STAYTHORPE WORKERS WALK OUT
it is not clear yet exactly what happened, some news agencies are reporting a wildcat stoppage by construction workers at Staythorpe.
Certainly they have improved the slogans on the placards.
11 February, 2009
76 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Can’t see that the slogans on the placards are any better than BJ4BW.
Comment by anticapitalista — 11 February, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
its because they dont say BJ4BW
thats an improvement in itself
if only they were carrying placards that read forward to a new workers party
Comment by Dan — 11 February, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
You don’t believe in equal rights, anticapitalista?
Comment by Rory — 11 February, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
So Rory, if they said “Equal Rights For Whites” you’d be quite happy?
“UK Workers Ready For Work Fit For Work” sounds a lot like the Department of Work and Pensions slogan “I Can Work I Will Work”.
They’re not exactly “Workers of the World, Unite” are they?
Comment by skidmarx — 11 February, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Some I notice some do gooders do not understand basic class politics again.
This site at Staythorpe is one of the reasons why the Lindsey strike took place. This struggle has legs!
From our favourite broadcaster the BBC
Power plant workers stage walkout
Unite’s Steve Syson: Local workers not considered
Up to 200 power plant staff have begun a wildcat strike after colleagues were threatened with dismissal in a row over foreign employees, union sources claim.
They walked out at Staythorpe in Nottinghamshire after 40 steel workers faced action if they joined a demo over foreign contractors, GMB sources said.
Hundreds of workers had held a protest claiming UK employees were denied jobs.
Contractor Alstom confirmed 50 workers had failed to turn up for work, while denying claims of discrimination.
The unofficial action follows a series of walkouts involving thousands of workers at more than 20 sites over a similar dispute at Lindsey Oil Refinery in Lincolnshire.
Downing Street petition
That dispute ended last week after a deal was struck.
A GMB union source told the BBC that 40 contractors with Motherwell Bridge steel construction were told they would face disciplinary action if they joined the latest protests.
That led their colleagues to walk out when they heard the report, the source added.
An Alstom spokesman said a “handful” of people left the site today and around 50 sub-contractors failed to turn up for work.
Earlier, around 400 people blocked the main gate at Staythorpe, the union Unite said, and about 70 gathered at Grain Power Station in Kent.
Unite and the GMB claim 850 jobs on contracts at Staythorpe will be denied to local workers, while on the Isle of Grain in Kent, 450 jobs will be similarly affected.
Speaking from the protest at Staythorpe, Unite’s regional officer Steve Syson told the BBC he was looking for a “level playing field”.
UK workers will do most of Staythorpe construction, says the contractor
Unions want overseas workers to be paid in line with agreed UK rates.
He said: “There is clearly no intention of employing anyone… they’ve issued contracts out to non-UK overseas employees but we believe local labour is available.
“We want some transparency to see what they [foreign contractors] are being paid.”
Power firm E.On has contracted Alstom to build a power station at Grain, where protesters claim skilled workers are being denied the chance to apply for work.
They say Polish sub-contractors Remak and ZRE are refusing to look at applications from UK labourers.
Unite’s joint general secretary Derek Simpson said: “No European worker should be barred from applying for a British job and absolutely no British worker should be barred from applying for a British job.”
A delegation from the union is delivering a petition to Downing Street urging Prime Minister Gordon Brown to insist employers give British workers fair access to work on UK engineering and construction projects.
It also calls for overseas workers to be paid agreed UK rates.
Alstom said all workers, whether British or European, were paid the same rates and sub-contractors were entitled to select their workers.
A spokesman said: “For the Staythorpe and Grain construction sites British workers will carry out two-thirds of the work from start to finish.
“The claim that we discriminate against British workers is simply not true.”
Comment by Roy — 11 February, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Shit shit shit slogans. I’m sure some of the “socialists” on this website wouldn’t be doing the acrobatics they are if the events were in the US with white Americans carrying around “equal rights for American workers” or “American jobs for American workers” placards.
Comment by djn — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Slogans are important but so is what is actually happening on the ground; This from the SP website.
Motherwell Bridge bosses declare war on striking workers
The fight to save jobs and stop the race to the bottom in the construction engineering industry intensified today as 80 striking workers at Staythorpe power station were sacked on the spot by Motherwell Bridge, a sub contractor on the Alstom run site, for refusing to cross picket lines.
Neil Cafferky, London Socialist Party
The day had begun with a return of flying pickets as 800 workers from around the country descended on Newark, Nottinghamshire, to protest against the unfair employment practices of Alstom.
1000 job applications have been made by British based labour to Alstom and as of the time of writing not one job interview has been offered to them. Alstom have now announced that 250 jobs will be to a sub contracting firm that will bring in labour from Poland.
Initially the picketers were penned in behind barriers. However as the flow of scabs on to the site continued the workers indignation increased until the barriers were thrust aside and the main entrance blockaded. At this point scores of police were deployed to keep back picketers from blockading a secondary road leading on to the sites.
Socialist Party members lending support to the picket spoke to many of the workers about what the Lindsey strike had achieved and what the next step in the campaign should be.
Workers were scathing about the anti trade union laws and the accusations that the strike was racist. Said one striker, fresh from victory at the Lindsey dispute, “They (the anti-trade union laws) didn’t stop us because we came out in force around the country, as one. We got called racists but there was nothing racist about it.”
Workers were clear that this was only the beginning of a nationwide battle throughout the industry. When the idea of a national one day stoppage on construction workers and a march on Parliament was put to a striker his response was; “We’ve all been gunning for that for a long time. It’s got to be on Gordon Brown’s doorstep. Even the lads at Longannet, they came out and that’s Brown’s own constituency. They’ve got the same problem up in Scotland that we have in England. Wales have got the same problem, Ireland’s got the same problem, Italy and Spain have as well. It’s across Europe. I think if we all joined as one, all the construction workers around the world. That would make a big dent.”
