JON CRUDDAS: THESE STRIKES AREN’T RACIST
Jon Cruddas: These strikes aren’t about xenophobia
The wave of strikes across the country should come as no surprise. Popular anger is overcoming complacency and fear. The recession is exposing the true nature of the British economy. We are a country that has been ransacked by the free flow of capital. The strikes are not about xenophobia, they’re about large corporations and free markets that are out of control.
The Lincolnshire refinery where the current dispute began is owned by the US oil company Total. It employs the giant American engineering company Jacobs which then subcontracts to an Italian firm, IREM, which cut its labour costs by using its own Italian and Portuguese workers. Big engineering contractors have been recruiting compliant and cheap foreign labour for years.
Britain has lost control of key industries and their labour procurement procedures. The Lincolnshire dispute is a small symptom of a big problem. Britain is a country that no longer owns the productive processes that create its wealth. Crucial economic sectors have been handed over to unaccountable foreign ownership. The government has abandoned workers to exploitation, more concerned with making them fit the global market than in protecting their interests. In Labour’s working-class heartlands there is a powerful feeling of being dispossessed.
British and European labour market policies have centred on the drive for flexibility. The increase in short-term contracts, agency work, subcontracting and use of the “self-employed” have left workers with fewer rights. The workforce in Britain is one of the least protected in that market. Growth in employment has been concentrated in low-skill, low-wage jobs in poor conditions. The growing use of temporary and agency workers is spreading these conditions to other parts of the economy.
But worse has been a series of court rulings that have further deregulated labour markets. In 2003 the Finnish ferry company Viking Line reflagged its vessel and employed an Estonian crew, cutting its wage costs by 60%. Its actions were upheld by the European court of justice. In 2004 a Latvian company, Laval, sent workers to building sites in Sweden. The Swedish construction union asked the company to agree to the existing collective agreement within the building sector. It refused, operating instead under the Latvian agreement - including lower pay that undercut the Swedish workers’ wages. Again, the court ruled in the company’s favour. Workers’ conditions and pay need only comply with the laws of the company’s home country.
The government has done nothing to halt the EU race to the bottom. Its own labour market policies succeeded in the boom years because exploitation, precarious jobs and exploitative levels of pay could be offset by cheap credit and then hidden behind the sparkle of consumerism. Those times are over. With social insurance in short supply, people’s key source of economic security was the rising asset value of their homes. That’s gone. There is no cheap credit to make up for falling or stagnant wages.
The left must offer a real and viable alternative. We have to reverse the years of wealth redistribution from poor to rich. We need regulation to end low pay, low skill and casualised labour. Strong trade unions are the best defence against exploitation. Work and quality of life can be improved by introducing a living wage. And why don’t we discuss having a maximum income? Both can be defined by establishing a maximum ratio of difference between the most and least well-paid. We need to create new forms of economic citizenship, and bring the economy and work under greater democratic control. That should be the agenda, not “British jobs for British workers”.
• Jon Cruddas is Labour MP for Dagenham cruddasj@parliament.uk
© Guardian News & Media Limited 2009
Excellent. But Cruddas fails to mention that it was the British government which was leading “the race to the bottom.” They, and the European Chamber of Commerce (the free-market’s inner circle, which shows few signs of reform), are mroe responsible than most for the Frankenstein’s Monster which is wreaking the havoc that created the present mess.
Our old friend Lord Mandelson makes this even clearer today. The Independent on Sunday cites him saying that British workers affected (that is left on the Dole)in Grimsby and elswhere can up sticks and find work in Europe.
I hope Unite manages to pull off a political campaign to direct anger at social dumping. Not at ‘foreigners’. This seems a way forward.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Very good, Cruddas. Why don’t you have that printed so strikers can put it on a placard instead of ‘British Jobs for British Workers’? F— off!
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:58 am
See below for the view from the new labour shit Brian Wilson. Made a political career on the back of the working class. His contempt for working class people is clear. Apparently they are just going to have to get used to poverty
sandy
This isn’t labour on the cheap
Scotland on sunday
Published Date: 01 February 2009
It would be a mistake to assume that the dispute over the use of
foreign labour on major UK construction and engineering sites is about
“cheap labour” versus British workers.
