact would be harmful at the moment. Why couldn't workers win control of their union, and win it to the fight for Socialism?

Basically Merson's mistake is to identify the CWU solely with its leadership. Like Dingo says, there is an extensive militant layer in the CWU which walks out, demands strikes, demands a vote on Labour without and against the wishes of the national leadership. But without democratic control of the union, the militants, activists and so on are not able to consistently advance (and therefore we get the indicative ballots etc) or hold the line against sell-outs, delays. The struggle is against the leadership not the union!

what is Speak to the hand all about. I assume you wish to terminate this discussion or do you wish me to answer you

[Red Postie]

Sorry Merson of course reply.

Dingo, didn't the London Division recommended a yes vote for the 2007 Pay and Modernisation deal, saying vote yes then fight the pension cuts? Then they organised a token rally on the pension issue in the Spring 2008, that went no further.

Without agreeing, say that you are right that London branches wanted to accept the deal out of tiredness. Then where was the revolt against the leadership's misleadership and betrayal on the court injunction, not just in terms of the unofficial action but in the union? How can the unofficial action win this time if it comes to that again? A rank and file movement is key to solving this problem, fighting with officials wherever they take good initiatives, without them (or against, like the No vote campaign) wherever necessary. It may be that Dave Warren's branch voted yes, but at least he fought for a no vote!

[Postworker]

Some facts, lest anyone should think that Merson actually knows what he/she is talking about.

1. Quote from merson01:

"With the results of a national ballot for strike action only a week away the Socialist Workers Party has finally produced a copy of its rank and file paper The Postworker."

The current issue of Post Worker has actually been out since the middle of September, hence it has been labelled the September 2009 issue.

Whilst Post Worker is physically produced, printed, and distributed by SWP members, it is not simply an SWP mouthpiece. It's aim is to be a Rank & File paper written by posties for posties, which means that anyone can send us an article for inclusion, and depending on whether we have space, and it fits that current issue, it could go in.

The current issue has eleven articles. Two were written by SWP members, one was an anonymous editorial 'round-up' report on action and events around the country, one was written by an anonymous 'London CWU Rep' (anonymous for a very good reason, if you read the article), one by an anonymous 'Network Driver', and six were written by other CWU senior Reps / Officials who have been involved significantly and decisively in getting the dispute started in London, Bristol and the South West and Scotland.

The focus of the paper, as it was going to be read by thousands of posties who were being asked to vote 'Yes' to strike action during that month, was precisely what is going on and why they should vote 'Yes'. That was the most important task for that issue. No doubt other tasks will become more important now, such as debating what we want out of any final deal at the end of the strike. I'm sure we will have articles from different people with different views on the merit of any deal when it is finally presented to the members.

The primary purpose of Post Worker is to share reports of what is going on, and encourage debate of important issues affecting CWU members. That is why it has never been, despite what anyone says, simply an SWP paper.

In fact, we have often been slagged off by some armchair radicals for being too focused on relating to debates in the Rank and File, for instance when members have been faced with a choice of voting for or against a deal, or deciding who to vote for as General Secretary, we have included articles from both sides of the argument.

I will endeavour to post a link to a .pdf download of the current (September 2009) issue of Post Worker, when I can. But in the meantime you can PM me if you want to be sent a paper copy.

2. If you want to read what the SWP thinks, then you should perhaps read Socialist Worker, or some of the 20 or so leaflets that the SWP has produced on and around the current dispute.

This is a link to a list of all the articles in Socialist Worker on the current dispute, since July this year (40-50 articles):

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/union.php?t=u&id=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a link to a list of downloadable .pdfs of SWP industrial leaflets, including a few on the postal dispute:

http://www.swp.org.uk/res.php?id=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then you can make up your own mind.

[merson01]

Some facts, lest anyone should think that Merson actually knows what he/she is talking about.

1. Quote from merson01:

"With the results of a national ballot for strike action only a week away the Socialist Workers Party has finally produced a copy of its rank and file paper The Postworker."

The current issue of Post Worker has actually been out since the middle of September, hence it has been labelled the September 2009 issue.

Whilst Post Worker is physically produced, printed, and distributed by SWP members, it is not simply an SWP mouthpiece. It's aim is to be a Rank & File paper written by posties for posties, which means that anyone can send us an article for inclusion, and depending on whether we have space, and it fits that current issue, it could go in.

The current issue has eleven articles. Two were written by SWP members, one was an anonymous editorial 'round-up' report on action and events around the country, one was written by an anonymous 'London CWU Rep' (anonymous for a very good reason, if you read the article), one by an anonymous 'Network Driver', and six were written by other CWU senior Reps / Officials who have been involved significantly and decisively in getting the dispute started in London, Bristol and the South West and Scotland.

The focus of the paper, as it was going to be read by thousands of posties who were being asked to vote 'Yes' to strike action during that month, was precisely what is going on and why they should vote 'Yes'. That was the most important task for that issue. No doubt other tasks will become more important now, such as debating what we want out of any final deal at the end of the strike. I'm sure we will have articles from different people with different views on the merit of any deal when it is finally presented to the members.