By 9:00 AM a general meeting of the picket was called at the site gates. Protestors listened grimly as Staythorpe stewards announced that 80 workers on the site had been sacked by Motherwell Bridge. This came only a day after Motherwell Bridge had promised stewards that union members who refused to cross picket lines would not be victimised. The sackings were met by vehement calls from many workers for an official national strike in the industry.
At this point the picketers marched to the Jobs Centre in Newark town. In a bizarre twist the 250 jobs on site are advertised in the office windows! A local journalist then asked workers to pose for a picture in front of the Job Centre window with the Union Jack. A Socialist Party supporter objected to this saying the Union Jack was not the flag of the picketers and instead that a UNITE banner should be used. This lead to some discussion between workers so in the end a picture was be taken with workers holding a copy of the Socialist!
The day’s events were brought to a close with a speech by Socialist Party member Keith Gibson in the Jobs Centre car park. In a rousing speech, available on the Socialist Party website, he called for workers to return next Wednesday in greater numbers to keep the pressure up on Alstom and fight for the jobs of the 80 victimised workers. Negotiations are still ongoing between stewards and Motherwell Bridge with a view to defeating this attack but at the time of writing these workers remain out of a job.
It is now becoming clear that the Lindsey strike was only the opening clash in an ongoing and serious battle between workers and bosses in the construction industry. United action won the first round for the workers but in the absence of a general offensive across the industry against the use of non union migrant labour to undermine wages and conditions, this victory will only be temporary.
All out to support the sacked Staythorpe workers!
For a one day national strike and a march on Parliament!
Comment by Clive — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
More clarification of the nature of these disputes
THE CONTENT if not the slogan IS BJBW
Comment by non-partisan — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
For humanitarian reasons I am going to issue one (and only one) warning to the naysayers.
You don’t know whats going on and you are setting yourselves up for another pratfall. Be wise this time and keep your mouths closed and hands folded in your laps. In that way you can avoid making complete arses out of yourselves again.
For the full story see the Socialist Party website:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6906
Comment by Neil — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
So Rory, if they said “Equal Rights For Whites” you’d be quite happy?
As far as I can see, there is discrimination happening on basis of nationality for reasons of employers union busting and undermining agreements. That is wrong, whatever nationality the victims are.
I’m not going to engage in a hypothetical argument about discrimination based on skin colour. Stop changing the subject. Is it acceptable for workers to have unequal work rights based on their nationality? Yes or no?
Comment by Rory — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
D’oh some one beat me too it!
Comment by Neil — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
#9 Three cheers for Neil. Skidmarx, anticapitalista and djn be advised. But more importantly perhaps those organisations on the left which would like to be taken seriously might just do a little serious research and find out what is really going on before pontificating.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
The BJFBW obsessives should get together and collect albums of pictures of workers carrying placards and wet themselves with excitement when they see one.
Workers taking militant industrial action and these little twerps are already lining up to give them a correct demands test.
“Ah but striking building worker, I’m concerned about the CONTENT, not just the FORM of your slogans. Could you please go back to work until you’ve ironed out the inherent contradictions in your demands.”
Comment by Eddie Truman — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Socialist Worker on Staythorpe http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17079 , with links to other relevant articles.
Comment by chjh — 11 February, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
#14
Thanks for the link. I suggest your members read it before blundering in on here again.
Comment by paulv — 11 February, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
#14 Nice to see a better line coming out of Socialist Worker than the debacle around the Lindsey strike.
Comment by vladimir antonov-ovseenko — 11 February, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
paulv: I suggest your members read it before blundering in on here again.
Maybe it’s different in the SP, but my impression from reading the very different things SWP comrades had to say about the Lindsey dispute is that they actually are allowed to make up their own minds. Now I know that many people on here (*cough* Neil *cough*) think “La classe c’est moi” - but I think if you work at it you might get over yourselves. No really, I’m an optimist in that regard.
By the way, I do think these slogans aren’t as bad a Bj4Bw, and if the comrades on the ground do further good work, maybe next time it could be “Equal rights for all workers” or something like that.
Comment by christian h. — 11 February, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
How dare they! All striking Brittish workers should have their placards vetted for ideological purity by the full collective of sectarian ultraleft dickheads before they show these placards in public. How dare they not do this!
Comment by Rohan G — 11 February, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Another comical intervention from the always entertaining christian h who has kindly decided to share his classical education with us.
I think you will find that the difference between the SP and the SWP approach was not that the SWP are allowed to make up their own minds, (in contrast to whom?) as Seymour’s astounding mental gymnastics as he went from supporting the strikes, to having a go at them, to lukewarm support again over at the Tomb demonstrates. The fact that this reflected the gyrations of the SWP leadership are entirely coincidental!
The real difference was that one organisation actually knew what was going on while the other one was utterly clueless. Of course that never stops the clueless ones from mouthing off and telling us all how it really is. Normally this kind of chutzpah is only ever found at a US government press conference but since GWB has gone off to Crawford we’ve been forced to rely on the SWP’s idea of industrial perspectives instead. Oh well.
As for the SW article, what another great rib tickler! While I welcome the fact that the Serially Wrong Party no long seem to see the need to demonise striking workers in the hysterical manner they have been doing so far, they still don’t seem to have got what this dispute was about.
Take this little morsel for example.
“But putting these arguments is not made any easier by the union turning the dispute into one about the precise number of British workers to be hired on a job.”
This is typical lazy journalism. First of all there are two agendas at work in regards to what demands that are being put forward.
1) The trade union officialdom strategy of quietly lobbying the government to implement the European Postal workers directive and to roll back the effects of the Viking and Laval case. This has been made immensely more difficult for them by the wild cat strikes as it disrupts their role as labour statesmen with the Labour government. The zig-zags in the TU officialdoms demands needs to seen in the context of…
2) The wildcat action by the workers themselves against the use of imported non union labour to undermine wages, conditions and job opportunities. The situation is fluid and fast changing. The SW still does not understand that the victory achieved in Lindsey is not about job quotas as such but about union control of hiring and firing. This is the only way to guard against the tactics being pursued by the sub-contracting companies.