Indeed, it would be a lot easier to resolve if there was clear-cut
evidence that Italian, Portuguese or other EU workers were being
employed on inferior terms or conditions. However, that is not
normally the case on well-regulated, high-profile sites. It is more
likely that all the contractors’ employees at power stations, oil
refineries, nuclear sites and the like will be employed under
conditions dictated by NAECI – the National Agreement for the
Engineering Construction Industry. In other words, they will be paid
exactly the same rate as their UK counterparts.
Despite this, an increasing number of employers prefer to use non-UK
labour from within the EU. This is because they believe they get
better productivity and also, where workers have to be drawn into the
location of a major site, they can make substantial savings by
providing basic accommodation for non-UK workers.
All of this has remained a dormant issue because the labour market was
so buoyant. But times have changed rapidly and it is now apparent
that, while the influx of EU labour has been acquiesced in, hearts and
minds have never really been won for the “free movement of labour”
principle.
The ACAS officials now dealing with the issue can only offer so much.
They cannot wish away the fundamental principle that all men and women
must be treated equally wherever in the EU they wish to sell their
labour. That is why chauvinistic rhetoric about “British jobs for
British people” was always high risk.
Trade unions will doubtless be able to quote cases in which they
believe the same terms and conditions do not apply to imported workers
as would be accepted by their own members. Parity of required
qualifications can also be difficult to measure. And there are also
legitimate questions to be asked, particularly for safety reasons,
about language competence.
These grey areas will allow ministers to offer the unions assurances
about more stringent inspection and enforcement action. That may be
enough to draw a line under the present unrest but it will not address
the more fundamental issue.
The uncomfortable fact is that many perfectly reputable employers
prefer to employ workers from Italy, Portugal or wherever because they
believe that they get a better bang for their buck – higher
productivity, less absenteeism, better skill levels and so on.
Alongside that is the equally difficult-to-shift fact that the free
movement of labour within the EU is a good principle that is not going
to disappear.
These two facts simply confirm that British workers will need to get
used to the reality that a competitive labour market exists within the
EU in bad times as well as good.
The other side of the coin is that tens of thousands of British
workers benefit from that same regime and ply their trades on the same
legal basis, in every corner of the European Union and beyond.
Brian Wilson is a former UK minister and was Tony Blair’s special
representative on overseas trade
Comment by Anonymous — 1 February, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Too late Cruddas. Is your parliamentary seat under threat perhaps? That is the only reason why MPs deign to get involved with the lumpen British proletariate these days. The lid has well and truely blown off the kettle and you and your ilk at Westminister may find your snout out of the trough sooner than you think. Roll on the revolution!
Comment by Ken — 1 February, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Another right wing non socialist Labour politician frightened of losing his seat and given space on Socialist Unity.
I wonder if Mr Cruddas will be writing an article explaining to UNITE members why he voted for Foundation Trusts the chief mechanism for privatising the NHS
Will he be explaining why he does not want an inquiry into the Iraq bloodbath that he voted in favour of?
Will Mr Cruddas be explaining why he voted very strongly in favour of the anti terror laws that will be used to remove our civil liberties.
We cannot trust any member of the Labour Party when it comes to the rights or well being of our people ,our Unions or our well being. Look at their record.
It is sickening to see right wing former neo liberals like Mr Cruddas jumping of a bandwagon that they set rolling. Look at Mr Cruddas record
How Jon Cruddas voted on key issues since 2001:
* Has never voted on a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches
* Voted a mixture of for and against introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
* Voted moderately for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
* Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
* Voted strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly against replacing Trident. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for the hunting ban. votes, speeches
* Voted moderately for equal gay rights. votes, speeches
* Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change. votes, speeches
Comment by ANIN — 1 February, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
“And why don’t we discuss having a maximum income?”
And while we’re about it, why not discuss having a maximum number of houses also. I understand that John Cruddas has three. How is it that someone living in Dagenham, Essex and having his parliamentary constituency there can claim a second London home on parliamentary allowance (e.g taxpayers expense) when Dagenham is a station actually on the London Underground?
I think he is right when he says “Popular anger is overcoming complacency and fear.” Imagine how angry his constituents will be when they find their hard earned tax revenue is paying for one of his homes?
