As post dispute continues London Solidarity Committee launc

[goinpostal]

As post dispute continues London Solidarity Committee launched
London Shop Stewards Network meeting
http://www.workerspower.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The London Shop Stewards Network has initiated a Solidarity Committee of London Trade Unions. At the same meeting, CWU reps Mark Palfrey and Martin Walsh said London CWU was ready to demand the reinstatement of national strike action and Steve Hedley, London organiser for the RMT said the union will issue London Underground bosses with notice of an industrial action ballot against the pay freeze. Jeremy Dewar, Lambeth Unison steward, reports

Post: London calling
Martin Walsh of the Communication Workers Union said, last week, that the next 48-72 hours of the dispute with Royal Mail were the most important yet. If significant progress is not made, then the London region, which has four reps on the PEC, will push for the strike action to be reinstated. He said the dispute was significant for two reasons: Royal Mail wants to destroy the CWU, and Royal Mail is imposing unilateral change.

Eighty of the 400 offices in dispute about "executive action" (imposed changes to conditions) are in London. Workers Power can confirm that postal workers in the capital are angry that the strike has been called off before Royal Mail had agreed, let alone implemented any specific concessions. Walsh told us that
• Postal workers were losing up to £6,000 a year since managers moved them from a four to a five day week
• Offices had lost up to a quarter of their jobs
• Delivery staff were having a whole day's pay docked if they refused to finish their work on unpaid overtime
• Phantom mail centres, like Dartford, have not been closed down
• Casual workers and strike breakers were being offered extra work before CWU members, because "We don't reward strikers."

The London region is now likely to propose to the Postal Executive (PEC) the restarting of the national strike on Tuesday 24 November.

But despite this, both Walsh and Mark Palfrey doggedly defended the Interim Agreement and the decision to call off the strikes. It was left to CWU postal rep Pete Firmin of Rathbone Place office and me to point out that the deal was precisely designed to break the momentum of the strike, while giving nothing away. The dispute is now in danger of dissipating into a series of bitter local disputes, as Royal Mail decides to placate some areas, so it can take on selected militant regions and offices on their own.

Workers Power calls for the PEC to restart the strikes but, if it does not, then regions, branches and offices should restart them as soon as managers stall in talks, refuse to reverse the changes or victimise strikers. And they should do this, with or without the union's official backing. Otherwise they will lose the advantages of the backlog, built up by 18-23 days of strike action, and of the heavy Christmas post. Indeed to reclaim the initiative, the CWU needs to call three or four days' continuous action, leading up to an all-out indefinite strike.

Without such a campaign, which should aim to mobilise the rank and file militants to seize control of the strike, it is likely that the PEC will not endorse the return to industrial action. In fact, in some parts of the country, there will need to be some hard arguments before the members are ready to take more action. Why? Because they have been told simply that "everything will now be resolved in negotiations" - not just by Royal Mail, but also by the CWU!

Neither the Socialist Party, which had Linda Taaffe of the NUT on the platform, nor the Socialist Workers Party, whose industrial organiser Charlie Kimber was in the audience, criticised the deal. The SP has since disgracefully come out in favour of this TUC-brokered agreement. The SWP has not and has accepted the resignation of its leading postal worker, Jane Loftus, chair of the PEC, who voted for it. But it seems the SWP is not prepared to learn any lessons from this debacle. On the contrary, it prefers to work solely through the London leadership, offering no alternative strategy, based on organising the rank and file to be able to act independently of their leaders when necessary.

Solidarity Committee launched
Steve Hedley gave a brief report of the long-running pay dispute on the London Underground. The bosses were offering just a 0.5 per cent "raise" for this year and next, in effect not a freeze, but a real pay cut in London. Alongside this ran a policy of "job cuts by stealth" with 500 vacancies unfilled.

Significantly, Hedley called for a two armed strategy, industrial action, preferably co-ordinated, and political action, centred on the formation of a new working class party.

But it was on the former part of the strategy that the small meeting (only 50 trade unionists were there, mainly because the meeting was held too early in the day, at 5pm) took a potentially important decision. Linda Taaffe, on behalf of the London Shop Stewards Committee, moved a motion to set up a "permanent Solidarity Committee of London Trade Unions".