Are the SWP opposed to union control over hiring and firing of workers? Probably not. So why the endless hooting and hollering about, job quotas, BJFBW etc?
Simply put because their disastrous initial response to the strike has isolated them from the movement the SWP has no other relevant role in this dispute beyond that as self appointed moral guardians of the workers movement. Of course this illusion goes no further than the inside of their heads. But for a party that fancies itself as “not only the largest revolutionary party in Britain; it is, for all practical purposes, the only one.” (Neil Davidson) a very sad fate indeed.
P.S. Comrades may be scratching their heads wondering why SW, despite having members on the picket at Staythorpe, somehow managed to miss 80 workers being sacked. Well wonder no more. The SWP did turn up and give out a much toned down leaflet that still made their usual straw men arguments. But after about an hour or two they slunk off and missed all the excitement at the end. Even the AWL stuck it out longer than them. Well, maybe they had an SW deadline to meet?
Comment by Neil — 11 February, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
‘Some I notice some do gooders do not understand basic class politics again.’
so maybe some of us do gooders are Italian, or Portuguese, or Polish, or did we miss that basic class politics is a British only thing ?
Comment by Anon — 11 February, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
19 Another comical intervention
well, depends on your sense of humour I suppose.
so these guys are busy fighting foreigners taking their jobs and some socialists turn up and tell them they’re not racists, their fight is legitimate, they should have first pick at the jobs, not those Poles, just like the Lindsey guys did with those Italians, this is what socialism is all about.
clever, must leave the BNP scratching their heads, wasn’t that supposed to be our line ?
well, confusing the fascists has to be a good thing, so good on you SP people, keep it up
Comment by Anon — 11 February, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
This is however writtne by Italian migrant workers living in the UK:
http://home.rifondazione.it/xisttest/content/view/4730/310/
before entering into the details of the matter, we must immediately clarify a misunderstanding that the press, both in Italy and in the UK, is currently generating. We are not confronted with a set of problems deriving from free movement of workers here. Instead we are facing problems emerging from what, in Euro-jargon, is defined as free movement of services. It is very important to be clear about this point, as it is evident that on this fundamental misunderstanding the xenophobic right is building a case against immigrants and foreign workers, while neoliberal and conservative apparatuses are trying to break up the labour front by playing workers against each other and accusing them of selfishness and lack of solidarity. Free movement of workers does not cause this sort of tensions, since a foreign labourer working in the UK must be treated exactly as a domestic worker, and this of course reduces drastically the risk of an unfair competition within the British labour market.
we should examine a bit more closely the problems arising from the IREM East Lindsey dispute. On this matter the viewpoint of the British labour movement is quite clear. A foreign company – that is to say IREM – has won a works contract in the UK. According to them, this happened because the Italian company pays its workers lower rates of pay than the ones provided by the relevant, British, sectoral collective agreements. Right now we do not yet know under what terms and conditions the Italian and Portuguese workers of IREM actually work. But there are three things we know for sure.
Firstly, we know for sure that even if IREM workers were indeed paid less than what specified in the British collective agreements (and for that matter even less than what is provided by the Italian ones…), the company could keep benefitting from this unfair competitive advantage at the expenses of all workers concerned, both British (that lose their competitive edge and their workplaces) and Italian (that only remain competitive as long as they are underpaid), without anyone being able to take up any legal action to bring it to account. That is because the relevant EC regulatory framework, a mix of EC Treaty provisions (Article 49 and following), directives (first and foremost the Posted Workers Directive 96/71), and European Court of Justice judgements (Viking and Laval of 2007 and the more recent Rüffert and Commission v Lussemburgo of 2008), effectively provides that foreign companies providing their services abroad (such as IREM) must only comply with those rules of the Host Country (for instance the UK) that are actually contained in legislative provisions, but not necessarily with those provided by collective agreements, unless the latter have erga omnes effects that is to say they are universally applicable to all business and workers operating in the sector..
…
We, the circolo “Karl Marx” of Rifondazione Comunista in London, would like to express our sympathy and solidarity to all the workers involved in the IREM/East Lindsey dispute.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 February, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
#3 You don’t believe in equal rights, anticapitalista?
Comment by Rory — 11 February, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Yes, for all workers not just for UK ones.
#10 Is it acceptable for workers to have unequal work rights based on their nationality? Yes or no? Comment by Rory
No, again for all workers and not just UK ones.
Is it really so difficult to grasp?
Comment by anticapitalista — 11 February, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Christian
It didn’t sound too comradely did it?
You’re right though, if socialists do their work right the idea of striking against the imposition of inferior conditions and agreement breaking sub contractors it could spread to become a general fight against redundancies, sackings, and unemployment.
“ La Respect c’est moi”
Comment by paulv — 11 February, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
`No, again for all workers and not just UK ones.’
Abstract reformism or ultra-left liberalism?
Smash these scab contractors. Well done strikers.
Comment by Voce Decide — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
9. Neil, ‘For humanitarian reasons I am going to issue one (and only one) warning to the naysayers.
You don’t know whats going on and you are setting yourselves up for another pratfall. Be wise this time and keep your mouths closed and hands folded in your laps. In that way you can avoid making complete arses out of yourselves again’.
Interesting approach to discussion and debate,
OK, we will leave the arse making to you, as you wish
Comment by Anon — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
#25 Do you not think that workers can smash the whole issue of (sub)contracting without using demands such as BJ4BW or UK workers?
If you don’t then you are the abstract reformist or …liberal?
Comment by anticapitalista — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
But it isn’t just about sub-contracting, it is also about the free movement of services in the EU, and therefore the issue of Uk workers being excluded from jobs - when the ocntracts are own by contractors operating out of lower wage cost EU countries.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
Suppose there are British building workers in Germany (”Auf Wiedersehen Pet” territory), and German workers and trade unionists start clamouring for “German jobs for German workers” or “equal rights for German workers”. What is the correct line?
