CAR INDUSTRY - BLAME THE BOSSES NOT THE UNIONS
This film, presumably shot on a mobile phone, has been all over the internet, at Lenin’s Tomb, and Shiraz Socialist blogs
It shows the sacked agency staff at BMW’s Cowley plant in Oxford righteous angry at being given just one hour’s notice of their lay offs, and the closure of the weekend shift. Technically BMW claim it is one week’s notice, because the factory is on shut down next week, but from the staff point of view, they were given just one hour’s notice not to come back.
BMW’s Swindon plant is also on a one week shutdown from yesterday, and from 2nd March both factories will switch from seven day a week production to five days a week.Permanent BMW staff on the weekend shift at Cowley will switch to the weekday shift; and 150 BMW staff from Swindon will be transferred to Cowley. There will be no redundancies at Hams Hill in Birmingham, which only employs permanent BMW staff.
It is clear therefore that BMW have taken advantage of UK laws that allow companies to give lesser employment right to Agency Staff – thus avoiding redundancy payments. The cuts have fallen on Cowley, because a third of the workforce there are agency staff.
As Tony Woodley, joint leader of the Unite union, correctly says: “The manner in which these cuts were announced today was disgraceful. It is tough enough for workers in those car companies who have seen their market collapse in recent months, but BMW makes a top-selling product in the Mini and owed it to their staff to treat them better.
“Sacking an entire shift like this, and targeting agency workers who have no rights to redundancy pay, is blatant opportunism on BMW’s part and nothing short of scandalous.
“BMW’s parent company couldn’t attempt this in Germany because it would be illegal to do so. It is a disgrace, therefore, that workers in this country can be so casually thrown to the dole.”
What is noticeable from the video clip is that BMW management made the announcement, and then scarpered and left the union reps to take the flack. Sadly the anger of the laid off staff is directed at the unions reps.
We need to be careful that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is correct that the union response to the shutdowns in manufacturing, particularly in the car industry, have been inadequate. But some of the criticism, on the left blogs verges to being anti-union.
The whole car industry is in severe crisis. Honda is on a four month shut-down, which has also led to widespread redundancies in component manufacturers. Toyota has already suspended the night shift at its Derbyshire plant, and is planning either a shut down or short time working. Fords have announced the lay off of 850 staff, including 400 at the Southampton Transit factory.
Reading the Oxford Mail, and watching the video clip, there is some anger at the union, because the union were in negotiations for the last three weeks. For example, the Mail quotes Assembly-line worker Adam Mason from Oxford, saying: “Clearly someone knew this was going to happen. It seems they have been having meetings so someone must have known. We came into work on Friday thinking it was a normal shift. Then we get put together and told this news an hour before we go home. People were very angry in there. Where has the union been all this time? Why did I bother paying my subscription? They did nothing for us. They kept us all in the dark and we haven’t been able to prepare for losing our jobs.”
But hang on. Overall car sales in the UK are down about 50% since last year, and BMW Mini sales have gone down 33%. So of course the union has been in negotiations trying to AVOID redundancies. And of course those negotiations will have involved confidentiality, as management and unions explored alternatives.
What clearly happened is that the BMW management acted disgracefully, by springing the redundancy announcement on the unions and the staff. Yes the workers are angry, but it was BMW management who sacked them, not the unions.
It also seems that the unions were at least partially in the dark about BMW singling out the agency staff. But to be 100% honest, it is not clear whether – in the current context - the union could have persuaded the permanent staff to take any action to defend the agency workers. One of the most insidious aspects of the current two-tier workforce is that it undermines solidarity, as the permanent workforce tend to see the agency staff as a buffer against their own redundancy. Certainly at least some of the anger from Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson seems uncontrived; so it does look like BMW broke off negotiations with the unions in bad faith.
What could the unions have done differently?
The unions did not create the recession. They can only operate in the economic climate, and the social and economic system that we actually live in. Last week at our GMB branch committee we heard a report of a furniture factory where there is a lot of anger against the union and against the stewards, even though we have negotiated away 50 redundancies, because some of the staff are angry that their production bonuses are going to be cut. Some workers have unrealistic expectations of what the union can achieve - if a company is genuinely losing money they cannot continue without changes. Away from abstract propaganda, and in the real world, there isn’t a viable socialist alterative currently available that can prevent the cuts and redundancies we are faced with in the here and now. What the unions can acheive is to have some collective input in the process to try to make it fair and transparent, and to try to protect the workforce as much as possible.
Derek Simpson, joint leader of Unite is correct to say: “There is nothing to stop the UK government acting now to protect agency workers. The disgraceful sacking of 850 agency workers at BMW’s Mini plant shows just how vulnerable these workers are to the current economic down-turn. Employers treat them as second class citizens, they have no rights to redundancy pay, sick pay or holiday pay.
“There are currently 1 million agency workers in the UK who can be sacked without any notice. Agency workers have family commitments, they have to find money every month to put food on the table and pay the mortgage just like full time workers. The current inequalities between agency workers and full-time employees must end.”
But this is the same Derek Simpson who has done bugger all to force the Labour Party to enforce the Agency Workers Directive into UK law. Instead, Simpson has unconditionally written cheques as Unite is the biggest single donor to the Labour Party. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and agency workers who were full members of the union have found themselves left out in the cold. Abandoned because Simpson and Woodley put a greater priority on not rocking the boat with the labour party than then put on promoting the interests of their own members.
Many staff stay in this category of agency work for several years, and yet are entitled to no redundancy pay. With the recession gripping, the unions simply cannot accept a two tier workforce with regard to redundancy. The unions need to demand equal rights for agency workers as a pre-condition for supporting the Labour Party at the next general election.