Its "job would be to react urgently to the need for cross-trade union solidarity and support of all workers entering or involved in action in defence of their jobs, pay and conditions". Linda made clear that this might include demos, rallies and so-called "secondary strike action". The LSSN backed this up by distributing a "pledge" sheet, calling on activists to agitate for action, if called on to do so by the CWU.

So far, so good. But the committee would initially be comprised of just one rep from each of the PCS, CWU and RMT London regions and from the London pensioners, trades council (GLATUC) and the LSSN. Here there was opposition: from Janine Booth of the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the RMT, Charlie Kimber and myself.

Why not include the NUT, UCU and FBU, all of which had "left" leaderships? And what about the big three unions: Unison, Unite and the GMB? How would the militant bus drivers, who are moving into action, be included? And should not the initiative be developed at a more local level in every borough?

Unfortunately, Taaffe would not budge and the point was never put to a vote. Indeed she answered the debate by declaring, "If we've got good officials on board, they could move things on with tremendous force." Unwittingly, Linda hereby encapsulated everything that is deficient with the SP's industrial strategy: what if the "good" officials are not on board or decide to unceremoniously disembark - or become "less good" (which is not unheard of in the history of the movement)? Then, we are left with no means of mobilising the rank and file to seize control of the engine room.

Time will tell whether this committee meets, is expanded and takes decisive action when needed. It looks like a "winter of discontent", at least in London, is approaching, with potential strikes on the tube, in the post and on the buses. Certainly all the local postal support groups should continue to meet, discuss broadening and deepening their activities and agitating for unity in action.

http://www.workerspower.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wranglered]

I am a bit lost here...

In one breathe Walsh and Palfrey say they are going to call for more stikes, yet in another they, according to the above, said the following:-

"But despite this, both Walsh and Mark Palfrey doggedly defended the Interim Agreement and the decision to call off the strikes."

Now supposedly these lads are our most militant, along with the other two unnamed Divisional Reps on the PEC, so what the F***K are they going on about???

Let us not forget the UNANIMOUS decision of all PEC members to call off the strikes and sign up to this....

You would have thought there would have been at least one to break rank...but no....

Anyway, more news on the MTSF sell out coming your way.....

Don't forget I predicted this over a year ago...forget those nice big EVR's......

They are going the way of the pension...negotiated away from you with such care, skill and attention to detail by our truly excellent negotiators....

[steven100]

They are probably saying the agreed with calling off the strikes if certain things changed. Now two weeks on, things haven't changed and reflecting on the situation, calling of the strikes was a bad idea. Thats how i read the situation.

[POSTMAN]

"But despite this, both Walsh and Mark Palfrey doggedly defended the Interim Agreement and the decision to call off the strikes."

Now supposedly these lads are our most militant, along with the other two unnamed Divisional Reps on the PEC, so what the F***K are they going on about???

Walsh and Palfrey are London Div reps and are NOT on the PEC.
The article states that there just happens to be 4 from London who are on the PEC.

[wranglered]

"But despite this, both Walsh and Mark Palfrey doggedly defended the Interim Agreement and the decision to call off the strikes."

Now supposedly these lads are our most militant, along with the other two unnamed Divisional Reps on the PEC, so what the F***K are they going on about???

Walsh and Palfrey are London Div reps and are NOT on the PEC.
The article states that there just happens to be 4 from London who are on the PEC.

so who are the four on the PEC?

however I am still not clear on how these two can be for more striking, yet supportive of the interim agreement....

still, everyone seems to be just as confused as I am...perhaps that is the idea???

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.cwu.org/postal-executive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Postal Executive 2008-2009

Jane Loftus - Chair
Peter Donaghy - Vice Chair

Mark Baulch
Phil Browne
Martin Collins
Ray Ellis
John Farnan
Andy Furey
Bob Gibson
Steve Jones
Mick Kavanagh
Pete Keenlyside
Carl Maden
Joe Malone
Noel McClean
Lesley McLean
Davie Robertson
Katrina Quirke
Bill Steele
Terry Pullinger
Dave Ward
Ian Ward
Dave Warren

[wranglered]

the london 4 are?