Comment by Faust — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
20* So what happened in Plymouth with the Polish workers? They came out on strike with their fellow workers! Some of the SWP supporters on this forum can’t see the workers for the ethnicity - bit like the BNP really.
Deal with it before you lose any creditability.
Comment by Roy — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
18. Rohan, ‘How dare they! All striking Brittish workers should have their placards vetted for ideological purity by the full collective of sectarian ultraleft dickheads before they show these placards in public. How dare they not do this!
Well, don’t know you Rohan so this is not directly at you personally
But what a ffffing patronising attitude !! and what a contempt for political ideas, discussion and debate !
so whatever some ‘British’ workers do, that’s OK, must be right, can’t possibly debate it, consider some of the finer points, no, no, that’s the kind of thing ’sectarian ultraleft dickheads’ do.
Well, maybe, if you say so, but then on the other hand there is what so called ‘middle class wankers’ do, which is not dare criticise ‘British workers’ because that is something outsiders just don’t have the right to do, only sectarian dickheads would dare to do that.
So maybe your reluctance to criticise ‘British workers’ is a reflection of the fact that you aren’t one. Don’t know which of course, not ‘British’, or not a ‘worker’, and actually don’t care that much, but maybe if you were then you wouldn’t have such a low opinion of ‘British workers’, their capacity for discussion and debate over stuff that matters.
what a patronising attitude, ffff uuuu
Comment by Anon — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Even illegal immigrants pay tax and National Insurance in this country. These contractors and posted workers have no stake whatsoever in the local economy, schools, hospitals but you people have sold your souls to the EU. Your abstract ideas of internationalism are just a neo-liberal method of disciplining the working class. You think you can reform the EU? Every one of its treaties outlaw socialism. It doesn’t even have the reformist pretence that you could theoretically vote for a socialist government. Thatcher signed Maastricht declaring it was the end of socialism on the European continent.
Comment by Voce Decide — 11 February, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
The `internationalism’ of the ultra-lefts is handing over `democracy’ to global capitalism and besides, the BJ4BW slogan protected the workers from the anti-union laws by throwing Brown’s neo-liberal hypocrisy back in his face. All these scab contractors and their posted workers should be picketed out.
Comment by Voce Decide — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
13. Eddie
You’re using sarcasm, but can’t you see how patronising your comments, and in fact your whole approach is ?
Criticism is not allowed, cos how dare you criticise striking workers ?
Well, maybe not if you see yourself as a middle class social worker (sorry social workers no offence meant) who has no right to criticise those horny handed sons of toil who are totally unlike you and need your help and kind support.
its not a pretty sight when a political attitude is shaped by a totally patronising attitude to the working class, but here we are, and this is what is looks like.
Comment by Anon — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
32 & 33 A sign of were SP uncritical approach can lead
Comment by non-partisan — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
non-partisan,
Is there any indication at all that ‘Voce Decide’ is a member or supporter of the Socialist Party?
Just wondering like.
Comment by Duncan — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
`32 & 33 A sign of were SP uncritical approach can lead’
And where would that be then?
Comment by Voce Decide — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Voce Decide has to be thanked for bringing the issues out in the open.
Internationalism is an abstraction that only serves the neo-liberal agenda. So here we have the choice presented to us in clear terms.
We can stand with British workers against the foreign threat and dress this up in the name of socialism.
Or we can we can oppose the British first approach and take a European wide or international stance and go from there.
The SP have made pretty clear which way they are going, as have most of the people on this blog.
Which puts them in the same camp as Voce Decide on the essential issues. Which is fine until you consider what party Voce Decide belongs to, any guesses (don’t think its the SP) ?
Comment by Anon — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
#38 That’s just gobblediegook. In your hands internationalism is an abstraction or it is the internationalism of `global’ capital.
`Or we can we can oppose the British first approach and take a European wide or international stance and go from there.’
So according to you the working class must take power internationally or not at all which basically means not at all.
Comment by Voce Decide — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Voce Decide=VD
Hope you catch it and get back into the sewer with your BNP ideas.
Comment by anticapitalista — 11 February, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Post #16 “Nice to see a better line coming out of Socialist Worker than the debacle around the Lindsey strike.”
The trouble with this comment is that there is no ‘line’ expounded in the article in question. All we have is a straighforward report of what is happening with no political conclusions drawn from the facts reported.
Judging from the slogans on the placards displayed in the photograph accompanying this post I doubt that the SWP need to change its coreect position with regard to these disputes. Take the placard on the left, quite telling as it appears to be homemade, which demands equal rights for british workers. Yet by law British workers already have equal rights! And exert them when working in other EU countries. Lets not forget that these disputes are being portrayed in the rest of the EU as being chauvinist demonstrations on the part of British workers as indeed they are despite the quite justified anger of the workers concerned at union busting and unemployment.
Moreover the second placard, an offical union poster I note, is ludicrous. Rather than issue some lame placards with no real meaning other than to reinforce national ideology perhaps the union and Simpson might consider fighting for jobs. But that is extremely unlikely from Browns best financial backer.
Comment by Mike — 11 February, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
http://jesshurd.blogspot.com/2009/02/daily-star-joins-british-jobs-campaign.html
Comment by PW — 11 February, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
#40 `Voce Decide=VD
Hope you catch it and get back into the sewer with your BNP ideas.’
Big clap for that one. Politically you are a fool aren’t you? Or perhaps a determinedly anti-working class genius.
Comment by David Ellis — 11 February, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Niel *19 This is typical lazy journalism. First of all there are two agendas at work in regards to what demands that are being put forward.
1) The trade union officialdom strategy of quietly lobbying the government to implement the European Postal workers directive and to roll back the effects of the Viking and Laval case. This has been made immensely more difficult for them by the wild cat strikes as it disrupts their role as labour statesmen with the Labour government.
take a look
http://jesshurd.blogspot.com/2009/02/daily-star-joins-british-jobs-campaign.html
does this look like his role has been made more difficult?