Comment by Peter Archer — 1 February, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
Jon Cruddas understands something that the armchair theoreticians who are slagging him off on here don’t: the BNP is a real and growing threat.
Many on the Left in pre-war Germany simply couldn’t get their heads around the possibility that petit-bourgeouis chauvinists like the Nazis could appeal to many workers over the heads of the Communist Party. They didn’t see it until it was too late.
Cruddas, for all his limitations, is out there fighting on the front line in an area that already has elected fascists on the local council - quite a few of them.
Get your poncey middle-class heads out of your arses and wake up. There are thousands and thousands of angry workers out there mobilising now. Once the BNP really gets its claws into them, the Left is fucked.
Comment by Colin — 1 February, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Gregor Gall’s take on the strikes
http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/british-jobs-for-british-workers/
Comment by David Broder — 1 February, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Actually, this is probaly the ideal time to relaunch the Right To Work Campaign, or something like it.
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Why is ‘unaccountable foreign ownership’ any worse than ownership by unaccountable British capitalists? Scratch the mealy-mouthed ‘it’s not racist’ rhetoric, and Cruddas is basically calling for economic nationalism and protectionism, with a few vaguely leftish sounding trinkets to keep the Compass subscribers happy.
The problem is international capitalism. The solution is international workers unity.
Comment by Simon — 1 February, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
#10
ID - a RTW campaign has just been launched by the Socialist Party youth section (ISR). It’s demands are:
ISR campaigns for:
The right to a decent job for all - we won’t pay for their crisis!
No to job losses. Open the account books to let workers see where the profits have gone.
Bail out workers not bosses. Nationalise big industries threatening closure or large scale job losses.
For fighting trade unions, involving young workers and the unemployed.
For training linked to decent jobs.
No to cheap labour apprenticeships! For all apprenticeships topay at least the minimum wage, with a job guaranteed at the end.
No to university fees. Support the Campaign to Defeat Fees.
No to bullying management. For decent working conditions.
For a living minimum wage of at least £8 an hour for all. No youth exemptions.
Share out the work. For a 35 hour working week with no loss of pay.
For government investment in socially useful jobs.
For a massive public programme of house building, renovation and infrastructure projects.
No to these projects being run by private companies who will put profit first.
Comment by Henry — 1 February, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
Cruddas, for all his limitations, is out there fighting on the front line in an area that already has elected fascists on the local council
I wonder why he’s doing that then? Is that local council in his constituency?
I’m sure he’s just a sincere, dedicated anti-racist and not motivated to suddenly take an interest in anti-fascism by self-interest in keeping his seat, plus multiple homes.
Comment by Duncan Money — 1 February, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
I see - Cruddas is fighting the BNP *for the wrong reasons*.
Much better to sit at your computer and slag him off rather than get your own hands dirty with real politics. I suspect the reason for that is that while Cruddas is rooted in the class and can get a hearing from workers in Dagenham, you are rooted in a puerile, atomisted, student lifestyle and would get told to fuck off if you tried to engage ordinary people in political debate.
Comment by Colin — 1 February, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
This statement represents a developing state of denial by most of the social dempocratic left about the nature of these walkouts. The core logic of the walkouts is reactionary in that it seeks to prevent foreign workers from taking ‘British’ jobs. As such is divides workers and allows employers (and the far right) a free hand. It could well end up in campaigns against east European workers and so on. The workers’ key slogans, and their union jacks, should be seen for what they are and rejected, instead of beginning with false statements such as that of Cruddas. The denial of reality by sections on the left is not without historical precedent as in times of crisis social democrats, and social democratic trade union leaders, always put nation before class (that’s the nature of social democracy - reforming national capitalism rather than confronting it). However, the walkouts are taking place, so socialists must intervene with leaflets and propoganda putting the position of workers’ internationalism and turning the demands from ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ to demands on the employers to end the contract system and return to a system of direct employment without discrimination, and demands on the state for an end to privatisation and labour market deregulation, and demands within the unions to recruit and organsie migrant workers.