[dvbuk55]

"But despite this, both Walsh and Mark Palfrey doggedly defended the Interim Agreement and the decision to call off the strikes."

Now supposedly these lads are our most militant, along with the other two unnamed Divisional Reps on the PEC, so what the F***K are they going on about???

Walsh and Palfrey are London Div reps and are NOT on the PEC.
The article states that there just happens to be 4 from London who are on the PEC.

so who are the four on the PEC?

however I am still not clear on how these two can be for more striking, yet supportive of the interim agreement....

still, everyone seems to be just as confused as I am...perhaps that is the idea???

Well I'm not confused, these are the blokes who sit on BOTH sides of the fence - whichever way the wind blows.

" Indeed to reclaim the initiative, the CWU needs to call three or four days' continuous action, leading up to an all-out indefinite strike".

If there is any statement designed to put off any would be strikers that's it. There is also this insular London attitude, which brings into stark contrast what Royal Mail are saying - "It is a London issue", London areas need to be very careful that they do not alienate the provinces. Stating things like, "some of our members will be losing £6000 a year" doesn't exactly endear them to the thousands of part timers across the country who cannot get a full time contract.

Perhaps it isn't the leadership that need to wake up to reality but a proportion of the workforce south of Watford.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

the london 4 are?

took me ages to find their names - I'll research backgrounds over the next few days

[johnnyp]

the london 4 are?

I think its these gentlemen

Mark Baulch-East London Postal
Carl Maden-South West London Postal
Ian Ward-South East London Postal And Counter
Paul O'Donnell-London Parcels & Stations Amalgamated

[Martin Walsh]

Paul is not on the PEC the final PEC member from London is the vice chair Peter Donaghy.

It is not only the view of London to announce more strikes others have requested further strikes.

Dvbuk the independent person Roger Paul does not have a veto over whether the CWU can call strikes but the CWU would be slaughtered if we announce further strike action before we had the formal review tomorrow afternoon as we and not Royal Mail insisted on both acas and the independent chair being involved. Royal Mail still dont like the fact that they are involved.

[RoyalQuest]

Paul is not on the PEC the final PEC member from London is the vice chair Peter Donaghy.

It is not only the view of London to announce more strikes others have requested further strikes.

Dvbuk the independent person Roger Paul does not have a veto over whether the CWU can call strikes but the CWU would be slaughtered if we announce further strike action before we had the formal review tomorrow afternoon as we and not Royal Mail insisted on both acas and the independent chair being involved. Royal Mail still dont like the fact that they are involved.

But what if acas and the independent chair say that there has been some positive feedback from certain parts of the country on the intrim agreement and that certain parts of the national agreement have been sorted but more time is needed to finish some sticky points, WILL LONDON AND CO BE HAPPY WITH THAT, AS BY THE NEXT REVIEW STRIKES BEFORE CHRISTMAS WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE.

[dvbuk55]

Paul is not on the PEC the final PEC member from London is the vice chair Peter Donaghy.

It is not only the view of London to announce more strikes others have requested further strikes.

Dvbuk the independent person Roger Paul does not have a veto over whether the CWU can call strikes but the CWU would be slaughtered if we announce further strike action before we had the formal review tomorrow afternoon as we and not Royal Mail insisted on both acas and the independent chair being involved. Royal Mail still dont like the fact that they are involved.

He may not have a veto dingo BUT let me run this scenario by you:

RM say it is working and that they have made concessions, the CWU says it isn't and that there are areas where no concessions have been made, the mediator/adjudicator says there is insufficient evidence to form an opinion and that there should be a further period of two weeks to organise the concessions - now do they ignore him and call the strikes?, if so why bother having an adjudicator in the first place - which was my original point. If he is ignored by the CWU, RM are going to have a field day in the media.

[tatt]

Remember Barber said there would be no strikes before Christmas, so his orders from his Liebour buddies was made before the announcement of the interim agreement. The only way we will be out before Christmas is if the membership do it themselves and that ain't gonna happen.