Comment by non-partisan — 11 February, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
This dispute is very important, and could be the beginning of a generalised awakening of the working class in Britain.
It is a test for all Socialists, and all Organizations.
Who is capable of intervening? Who can convince people on the picket lines? Who has strategy and tactics to take the movement forward.
And who will stay on the sidelines, oppose the strikes, while attacking workers workers for being reactionary?
I have followed the discussions here with great interest, and learned much about various groups who claim to be Socialist. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The acid test of ideas, programmes and organisations is in their application to the real struggle.
For my benefit, and the benefit of others who visit this board and will read these discussions in the future, I would like to request that contributors to these discussions indicate which (if any) organisation they belong to.
comradely,
Amnon (Socialist Party)
Comment by Amnon — 11 February, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
“Equal Rights for UK workers”
An improvement yes. But still a shit slogan. Still nationalistic and confused.
Time to fight the arguement, fight patiently for international working-class struggle (and hopefully for socialism as well).
Comment by Futurecast — 11 February, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
#46 But, equal rights for UK workers with whom? The Germans? The French?
During the construction of the sites for the Olympics here in Greece, no party/group on the left called for Greek jobs or Local jobs and equal rights for Greek workers. (Much of the work was done by Albanian immigrant workers).
Instead the left quite rightly tried to organise these workers into the union at union rates and under union agreed working conditions.
Comment by anticapitalista — 11 February, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
44: When the political argument is lost, then comes the dishonesty.
My full quote was: “The trade union officialdom strategy of quietly lobbying the government to implement the European Postal workers directive and to roll back the effects of the Viking and Laval case. This has been made immensely more difficult for them by the wild cat strikes as it disrupts their role as labour statesmen with the Labour government. The zig-zags in the TU officialdoms demands needs to seen in the context of…”
The last (omitted) sentance is important, I’m trying to point up the fact that what ever publicity stunts Simpson and co may pull (i.e. zig-zags) their preferred strategy is legatislitive change persued through negotiation with the government not militant struggle with a view to establishing workers control over hiring and firing, that is a strategy of the wild cat strikes, when all is said and done. Remember these began outside the control of the FTO’s but have to a certain extent been co-opted by them as given the wide level of sympathy for the strikes, disowning them completely is not an option. This means they must duck and weave in response to a situation they do not entirely control.
Surely it is the ABC of trade union struggle that we do not take the public pronouncements of the trade union officialdom at face value, any more than we would that of the bosses?
I must ask for the patience of those who have already grasped the following point at least a week ago but the central issue here is this: stopping the race to the bottom through the exploitation of migrant labour revolves around the twin questions of maintaining the strength of organised unions in the workplace and having some measure of workers control over hiring and firing. Job quotas, the media spinning of BJFBW etc, is a smokescreen to hide this essential fact.
Unfortunately individuals like non-partisan and anti-capitalista not only swallow the propaganda of the bosses media but also adopt their dishonest methods. However, much like an unpleasant veneral disease certain facts on the ground like the Lindsey victory and the possibilities opened up by it will not go away, no matter how much they are scratched at and smeared.
Comment by Neil — 11 February, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
If socialist politics were as simple as it’s being made out by some, we could simply just read the Daily Star (or the appropriate local equivalent) and do the opposite of everything in it. I’m not sure whether that’s more or less ridiculous than the comrade who’s arguing that prioritising workers self-activity over slogans which confirm to a self-appointed sectarian leadership’s favourite shibboleths is “patronising and contemptuous”. You know what that sounds like to me? George W Bush talking about “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
Comment by Daphne — 12 February, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Daphne your post lacks clarity.
What comrade are you referring to exactly? Which sectarian leadership? What are their names? What slogans are you referring to?
Don’t beat around the bush, name names and point to specifics please.
Comment by Neil — 12 February, 2009 @ 12:27 am
Just a point on the Italian workers: it is of course ‘likely’ that their conditions, pay and rights are below union standards. However, the inside info I heard was that both their employer and the men are on a tax scam. The men are getting more than they would usually get by virtue of it being either cash, or money that slips past the fairly lax Italian tax inspectors. The employer is not paying tax and so can afford to pay the men ‘more’.
This probably makes no difference to the argument being made by either side here, but it’s a slightly different question from the one that says ‘they’re being paid less’. I would suspect that part of the tax-avoidance deal is that the men quite specifically do not join a union, and so do not require their employer to implement costly (to him) health and safety requirements.
Again, to be very tedious and repetitive, this wasn’t a dispute between contracted workers and subcontracted workers as, say, when direct labour try to protect their jobs in face of that work being subcontracted out. It’s been a battle over how subcontractors recruit and employ. However, no matter how the following viewpoint might be mocked and dismissed, we do know that the only 100% internationalist and trade unionist line of attack would be to demand of the prime site owner and employer that all jobs on site are on an equal pay, equal conditions and equal rights basis. End of. The issue of whether the employed people are ‘local’, ‘British’, ‘foreign’ etc would in fact fade away under this demand for the very simple reason that people are pointing out above: ie the only reason why dubious subcontractors are being hired by the prime owner/employer must be because that subcontractor wins the tender on a lower stated price…and that lower stated price can only be offered if that subcontractor is spending less in wages and conditions. In other words, if the union guys won the fight for equal pay/conditions/rights, the dodgy subcontractors wouldn’t be able to tender anyway. But that would apply to dodgy subcontractors trying to recruit from ‘local’ and ‘British’ dole queues (’anyone wanna work for cash-in-hand?’)as well as Italian/Portugese/etc ones.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 12 February, 2009 @ 1:45 am
Thanks Michael Rosen for your comment and to all the other people who have contributed their thoughts.
Your last point MR regarding the role of the unions in negotiating this contract brings me back to what I have been saying about this from the start. Unite were at the negotiations for the Irem workers and they know the ins and outs of the deal that was struck but so far they have been shy about coming forward with those details so we still don’t know what the Italian and Portuguese are being paid.
