SWP member & CWU president Jane Loftus sells out the strike

[TrueBlueTerrier]

SWP member & CWU president Jane Loftus sells out the postal strike

http://marxist-appeal.blogspot.com/2009 ... oftus.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dave Isaacson condemns leading SWP members who continually undermine and sabotage attempts to forge rank and file organisation


There was one significant omission in Jim Moody’s article on the sell-out of the postal strike by the Communication Workers Union leadership, which allowed CWU president Jane Loftus to come out of it looking rather good, when actually she has been an utter disgrace (‘Militants condemn sell-out’, November 12). http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/793/militantscondemn.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Loftus, a long-standing member of the Socialist Workers Party and therefore supposedly a revolutionary, is also a member of the CWU’s postal executive committee (PEC), which voted unanimously on November 5 to accept the interim agreement and call off the strikes, just as the strength of the postal workers was starting to be realised. This goes completely against the position of Loftus’s organisation. Socialist Worker has rightly stated that “Leaders of the postal workers’ union were wrong to suspend strikes at Royal Mail last week … There was no reason for the union to sign up to the agreement. The proposed escalation of strike action - that would have seen two 24-hour strikes in close succession last week - had widespread support within the union” (November 14).

Another Socialist Worker article by Cambridge CWU rep Paul Turnbull calls on postal workers to “restart the strikes immediately”. Yet neither questions why Jane Loftus did not vote against this sell-out - indeed her name is not mentioned at all. Activists in the SWP and militants in the CWU need to ask what is going on here. The SWP’s newspaper, Socialist Worker, is arguing one thing, while their highest placed member in the CWU is doing the exact opposite. Like other socialists all over the country, SWP activists put massive amounts of time and energy into supporting the postal workers and their strike. No wonder Socialist Worker might not want them to know that their own comrade on the CWU leadership colluded in undermining that hard work.
Many would expect better from a member of the SWP, but this kind of behaviour is not an aberration. Back in 2007 Loftus failed to speak out against the rotten deal which ended that dispute. The only PEC members who openly campaigned against the 2007 sell-out were Dave Warren and Phil Brown. Loftus also colluded with the bureaucracy by keeping their secrets and withholding vital information from the membership during closed-door negotiations with management. The SWP failed to use this information to warn strikers of the impending sell-out and call on workers to organise independently of the bureaucracy. Again, back in 2003-04 Loftus voted for the Major Change agreement, a management package that involved job cuts.

Loftus is certainly not alone, however. Her actions are reminiscent of those of Martin John and Sue Bond in the Public and Commercial Services union. Similarly, these were the SWP’s leading comrades in a union with a left general secretary (Mark Serwotka) and leadership (dominated by the Socialist Party in England and Wales). The SWP has consistently downplayed (or kept silent about) any criticisms it may have of left union leaders such as these in order to try and draw them into supporting various SWP ‘united fronts’. In the process the SWPers closest to them in the trade unions clearly bought into the ‘awkward squad’ hype and are in thrall to these bureaucrats.

There are plenty of perks to the job and other social pressures which weigh upon those who enter the upper echelons of the union structures. A revolutionary party should be constantly on guard and fighting against the effects of these pressures on its militants, yet the actions of the SWP leadership often do just the opposite of that. Their desire to get close to and win the approval of ‘left’ union leaders creates a culture of diplomatic silence and conciliationism, while what is necessary for accountability within the unions is open debate and rank and file independence from the bureaucracy.

As members of the PCS national executive committee Martin John and Sue Bond had failed to support SWP policy within the union on a number of occasions, and then in 2005 they knowingly went against SWP directions and policy to vote with Serwotka and SPEW for a scandalous pension deal which sold away the rights of new entrants. Only after regular exposures of their actions (not least in the reports of CPGB member Lee Rock in the Weekly Worker), and growing complaints from other SWP members, was the leadership forced to take action against these renegades.
Initially Socialist Worker ignored the actions of its members on the PCS NEC, while condemning the deal as a betrayal of future generations of workers - sound familiar? Even after disciplinary action was begun Sue Bond got off very lightly with a letter of apology in which she stated: “I do regret the position our vote left comrades in, and the significant implications for the left in other public sector unions. I can certainly assure comrades that I have no intention of breaking party discipline in the future” (Weekly Worker November 17 2005). Martin John flounced out of the SWP the day before he was due to face a meeting of the SWP fraction within PCS. It was not until four weeks after the pensions deal was voted on that news of all this made it into Socialist Worker.