Comment by martin — 1 February, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
No to the nationalist strikes
1 February 2009
http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1821,0,0,1,0
Comment by Luke cooper — 1 February, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Not a very good article. It elides over the crucial point - that these jobs are not open for all to apply for. The demand to open them up - for fair hiring practices in other words - is a supportable demand. That they are not open to all is a provocation against the local population which is bound to produce a nationalist response whereever it is carried out. WP are incapable of seperating out the nationalist response from the actual greivance that provoked it.
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
You sound like a charming bloke Colin. Take a few deep breaths before typing next time.
Much better to sit at your computer and slag him off rather than get your own hands dirty with real politics.
I believe the above was the first time I have ever commented about Cruddas anywhere on the internet.
I’d hate to be sat at a computer slagging people off I’ve never met, sounds terrible.
Wait a minute Colin, how are you submitting comments to this blog again?
Comment by Duncan Money — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
No ID, you are incapable of standing firmly and squarely against a chauvinist strike.
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Is it chauvinist to demand that hiring is open to all workers? Why is that issue not mentioned in the article, since it is the issue that sparked the strike? Does rb (and WP) support the exclusion of UK-based workers from applying for these jobs?
If opposing that is a reactionary demand, why not say so? The article doesn’t actually mention this point at all, which is a good way to avoid addressing it, I suppose. But it won’t cut any ice with those workers to whom it is the key issue. No matter, if the left doesn’t address this, the BNP certainly will.
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
ID - you’re being disingeuous.
The WP statement says ‘we need to raise the call for jobs for the unemployed in every locality, every industry, and every country of residence.’ and wp is in favour of workers control of hiring and firing (NB this would include the migrant as well as the British workers.
But this strike is for British Jobs for British Workers ie priority for British citizens in hiring. It’s why every socialist should oppose these strikes. Do you? That’s the point you seem to be evading.
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
I’m not being disingenous. That is the issue that sparked the dispute, and why it is a contradictory dispute, not a straighforwardly reactionary one. The fact is that there is no open hiring process for these jobs, that UK-based workers are not allowed to apply for them. This discrimination in hiring has produced a nationalist response, which actually would probably happen anywhere where such practices were carried out, anywhere in the world - particularly in a situation of rapidly rising unemployment.
We should oppose the nationalist response, but this response does not mean that this is the same thing as a reactionary strike calling for the exclusion of ‘foriegn’ labour. It is not directed against the employment of overseas workers per se, but rather against practices that are themselves discriminatory. Of course, it could develop into that - particularly if the left gets this wrong - but that is not the situation yet.
If this was a reactionary strike, eg. a strike against the employment of ‘foriegners’, you should be for its defeat and the continued employment of the ‘foreigners’ alongside the workers now on strike once the strike was defeated. The outright defeat of the strike would be a good thing. But that is not the issue here, because we have a number of jobs that UK based workers are excluded in advance from applying for, full stop. Cementing this discrimination is not progressive at all. That is a different issue, and if you say that workers grievances against that are ‘reactionary’, you are only helping expand the influence of the BNP.
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
And, my dear rb, to add one more point - wish lists for things that could be achieved if the working class was far stronger than it currently is, are very fine and dandy. But to get to that point, you have to concretely address the real grievances of the workers, the issues that are motivating them now. The major shortcoming of the WP article is that it doesn’t actually describe what the dispute is actually about, what sparked it off. And if you don’t do that, you necessarily come up with something that is abstract and not much use to man nor beast;-)
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Brian Wilson doesn’t declare it in the Scotland on Sunday article, , but he is a director of Amec Nuclear, the nuclear arm of engineering giant AMEC. I think AMEC nuclear may face some of the sympathy action around this dispute, which may have caused his lack of sympathy for the strikers
http://www.amec.com/page.aspx?pointerid=21e86a7ce6874827b13e5b576fb16aac
Comment by Solomon Hughes — 1 February, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Head in the clouds ID. You can make out the strike is not for priviliging British labour over foreign, but it is plain as a pikestaff from the speeches from stewards as well as from the strikers comments let alone the placards and posters that it is. The strike is for british jobs for british workers. So yes, all socialists should oppose it and be for it to be called off. The SWP and WP are quite right on this and you are trying to wriggle your way out.