I really want to know what was said at those meetings so that I can clear up in my mind the role of Unite is this business. If you are correct in saying that the men and Irem are on a tax scam then Unite will know this too and therefore their role looks even more suspect.
Your other “tedious” point about sub-contractor employment practices is not clear to me at all. Shaws contract ended putting hundreds of UK workers out of jobs and was then won by Irem. Shaws knew this was happening as did Unite. Irem undercut the five other UK tenders plus two European tenders. Unite oversaw that process. Irem won the contract because they could undercut the other contractors. Unite knew this.
What intrigues me is how little discussion there has been about Unite’s role in this whole sorry saga and how it all revolves around slogans which Unite more than any other body apart from the BNP and Gordon Brown have adopted much to the delight of the right wing press.
Comment by naruto — 12 February, 2009 @ 2:24 am
I returned to my job as a London busdriver last Tuesday after a five week illness and enquired how the drivers felt about Bj4Bw? The replies were unprintable and the anger against Unite for promoting this slogan was very strong. Of course none of the drivers were ‘British’ (there are only about a half dozen British drivers out of 250 drivers in our garage). So they were just victims of media propaganda, didn’t understand the building trade etc? And the Poles, some quite pro-management ones I spoke to, were among the angriest. Maybe some SP members should take the British working class in its diversity and the need to conduct the class struggle in unity.
And is it not hilarious no to see John Haylett’s and the Morning Star unceremoniously dumping the SP because it is backing Gerry Hicks whose crime was to criticise the ‘leadership; whilst supporting the strike (see Monday’s MS). The MS are now giving their unalloyed backing to Simpson against Hicks as the wait for it…..the ‘left-progressive candidate!!! A few weeks ago he was an absolute right wing traitor but in the meantime he backed the Bj4Bw strike and SPONSORED THE MORNING STAR AS THE DAILY PAPER OF THE LEFT. Poor old Bill Mullins, after quoting the MS line so religiously during the affair to be stabbed in the back line this - never trust a Stalinist, particularly if you call yourself a Trotskyist, however spuriously. And where does it all leave the prospects for the new united Unite Broad Left which was conceived as led by Woodley, the left winger against Simpson, the right winger with the support of the SP AND the SWP? The world really has changed after these strikes.
Comment by Gerry Downing — 12 February, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Serves you right for telling lies to your colleagues about the strike then, Gerry.
Unless any London bus drivers were actually present at Lindsey, or spend a lot of time reading socialist websites, they will have had to rely for their information about the strike on the lies in the Murdoch press and the lies coming out of your mouth.
This strike was NOT about BJ4BW and repeating it doesn’t make it true.
Comment by Barry — 12 February, 2009 @ 9:59 am
No. 29: “Suppose there are British building workers in Germany (”Auf Wiedersehen Pet” territory), and German workers and trade unionists start clamouring for “German jobs for German workers” or “equal rights for German workers”. What is the correct line?”
Well: the German union confederation (the DGB) campaigned on this whole issue a number of years ago (around 2005/2006). And while there was, without doubt - and particuarly from the builders’ union - a certain amount of “German jobs for German workers”-like undertones, the main focus was against “social and wage dumping”, known here as the “Bolkestein directive”. It was about wage agreements not being broken/made pointless by EU regulations (”Bolkestein”) which could have meant that companies based in, say, Latvia (or, equally crap on many employment laws, the UK) could employ workers in Germany, but not under German pay and conditions, but under Latvia or UK conditions; putting worker against worker, and nationality against nationality. Of course, it’s not necessarily about nationality. If this kind of thing was allowed, there’s no reason why German (e.g.) building companies couldn’t open a fake subsidiary based anywhere else in the EU to get around German employment regulations. A letterbox firm in Birmingham perhaps, which recruits in Germany, yet employs under British regulations and tries to avoid German wage agreements? It would also ruin the welfare states, as taxes would go to countries where the companies were “based”, nto where the workers were doing the work.
For that reason two things happened: firstly, “new EU” workers couldn’t automatically work in Germany - the unions basically claimed that Polish and Czech workers would force down pay and conditions in Germany. The idea of unionising those German workers, and Poles and Czechs as well didn’t seem really to occur to them - this whole policy, accepted willingly by politicians and pushed through the EU by them, is also an expresion of German union weakness in many sectors, and the detailed union laws that encourage class collaboration and make class struggle little more than a memory for most people,
Secondly, the government has extended the scope of existing laws, which had been rolled back over previous decades, to make union wage agreements legally binding in many employment sectors, to make them cover all workers in an industry in Germany, regardless of where the company is based (for union members and non-union members, for companies that are not part of the employers’ association which agreed the pay and conditions with the union, as well as those which are). This effectively introduced a minimum wage across many sectors, but not an arbitary amount, as in Britain, but related to the pay standards in the branches concerned. (Germany does not have a national minimum wage, also because the unions opposed the idea, claiming it would break collective pay agreements. They have changed their tack in recent years, because the unions’ weaknesses mean many sectors have no pay agreements. e.g. the major service union ver.di is campaigning for a minimum wage of 7.50 per hour - incidentally higher than many pay agreements…)
Of course, such pay agreements are broken. I also suspect that the laws do not entirely conform to EU regulations (though they are clever at formulating laws to get round regulations or use loopholes). BUt so what?
My main impression, having lived and worked in Germany for a decade, is that the main difference between EU politics in Britain and here, is that the British government is much more willing to implement supposed EC/EU directives to the detriment of working people. They do it gladly, of course, while blaming “Europe”. It can be done differently.
Other EC/EU directives that benefit normal citizens, which are well known here, e.g. in the banking sector (banking charges), or regarding consumer rights (guarantees, laws related to the sale of new and used goods), which are “blamed” on the EU, for some reason haven’t been implemented in the UK. Why is that?