However, it is not just a few individual SWP members succumbing to the pressures of the bureaucracy. The SWP itself has consistently failed to use its positions of influence within unions to build genuine rank and file movements which are independent of the union bureaucracy. The SWP-sponsored occasional publication, Post Worker, does not openly take on the likes of general secretary Billy Hayes and his deputy Dave Ward when they act against the interests of their members. Rather, it regularly gives over significant space for them to promote themselves. It might as well be an official union publication.

SWP members may well wonder about the priorities of their leadership, when Alex Snowden - a Reesite Left Platform supporter - has been expelled for “factionalism” (during the pre-conference period when temporary factions are allowed), yet Jane Loftus seems to have got off scot-free for a blatant act of treachery. Comrades in the SWP need to ensure that Jane Loftus is held to account and faces disciplinary action. She must be called before a fraction meeting of SWP comrades in the CWU and made to explain her actions. She must either recant and campaign openly against the acceptance of the interim agreement in line with SWP policy, or it is she who should face expulsion. Beyond this, major questions have to be asked about whether she can continue to be the SWP’s leading representative within the CWU, given her track record. And all of this must be done openly with full reports in Socialist Worker.
I have been told that CWU executive members can only subsequently campaign against majority decisions if they immediately registered their dissent. If this is the case, then Loftus must be made to step down from the PEC in order to campaign within the CWU accordingly.

Prior to this latest sell-out, Socialist Worker quite correctly asked the question, “How do we fight when union leaders waver?” Matthew Cookson wrote: “The best way to take the struggle forward is to organise workers on a rank-and-file level. A strong organisation of this nature could support the officials as long as they were representing the union members, but could act independently the moment their leaders began to look for some way to settle their dispute unfavourably” (October 31).
Yes, but the actions of leading SWP members continually undermine and sabotage attempts at forging such rank and file organisation. Comrades in the SWP need to think much more deeply about the role their organisation plays within the unions. They must be free to use Socialist Worker as a tool to explore why it is their leading representatives in the unions end up acting against the interests of the working class.

[sevenandseven]

Can someone tell me why the SWP - which has less support in the country than the BNP - seems to have such a strong influence in the CWU. Instead of wasting their time talking about " Reesite Left Platform Support - er? ", factionalism and recanting the CWU needs to be more relevant to the real world than some Stalinist - Maoist dream that died years ago even in the land of their birth. Their purpose is to protect their members jobs not play petty party politics.

[chewi]

This is all bollocks. The important thing is , will I have a wage next year that i can live on? anything else is irrelevent and I wouldn't bother urinating on it

[Tman]

sevenandseven"]Can someone tell me why the SWP - which has less support in the country than the BNP - seems to have such a strong influence in the CWU. Instead of wasting their time talking about " Reesite Left Platform Support - er? ", factionalism and recanting the CWU needs to be more relevant to the real world than some Stalinist - Maoist dream that died years ago even in the land of their birth.

Very true, but doubtless there'll be some Wolfie (and puppy) along soon to say otherwise.
Loftus' judgement is flawed, and she'd be better employed looking after CWU affairs than playing the old "I'm so Left Wing, me" game...

[norbert]

sevenandseven"]Can someone tell me why the SWP - which has less support in the country than the BNP - seems to have such a strong influence in the CWU. Instead of wasting their time talking about " Reesite Left Platform Support - er? ", factionalism and recanting the CWU needs to be more relevant to the real world than some Stalinist - Maoist dream that died years ago even in the land of their birth.

Very true, but doubtless there'll be some Wolfie (and puppy) along soon to say otherwise.
Loftus' judgement is flawed, and she'd be better employed looking after CWU affairs than playing the old "I'm so Left Wing, me" game...