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
So do WP feel it is correct that UK based workers are not allowed to apply for these jobs? You are in a dilemma - say yes to this and it is you who are siding with something anti-working class and discriminatory. Say no, and you concede that the strike is not in itself reactionary.
If you don’t address this issue one way or another, you will have zero influence over the workers in any case. Whatever you ‘call for’ will be ignored because it doesn’t address the issues at stake.
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
No Ian you are simply deciding what you want the strike to be about so you don’t have to oppose it. You make out that the aim of the strike is that all workers should be allowed to apply for the jobs whilst the demand British jobs for British Workers is a worrying but somehow incidental slogan being raised by some of its participants. This neat distinction just doesn’t accord with reality.
I repeat, we are in favour of workers control of hiring and firing, but would want to ensure that that wasn’t just control by indigenous workers. That means the strikers approaching the Italian and Portuguese workers to work with them - not demanding that they be sacked in favour of British citizens.
As for influence, influence purchased at the expense of internationalist principle is worse than useless. Sometimes socialists have to stand firm. This is one of those times.
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
The spontaneous sentiment behind this dispute it to wrest the control of hiring and firing out of the hands of the neo-liberal capitalist class. Under their control whole communities are closed down and abandoned forever left to rot on poultry welfare provision and in crappy housing estates. These workers are making a stand and should be supported. Bidding for contracts by capitalist concerns is the fastest most effective way to undercut wages and break or circumvent unions and the fastest `route to the bottom’ for all workers. At last it is being opposed but to the eternal shame of the tu bureaucrats it is being opposed by spontaneous action rather than concerted, planned action backed by the resources of the whole movement. The sects’ talk of internationalism is pure bluster in these circumstances and must be music to the ears of the gang masters. These sects have become strike breakers in league with Brown, Mandelson and the cowardly union chiefs.
Comment by Robert — 1 February, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
Sorry rb, but I’m not making it up at all. You know very well that this exists, and focussing your ire on the slogans being raised by those workers influenced by nationalist propaganda of one or another type does not absolve the left from concretely dealing with the issues and grievances that the strike is actually about. It DOES matter whether this is a strike against the employment of ‘foreign’ labour per se, or whether it is against a disciminatory practice in hiring that excludes UK-based workers. One is simply reactionary, the other is not (though very vulnerable to being influenced in a reactionary direction, obviously).
If you say that the two are the same thing, or imply this by ignoring addressing the latter at all, you are objectively helping the BNP by giving them a monopoly over this issue.
Comment by ID — 1 February, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
YOU are the strikebreaker here: scratch a reformist ’socialist’ and find a British chauvinist underneath.
The underlying casue is neoliberalism and the crisis, but the sentiment is British Jobs for British Workers and that has been transalted into the strikers’ key demand. Shame on ’socialists’ who can’t (or won’t) recognise that and want to play word games rather than stand firm for internationalism.
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
that was addressed to Robert btw
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
#30 `You are the strikebreaker here’
What strike would that be then?
Comment by Robert — 1 February, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
#30, what are you talking about “internationalism” ?
This is just absurd infantile ultra left posturing.
Jeezo man, an Italian contractor is going to bring in hundreds of it’s own workers, put them up in barges in Grimsby harbour, specifically with the intention of smashing trade union organisation and driving down wages, and you want workers to welsome that in the name of “internationalism ” ??
What a joke.
Some other clown said that socialists should call for the strikes to end and workers to return to work ??
So that anti union contractors are free to continue their assault on wages, conditions and the trade union movement without the inconvenience of militant workers getti9ng in their way.
I’ve never seen anything like it in 30 years involvement in the socialist movement.
I have no idea who ‘ID’ is but this comrades contributions have been absolutely spot on.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
#24 Solomon. I read that and the first thing I thought was, well of course Brian Wilson would say that because he is a PR man for the power companies. The idea that he might prefer to represent his former constituents in this never even crossed my mind. Your post reminded me how scandalous a situation that is.
#6 ANIN Re Jon Cruddas’s voting record, we can add that he was one of the 29 Labour MPs who signed the Early Day Motion in December calling on the government to drop the Heathrow third runway proposal, who last week voted in favour of the third runway proposal. A seriously deadly flip-flop.