British capitalists like to blame the EU to push through their agenda. The sad thing is, as far as I’m concerned, that much of the British labour movement lines up with their same “anti European” agenda, instead of concentrating on the issues. And the bosses laugh, and our side loses.
The European TUC met last week and called a number of demonstrations, in various European capital cities, all on the same day, for sometime in June, I think. On the issues of “social- and wage dumping”, equal rights for all workers, etc. The British TUC don’t seem to be involved, at least, they don’t seem to want to organise anything. Why not? Can nobody else take up the initiative and organise a big march for jobs and workers’ rights, and link it up with the Italians, French, Germans, etc. who will be demonstrating on the same day?
Comment by d.z. bodenberg — 12 February, 2009 @ 10:04 am
#55
Yes. Reminiscent of the “flags of convenience” in the freight shipping world.
Comment by paulv — 12 February, 2009 @ 10:34 am
#52 `What intrigues me is how little discussion there has been about Unite’s role in this whole sorry saga and how it all revolves around slogans which Unite more than any other body apart from the BNP and Gordon Brown have adopted much to the delight of the right wing press.’
I suspect your `intrigue’ is faux. The reason we haven’t been able to get to grips with the current Unite leadership is because we’ve been kept busy defending the very legitimacy of these strikes against a bunch of sectarian liberals who have slandered it as racist and reactionary from day one and when they haven’t been outright opposing the strikes they’ve given it meaningless `critical’ support. It would have been better to have been asking the questions about why the current leadership had not challenged these scab contractors and posted-worker deals a long time ago. As mentioned above the German trades unions were all over it as far back as 2005. It would also have been better to be discussing how the dispute could be spread and what would constitute a prinicpled ending to such a dispute. But no, the ultra-lefts thought it better to keep us pinned down to a flatulent discussion on BJ4BW and give the opportunist bureaucrats some much needed breathing space. All pals together.
Comment by David Ellis — 12 February, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
48* Niel, i wasn’t being dishonest, i left off the last sentence because it didn’t really explain anything, just repeated your view of the dispute.
I meant it, does Simspon look discomfited by the politics of this strike? Abosultely not. Does this mean I don’t understand the role of TU officialdom- not really
Simpson can at the same time be comfortable with the slogans and political thrust of the disputes as unhappy with the methods-unofficial action. All the while cementing his role as the ‘go-between’ between workers and Brown.
Just as other workers can be supportive and welcoming the fact that workers are taking action, while arguing that the slogans they are using and the poltical direction will be an obstacle to the development of a clear class response to the depression.
YOu say “Surely it is the ABC of trade union struggle that we do not take the public pronouncements of the trade union officialdom at face value, any more than we would that of the bosses?”
You are right is is the job of socialists to look beyond the words and look at the who’s interest (class interest) is being served, and wether or not particular actions and focus of struggle, develop or hinder a united class response to the crisis.
Simpson being photographed with Daily Star banner saying BJFBW- does not mean that all workers in the action are doing so on this basis.
But it also means he is comfortable that this slogan forms part (at least) of the movement he is putting himself at the head of.
You see the problem is that we keep being told either that;
1. BJFBW- appeared early but has nothing to do with the dispute now.
2. To highlight BJFBW, shows our sectarianism, because we are the only ones obsessing about it.
3. The LOR dispute and its results show that it is about union control of hiring and firing, not BJfBW or any variant on this theme.
Your problem Niel, is that bjfbw, is a reactionary slogan, imbued with national chauvinism that puts the interests of ‘british’ workers first, not the interests of our class of whatever nationality. That every time Unite or GMB speak about this dispute they argue for quotas, or Uk workers rights to jobs, while socialists involved in teh dispute like SP have been taking up this slogan, they do not appear to have broken with the political thrust of it.
The demand that Natioanal Agreements and rates should apply to all workers of whatever nationality working in the Uk - cuts across the stuff about undercutting- and replaces the need for ‘quotas of local or UK’ workers, but this is not the central demand is it?
If i Have misunderstood i apologise,
the union control of hiring amounts to ‘local, uk, workers’ have a reserved qouta on each contract. Is this a wrong interpretation?
Niel, people who are either opposed to this dispute on the current demands or raise questions about them, have every right to do so, a sign of growing confidence of the working class in any period is its willingness to confront and discuss poltics, it is not a good sign in fact it is the opposite when long term activists ( many contributors here are) are told to shut up and get with the program.
This discussion will not be resolved here, or go away, if we can at least have it while respecting the opposite side motivations we have a better chance of coming through it with a clearer movement.
Comment by non-partisan — 12 February, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
There can’t be quotas under law I don’t think, only a commitment to advertise jobs in the UK.
Comment by Hamish Ions — 12 February, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Also, Unite haven’t argued British jobs for British workers in their official releases - in nearly every 1 of his statements Simpson has said “No European worker should be barred from applying for a British job and absolutely no British worker should be barred from applying for a British job” ie he is not in favour of excluding European workers from jobs in Britain, but the right of local workers to apply for them?
Comment by Unite member — 12 February, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
#58 “That every time Unite or GMB speak about this dispute they argue for quotas, or Uk workers rights to jobs, while socialists involved in teh dispute like SP have been taking up this slogan, they do not appear to have broken with the political thrust of it.”
This simply isn’t true.
There is no argument for quotas based upon antionality, which would be illgeal under UK law.
This is not about the freedom of movement for labour, it is about the freedom under EU law of a company to provide services in one country, while only complying to the legal and contractual norms of another country.
If the contract recruited labour under UK law, on UK wages, then there would be no problem with Poles, Italians and Portugese applying for those jobs; and no-one in the trade union movement has argued for quotas.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 February, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
After nearly an hour of deliberations Thursday under a large outdoor tent at the refinery, workers voted to accept a proposal from union leaders and companies that would see half of the jobs originally intended for the foreign subcontractors go instead to British workers.
Keith Gibson of the GMB union told CNN after the vote that 102 of the nearly-200 jobs will now go to British workers.