The CWU were clever in the sense that they neutralized Deidre Spart by making her President otherwise she'd have threatened the " " corrupt " right wing old guard " , it's happened a 1000 times further down the food chain ; there's militant reps that RM have made up to Managers . Just replace the threatened CWU " "corrupt " right wing old guard " with the RM system .

I agree about the factionalism , they're splitters at heart , the far right play the same game - Sadie Graham v Nick Griffin in the BNP ? , there's BNP hard-liners that hark back to Tyndall and the flight jackets & DM's approach too . TBH - they all meet each other round the back .

[borders]

sevenandseven"]Can someone tell me why the SWP - which has less support in the country than the BNP - seems to have such a strong influence in the CWU. Instead of wasting their time talking about " Reesite Left Platform Support - er? ", factionalism and recanting the CWU needs to be more relevant to the real world than some Stalinist - Maoist dream that died years ago even in the land of their birth.

Very true, but doubtless there'll be some Wolfie (and puppy) along soon to say otherwise.
Loftus' judgement is flawed, and she'd be better employed looking after CWU affairs than playing the old "I'm so Left Wing, me" game...

surely it says the complete opposite , that the SWP does not have a strong influence in the CWU , afterall they argued that the strikes should go ahead. the PEC decided to call off the strikes and talk and as Dingo says on another thread the attacks etc on the workforce continue . seems Loftus is towing the CWU PEC line ,as she alledgedly has resigned from the SWP, so maybe Mr Tman you could enlighten us as to how her judgement is flawed ??

[Tman]

so maybe Mr Tman you could enlighten us as to how her judgement is flawed ??

By letting it be known that she was in the fantasy land of the SWP? Could she have flagged it more if she'd tried?

[borders]

so maybe Mr Tman you could enlighten us as to how her judgement is flawed ??

By letting it be known that she was in the fantasy land of the SWP? Could she have flagged it more if she'd tried?

does not really answer my question but what else could i expect ?? she was a member of the SWP but seems to have towed the PEC line so they have asked her to choose between the SWP or the PEC. she hasnt choosen " the fantasy land of the SWP " , thats the point.

[Tman]

does not really answer my question but what else could i expect ??

Who knows what you " could expect" but presumably what you meant was you didn't get the answer that you wanted to hear.

she was a member of the SWP but seems to have towed the PEC line so they have asked her to choose between the SWP or the PEC. she hasnt choosen " the fantasy land of the SWP " , thats the point.

Never said she did "choosen" one over the other; she was in the SWP, and that alone is enough to question her logic and suitability for her union position. Clearer now?

[Ernie Shoe]

This is all bollocks. The important thing is , will I have a wage next year that i can live on? anything else is irrelevent and I wouldn't bother urinating on it

Quite agree - couldn't give a sh*t about Loftus, SWP!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Never said she did "choosen" one over the other; she was in the SWP,and that alone is enough to question her logic and suitability for her union position. Clearer now?

No you are half stating an opinion and not backing it up with arguments or statements. Its as though you are expecting everyone to agree with you. Come on debate and explain why being a member of the SWP would bring into question her logic and suitability when many good reps (both in my office are members) and officers are members of the SWP.

Just to clarify my 2 reps are against the interim agreement so would not find themselves in the same situation as Jane Loftus.

[Tman]

No you are half stating an opinion and not backing it up with arguments or statements.

No, I'm "fully" stating an opinion, and opinions don't need backing up to be justifiable.
The SWP exists for the good of the SWP. It offers nothing constructive, or new, or workable, just another iteration of the same old tired and unworkable "banner headline" concepts of the Hard Left. Trite, crass, heavy on rhetoric and short on facts.
So then, doesn't the fact that she supported such a pointless bunch call her judgement into question?

I want a union to fight for RM staff, not to fight a class war (albeit in their little heads... )

[borders]

so what do you suggest the Union do , to fight for RM staff as you put it ? carry on with the strikes or carry on with the talks ?

[Tman]

Both.

[Thorby Bislam]

It pains me to say it, but I agree with Tman on this one. (feel dirty now)