Comment by Strategist — 1 February, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
# 33 ‘I have no idea who ‘ID’ is but this comrades contributions have been absolutely spot on.’
I do know who you are Eddie, and very rarely agree with you these days. But in this case, whilst I agree with everything ID has said, you are the one who has cut to the chase of the matter in your last comment.
The way to beat chauvinism is not through empty sloganising but through demonstating that internationalism is the way to defend workers’ interests.
In this case, the support of Italian (and other European) unions needs to be enlisted. If the bosses get away with using Italian workers to smash British unions it will only be a matter of time before British workers (maybe even those whose jobs and rights are under threat here) are used to attck Italian, French or Portuguese workers rights.
The last week has seen workers struggling against neo-liberal retrenchment in the face of the recession from Vladivosok to Rekyavik, via Waterford, Paris and Latvia, these struggles need to be linked on a programme of class struggle and the British refinery workers are part of that fight.
By condeming them, rb and others are not going to end their struggle, but they DO risk driving them into the arms of the BNP.
Comment by paulm — 1 February, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
an Italian contractor is going to bring in hundreds of it’s own workers, put them up in barges in Grimsby harbour, specifically with the intention of smashing trade union organisation and driving down wages, and you want workers to welsome that in the name of “internationalism ” ??
The problem is, I’m yet to see any evidence that these Italian workers are being paid any less or are working for different conditions. The company denies it and nobody has produced any evidence to dispute this.
British companies go around Europe doing the same thing as this Italian company. Why should there be one rule for us and another for the rest of Europe?
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Eddie - is this a strike against wages being undercut by the contractors? Has Unite not secured union rates for the Italian and Portuguese contractors? has any attempt been made to unionise the contractors?
You say it is only a matter oif time before British workers are used to attack Italian workers rights - but don’t you see that that is what is already happening here?
You say in all your 30 years in the movement (sorry, I’ve only got 25) you’ve ‘never seen anything like it’. But in the last 30 years we haven’t had until now a strike wave calling for British Jobs for British Workers - which the apologists on this board like ID and paulm are trying to distract attention from but which everyone knows is the central demand of the strikes. That’s not a progressive call to level up wages or to open up a recruitment process to workers’ control - it’s a call for privileges for British citizens over and above foreign workers. A reactionary demand.
paulm says opposing this reactionary strike will play into the arms of the BNP. The opposite is the case. If the union leaders - let alone leftwing parties like the SP - fail to stand up to this rotten demand and argue clearly against it then it will become an accepted demand of the movement and we’ll be in a terrible situation. The statements published by Socialist Worker, Workers Power and the AWL correctly point out this danger and warn against it. All equivocation on this, all attempts to recast the basic aims of the strike in terms that you WISH it was demanding are fantasy and a cowardly refusal to stand up for the interests of ALL workers, not just the strikers who are demanding privilges on national not class terms.
As for ‘roberts’ question as to why I say it he who is the strikebreaker and not those who refuse to back this reactionary movement, the answer is clear. to call for an end to a reactionary strike is a basic duty of socialists, one you are reneging on. the strike wave sweeping Europe demands we fight for solidarity and internationalism to secure a united repsonse to the crisis - by backing this chauvinist strike you are helping to divide not unite the working class.
The chips are down and plainly there will now be a sharp struggle in the movement and on the left on this basic issue. In this we’ll be guided by our basic principle, which so many seem to think has no practical significance:
“The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”
Comment by rb — 1 February, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
of course it’s a rascist strike
racism is about the only thing the working class do well these days
after the middle classes sold them down the river in the 80s
Comment by working class hero — 1 February, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
#36, so why would the company go to the trouble of importing outside labour if they could go and hire local labour on the same basis ?
You don’t organise the importation and housing of large groups of workers if you could hire them locally on the same basis.
Andy Newman made this point on an earlier thread, it just doesn’t make sense.
Are you contending that the entire basis of the unions position is bogus, that they’ve made it up on a chauvinistic whim ?
If the com4rades who are arguing that these strikes are reactionary and racist are to be believed then we are in an incredibly serious situation, around 500 workers walked out at Scottish Power’s Longannet power station, just over 100 at its Cockenzie power station, around 80 stopped work at British Energy’s Torness nuclear facility.