The primary purpose of Post Worker is to share reports of what is going on, and encourage debate of important issues affecting CWU members. That is why it has never been, despite what anyone says, simply an SWP paper.

In fact, we have often been slagged off by some armchair radicals for being too focused on relating to debates in the Rank and File, for instance when members have been faced with a choice of voting for or against a deal, or deciding who to vote for as General Secretary, we have included articles from both sides of the argument.

I will endeavour to post a link to a .pdf download of the current (September 2009) issue of Post Worker, when I can. But in the meantime you can PM me if you want to be sent a paper copy.

2. If you want to read what the SWP thinks, then you should perhaps read Socialist Worker, or some of the 20 or so leaflets that the SWP has produced on and around the current dispute.

This is a link to a list of all the articles in Socialist Worker on the current dispute, since July this year (40-50 articles):

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/union.php?t=u&id=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a link to a list of downloadable .pdfs of SWP industrial leaflets, including a few on the postal dispute:

http://www.swp.org.uk/res.php?id=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then you can make up your own mind.

Whether you wish to deny it or not the postworker is seen throughout the post as SWP controlled paper. You have not answered any of the points made in my piece. What is your attitude to Jane Loftus. Where has the paper been for the last 4 months or so. While not being opposed to a rank and file committee. What is the politics of this rank and file movement. These movements have a history in the marxists movements of leading to a political dead end and have led to major sell outs. As for campaigning for a yes vote assuming that you are a postal worker you would know this was a foregone conclusion. In fact the most important political topic facing postal workers is in fact the unions relationship with the labour party. Since the Leader of the Union is a member of this organisation what is the post workers attitude to this.

[goinpostal]

Postworker is a good idea but has no democracy, no meetings, for a while even Billy Hayes had a column in it - so not always so rank and file either. It is controlled by the SWP. But the main prob is that it has remained a paper for years, we need a rank and file movement not a paper. Its useful but doesnt go far enough.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Postworker is a good idea but has no democracy, no meetings, for a while even Billy Hayes had a column in it - so not always so rank and file either. It is controlled by the SWP. But the main prob is that it has remained a paper for years, we need a rank and file movement not a paper. Its useful but doesnt go far enough.

But with Postal Workers being fragmented so much in a Geographical sense, would not a rank and file movement face the same problems as the CWU in that for adequate representation active participants would need to withdraw from daily direct contact with the people they are trying to represent .

[goinpostal]

But with Postal Workers being fragmented so much in a Geographical sense, would not a rank and file movement face the same problems as the CWU in that for adequate representation active participants would need to withdraw from daily direct contact with the people they are trying to represent .

Sure, but local organisations, strike commitees etc could send delegates to national meetings or conferences. The key thing is that those elected to positions in the union representing the rank and file movement agree to be accountable and recallable by it, fight for its democratically agreed policies, and stand on a workers' wage so their interests are the same as the members - they get a pay rise when we get one. Of course it would be strongest in militant areas but thats the point to organise the "militant minority" so there is a real counterbalance to bureaucracy in the unions, by being effective it could win the majority.

[Martin Walsh]

The CWU have always had a rank and file organisation in the main led by a few activists in the main divisonal reps some who have become officers in the CWU.

This movement is not a select band and there are no leaders just people in the union who at a given time believe the PEC and the officers are not either doing something or are doing something wrong. These indivduals then mobilise branchs annd members.

Some of the meetings organised by the so called rank and file include the famous meeting at the TUC against the employee agenda and forced Alan Johnson the then General Secretary to recommend to the PEC to ballot the membership for strike action. That meeting was sponsored by over 60 Branch"s and had speakers such as John Keggie, Dave Ward and Tony Kearns with Norman Candy as Chair. All of these indivduals were not officers at this time.

Another meeting we had was on Leightons desire to privitise the industry in 2004 when we organised a meeting at friends house with over 70 Branches and led to the oppositon and meant motion 548 was insigated and defeated leightons plans.

For a period of time we had geographical alliances in particular the southern and the northern. The Southern was set up because we didt think Keggie was going in the right direction and over the way forward . Intresting enough some of the indivudals who were at the first meeting include Dave Ward , Bob Gibson, Martin Collins, Kevin Solcambe all now officers and Lionel Sansom and Norman Candy now policy adivsors for Dave ward.

The problem with rank and file is that Branch"s control policy decisions and sometimes we all have different views on agreements and strategys and thats when so called rank and file movements become pointless. They are only good if their is a policy which we think the leadership is not following and at the moment I cant see the point of one. That might change if either the action is put on hold or we have a fudged deal.

[goinpostal]

Cheers for the info Dingo that's all pretty interesting must have missed the 2004 privatisation meeting - I remember the 2005 london one against the opening of the postal market.

Branches make policy but alot of times these are bureaucratic. A movement could start a campaign to link the more militant branches and organise minorities who agree in every branch. In Leeds there was a whole section of DO reps against the deal in 2007 that coordinated to try to get the branch to recommend a no vote though they didn't succeed. But that sort of thing would be much stronger if the militant sections did form such a movement.