Another key proposal agreed on by members was for greater transparency with terms and conditions for outside contractors.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/02/05/uk.strike/
Keith Gibson, another union official, told protesters they had rejected an Acas deal put forward last night.
Speaking through a loudspeaker, Gibson said Unite had asked Acas for 50% of engineering construction workers on the project to be made up of UK staff.
He said Acas had offered to give them 40 skilled workers and 20 ancillary workers from the UK – making up just 21% of the workforce on the project.
The crowd cheered as Gibson said Unite had rejected this offer. “They were prepared to give us 40 skilled workers on to this project, plus 20 ancillary staff,” he said. “That’s what they offered, that’s what we rejected.
“We wanted a significant movement towards one for one on this project and we rejected what they came up with.”
Gibson said they were told by Acas that Total could not move on these figures because it was a fixed-term contract.
However, the GMB union said today that another offer had been made later on last night, which would see 101 of the 198 jobs offered to UK workers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/strikes-unions
Comment by Harry Monro — 12 February, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
#62 This doesn’t contradict the fact that jobs were not based upon quotas of nationalities. But based on employing UK domiciled labour. What the union was negotiating was the number of Uk based jobs that woudl be offered.
You don’t seem to have grasped the issue of how the subcontracting works.
IREM have brought in a workforce from Sicily, based upon the ability within the EU to tender services in any other EU state, but based upon the law, pay and conditions of the state where the tendering company is based.
If the tenderer had been Uk based, then the employment could not legally have considered nationality.
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 February, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Thanks for clarification Andy
Comment by Unite member — 12 February, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/12/super-express-train-jobs-row
RMT also set to be hit by contracting decision, although obviously different in terms of not the EU issue.
Comment by Unite member — 12 February, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
#10 “I’m not going to engage in a hypothetical argument about discrimination based on skin colour. Stop changing the subject. Is it acceptable for workers to have unequal work rights based on their nationality? Yes or no?”
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. What you call hypothetical, I might describe as pointing out some weaknesses in your position by use of analogy. Similarly, I think your question is biased towards a certain answer. I would say no, it is not acceptable, but lopsided slogans which support British workers but make no mention of the rights of foreign workers are not likely to encourage unity between the two.
#14 & #17 It would be nice if those who uncritically support the strikes (or whatever, you know who you are) could accept that those with criticisms are not calling for the strikes to be broken or call those who support them nasty names. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Comment by skidmarx — 12 February, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
#66 Was that aimed at me Skidmarx?
Firm A gets massive contract. Works with firm B to sub contract areas of the project to firm C. Firm C. has won contract on the basis of being the most attractive to firm B. Firm C just happens to be a non-union firm who happen to be based in a country that has lower wages t/c’s than either A,B or the country where the work is carried out,country D. This nicely circumvents national agreements in country D . Country D has opted out of the meagre protection offered by the EU (with the acquiescence of the TU leadership).The only constraint on firm C is the market and the minimum wage in country D.
A bit complicated but fortunately the rank and file spotted it.
Critical support my arse!
Comment by paulv — 12 February, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
As always the Institute for Employment Rights shed light on the issues
http://www.ier.org.uk/system/files/Decisions+of+the+ECJ+and+implications+for+UK+laws_0.pdf
Comment by Nick Wright — 12 February, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
and Keith Ewing’s intro is very accessible
http://www.ier.org.uk/
Comment by Nick Wright — 12 February, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
#68,69
Thanks.
Will try to digest.
Comment by paulv — 12 February, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
# 31
“But what a ffffing patronising attitude !! and what a contempt for political ideas, discussion and debate !”
There are two criticisms here. On the attitude criticism I remain unrepentent. I will unashamedly patronise the kind of abstentionist ultraleft idiocy involved in obsessing over the slogans of workers in struggle - slogans that are certainly not ideal - but which are part of a living struggle with all it’s complexity. To sit on the sidelines and tut-tut workers for not coming up with “Workers of the world unite” as someone did here, exemplifies the kind of extreme idealism that infests the far left like a plague.
On the contempt for ideas and debate criticism I hold that I showed no such thing. I merely repsonded to others’ contempt for real debate that is revealed in their obsession with correct slogans at the expense of all other factors. That is not to say the discussion of slogans is off limits. Not at all. But accusations of racism in this context are vastly, flamboyantly overblown. Of course workers are going to raise nationality in their slogans when capitalist bastards are bringing in non-unionised foreign workers to smash their working conditions. That workers do so in ways that are not ideal - certainly not ideologically pure - only shows that we are living in the real world and not a socialist-realist fantasy! The best way for the far left do deal with slogans we don’t like - when they are from within a legitimite struggle - is to embrace the struggle with out solidarity and gain influence based on respect. Jumping up and down crying out, “racism” will win NO RESPECT, and deserves none.
Comment by Rohan G — 13 February, 2009 @ 12:14 am
A typo above: ..embrace the struggle with our solidarity..
Comment by Rohan G — 13 February, 2009 @ 12:17 am
#66 The mark of skid:
`#14 & #17 It would be nice if those who uncritically support the strikes (or whatever, you know who you are) could accept that those with criticisms are not calling for the strikes to be broken or call those who support them nasty names. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.’
The liberal defence of scabbing.
Comment by experience — 13 February, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
It’s the usual nastiness of skidmarx - he knows that no one “uncritically” supports the strikes, but chooses to refer to the 100% of people tho fall into the opposite category as “or whatever”.
Comment by external bulletin — 13 February, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Report of meeting in London on the oil refinery strikes - Keith Gibson (SP) and Jerry Hicks
http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/report-on-oil-refinery-strikes-meeting/
Comment by David Broder — 14 February, 2009 @ 2:31 am
That is not to say the discussion of slogans is off limits. Not at all. But accusations of racism in this context are vastly, flamboyantly overblown. Of course workers are going to raise nationality in their slogans when capitalist bastards are bringing in non-unionised foreign workers to smash their working conditions.
Comment by Petterritory — 16 March, 2009 @ 7:31 am