If the narrative of the SWP, Workers Power etc is to be believed then we are in the grip of a wave of Little Englander chauvinism that is so deep as to motivate skilled workers in Scotland to take totally illegal secondary solidarity action.
On this basis then, Brian Wilson in today’s Scotland on Sunday is an internationalist socialist when he tells UK workers to get used to worse wages and conditions than they are on now;
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/This-isn39t-labour-on-the.4934489.jp
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
(Ignoring the trolling at 37)
Ed @ 36. If the company wanted to pay the same wages and keep the same conditions why on earth would they sack the existing workforce who have years of experience of the plant and bring in an entirely new workforce?
If a British company did this in Italy of course we should support the Italian workers in defending their jobs. The livelihoods of Italian and British workers should not be commodities to be traded on the bourse. Its not a question of ‘one rule for “us”…’ but of challenging the capitalist EU rules which reduce freedom of movement’ to freedom to hire and fire in search of a quick buck.
Comment by paulm — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Eddie: Snap!
Comment by paulm — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Eddie: “Andy Newman made this point on an earlier thread, it just doesn’t make sense.”
Since I agree with you Eddie, I assume you mean that I earlier made the same point that it wouldn’t make any sense for the bosses to ship in Italians if thwey could employ locals at the same pay and conditions.
Rather than you saying i didn’t make sense?
:o)
Comment by Andy Newman — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Yes, sorry for the confusion Andy, what you said was exactly right, the idea that the company would organise the importation of their own labour into the UK if there was no difference in wages and conditions is patently absurd.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6849
Comment by paulm — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
#44, that’s excellent, very positive, thank you.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
“The left must offer a real and viable alternative. We have to reverse the years of wealth redistribution from poor to rich. We need regulation to end low pay, low skill and casualised labour. Strong trade unions are the best defence against exploitation. Work and quality of life can be improved by introducing a living wage. And why don’t we discuss having a maximum income? Both can be defined by establishing a maximum ratio of difference between the most and least well-paid. We need to create new forms of economic citizenship, and bring the economy and work under greater democratic control. That should be the agenda, not “British jobs for British workers”. Jon Cruddas
Who exactly is Jon Cruddas referring to when he says “we” and which “left” is he actually referring to?
Of course it is nevertheless true that “the left must offer a real and viable alternative”, but from when and how exactly? It´s certainly not not going to happen from within the New Labour AS PEOPLE CONTINUE TO LEAVE IT DROVES AND WONT TOUCH IT WITH A BARGE POLE.
It´s certainly not going to happen outside the New Labour party as it is all too clear the Left in all it´s 57 varieties actually DOESNT want to get it´s act together inmorder to either work together or better still actually work towards in creating a real and viable socialist alternative in the form of a new broad left party.So what gives? What does it take?
Comment by flea bite — 1 February, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
Thanks Andy for posting “What’s really behind the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike” by Keith Gibson, Personal Capacity, GMB. - elected onto unofficial LOR Strike Committee.
It really does blow the whole SWP position apart and confirms my own views that this is a progressive dispute that the Left must support using slogans like “Defend the Right TO Work” or “Fighting for Workers Rights” or “Back The Workers Not The Bankers” (you can add a W if you like!)or “Gordon: Save Jobs Give Us The £Billions you gave the Banks!” etc.
Comment by Red — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
A lot of people are claiming it doesn’t make any sense without producing any hard facts. Nobody has contradicted the companies statement that they are getting the same terms and conditions as British workers. It may be that the Italian company just wanted to deal with workers that they knew could do the job and didn’t need timely extra training.
Workers have pan European right these days anyway.
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
Red
What is the SWP position that has been ‘blown apart’? The real one, ‘radicalize the strike and turn your fire on the bosses’, or the one that its enemies want it to hold, i.e.’the strike is racist, death to the strike’?
Comment by Jonathan — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
#47 The demands posted are theose of Socialist Party supporter Keith Gibson, in a personal capacity. It would be more interesting to know what happened when he proposed them on the strike committe. Thet certainly haven’t been reflected in the placareds carried on the picket lines.
Comment by PW — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
#48, I hope you are on a retainer.
Please explain to us why any company would import hundreds of workers from outside the UK, organise their accommodation in barges off Grimsby harbour and refuse to hire UK labour, if they were going to pay the same wages, accept the same conditions and recognise the right of UK trade unions to organise that workforce.
You can’t can you, it’s totally rediculous.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
The management of the Italian company may have said they could do it faster and would take less profit.
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
Workers away from home are more focused on the job.
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
#52, so, what ?
You are prepared to accept that an Italian company has developed hundreds of super-workers that can live on barges off Grimsby harbour and build power station facilities faster and better than any other worker, while being paid the same and having the same conditions as any other worker ?
Don’t be so fucking stupid.
The company wants to import it’s own labour in a deliberate attempt to destroy the current workers - employers market values in Lincolnshire.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
It’s up to you to provide evidence to the contrary. My mind remains open.
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
i’m very confused by all this- a major building company i know in scotland has been laying off more and more of its own workers- it has now brought in new sub contractors from liverpool to do new bits of work- they are bringing up their own staff to work on the build.should we campaign against this?
Comment by confused — 1 February, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
#54 Eddie Truman. The exact same posts #52, 53 by “Ed D” have been posted on Lenin’s Tomb by “Mike”, a known troll on the Lenin’s Tomb site. They will be deleted on that site as soon as they are seen, as he is a known timewaster.
Don’t engage him in discussion, his only aim is to take the piss. (”Do not feed the troll”)
Comment by Strategist — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
#57, ok, cheers.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
This is not lenin’s tomb - Seymour’s rules have no jurisdiction here.
Socialist Unity does not need foreign contractors to moderate their blog. They have perfectly good moderators here.
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
#56, good point.
I don’t remember much protest from these people about the million eastern European workers either, even though that sort level of people is bound to have far more effect on wages than a few Italian contractors.
Everybody is all over the place.
Comment by Ed D — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Jonathan Comment 49: “What is the SWP position that has been ‘blown apart’?
The SWP statement makes it clear that they do not see the construction workers strikes as a healty development of workers fighting back but goes on and on about the dangers of racism (ofcourse there could be a danger if the Left leave the strikes isolated). On support for the strikers the statement is full of no but, maybe but, no but, if only but (you know the character I’am on about).
Many SWP supporters on this site have made it clear that they do not see the strikes as progressive and in fact see them as somewhat reactionary in intention (due to their fixation on some placards that the media has focused on).The report by Keith Gibson give a very, very different picture does it not?
So Jonathan a very simple question - do you or dont you support the construction worker strikes?
Comment by Red — 1 February, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
I think Ed D (of Mike at Lenin’s Tomb) may sometimes be mischevious in what he posts, but his arguments are often ones that genuinely do arise, and people should feel able to argue against (or for them, if they feel inclined!) politeley.
Lenin’s Tomb runs a far too censorious regime for my liking.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 February, 2009 @ 12:53 am
As a more or less regular poster here I note that I have rarely posted on Seymours blog and do not wish my views to be confused with those of Ed D.
Comment by Mike — 2 February, 2009 @ 9:54 am
#62 Andy. Yesterday evening there were definitely posts on Lenin’s Tomb by “mike” with exactly the same wording as posts on here by “Ed D”. Which seemed to me fishy so I alerted Eddie Truman to save his time & his blood pressure.
We then get Mike’s statement at #63. There is definitely a Mike - possibly not this Mike - who trolls obsessively on Lenin’s Tomb, often four or more posts in succession until someone takes the bait and gets angry. I think it is helpful to the flow of debate on Lenin’s Tomb that they get deleted.
So Andy, if #63 is not a true statement, and Ed D here and Lenin’s Tomb’s Mike are one & the same - then you may wish to reconsider your tolerant attitude. Trolls do waste time and energy and are malign.
Comment by Strategist — 2 February, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
The Ed D who posts here is the same person who posts as Mike on Lenin’s Tomb.
There is an entirely different person who posts here as Mike.
Nevertheless, I do not agree with Lenin’s Tomb censorious policy. Although annoying, Ed D is mostly harmless
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 February, 2009 @ 12:33 pm