The unions also need to offer a strategic alternative. An important point to grasp is that New Labour’s economic policies of neo-liberalism are dead in the water – now is the time to be pressing for state intervention not just to protect the banking sector, but to underpin the real economy that affects millions of jobs of ordinary working people. The unions need to be developing and promoting economic policies to protect jobs. The government has done quite well at supply side aid to the car industry, but there needs to be a boost in the demand side; and that requires bold policies, for example, pushing interest rates to zero, and printing money.
The unions also need to point to the comparative robustness of the Chinese economy that has so far been weathering the recession better than the economies of the West. This is because China still has a considerable state controlled sector, impervious to the short term pressures on private capital.
Specific to the car industry, the unions need to adopt the policies along the lines of those agreed by the National Shop Stewards Network car workers meeting last Saturday. The government and the unions need to demand that car companies open the books, so we can see where the money has gone. There needs to be a strategy for alternative production away from cars; and strategic nationalisation.
In the current context, political solutions come first. The car industry is unprofitable, and cars are not selling. So industrial action against the private companies cannot succeed in opposing the redundancies unless there is an alternative to offer.
I’m not sure a couple of article in the Socialist Economic Bulletin prove anything about China. The Wall Street Journal had this to say a few days ago:
“BEIJING — Chinese bank lending more than doubled in January as the government pushed banks to free up credit to hard-hit sectors of the economy.
But the surge in lending could raise the prospect of the kind of bad-loan levels that hurt banks here in the past, and some economists say the resulting spending may not be fast and effective enough to lead to a sustainable economic recovery this year.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123441172481876251.html
Comment by skidmarx — 17 February, 2009 @ 11:55 am
You say some criticism on left blogs is verging on anti- union. Temporary Labour Agreements are disgrace to Trade Unionism. They are divisive, I’ve seen core workers argueing that they should have priority on overtime and shiftwork over temps, and remember some Temps have been working alongside core workers for 4 years and are Trade Union members. The question has to asked is how the Union has allowed a situation whereas a third of the workforce a Cowely were on Temporary contracts.
Comment by john — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
People are tright to ask why they should pay subscriptions, we shouldnt treat unions as some sort of untouchable holy cow.
There have been mass resignations from the TGWU in my area recently simply because of the closeness to the bosses and the unions through the Labour Party
I am sure our local situation isnt unique.
It will differ from area to area, workplace to workplace but there is no good reason for me or others to be members of the TGWU.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
So what is the alternative?
Which union are you a member of Jim?
And could the unions have stopped BMW taking on the staff as agency workers? Given that this would probably have required industrial action by the directly employed workforce. Was that a realistic option given actual levels of trade union consciusness and militancy ( or lack of!) in the plant over the last few years?
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Andy, as far as I understand (Oxford Socialist Party discussed this in some depth last night) angncy workers were originally introduced into the plant by the back door. Workers at Longbridge, when Cowley was still a Rover plant, were bussed down to Oxford when Longbridge was on short time along with some agency workers who were at that plant.
From then on, the plant starting using at least one agency based in the West Midlands bringing in workers from there.
Comment by Duncan — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Right now Andy, I am not a member of any union.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
This is where partnership working gets you. The unions are rife with company unionism - see the Unite website “Unite behind the UK Car Industry” is their slogan! - but the only option is to fight and challenge such rotten and ultimately ineffectual policies - the Lindsey workers began to showed how to do it. Otherwise the companies take the state aid, and still make redundancies, and the union officials leave the lay reps to face the fallout - as we see here.
Comment by Observer — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
On Lenin’s Tomb, Richard is blaming the workers themselves for not going on unofficial strike:
“The workers are extremely angry with the union bureaucrats for lack of action. So where are the wildcat strikes?”
Sigh - the working class is just so disappointing.
Comment by external bulletin — 17 February, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
I’ve just voted for Jerry Hicks.
The election addresses come with a statement from the Unite Executive Council saying that Jerry’s address is misleading, but it doesn’t say anything about Kevin Coyne when he writes in his address:
”In 2002 Derek Simpson unseated AEEU General Secretary Ken Jackson, arguing it was wrong for him to stay on beyond 65, but now Derek’s doing the exactly the same.”
Comment by john — 17 February, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Yes the workers are dead right to be angry at the union. Where is the properly organised and fighting campaign to get full rights for agency workers? And how far has that got in the corridors of power in the pockets of those who still weakly cling to the Labour Party? Pathetic. Why were all the workers not told that there was a real chance they could lose their jobs so they could democratically decide what to do to fight these plans? Why does Woodley insist that workers should “share the pain” of the reccession when they have done nothing to cause it?
Andy Newman asks: “What could the unions have done differently?” I’ll tell you exactly what:
1) The union should have told all members that there was a threat of job losses so that all workers could be democratically involved in the fight to stop these plans
2) The union should demand that the bosses open the company books so everyone can see where all the past profits have gone and to see if job losses are absolutely necessary
3) If they are, then the union should demand proper nationalisation under democratic workers’ control so no jobs are lost. The plant could be re-tooled to build buses, trains, trams, develop green motors, tractors, boats, anything that is needed to develop society for the needs of all not the profits of a few!
Once again ordinary people are to suffer the consequences of a capitalist system in turmoil that destroys the lives of working people. Why are those who are not to blame for this having to pay the price while bosses and the rich undemocratically hoard their past profits and our public money? And why are our union leaders stuck so far up the arses of the bosses and this pathetic Labour government when they should be fighting for our conditions, our jobs and our rights?! People like Andy Newman and Tony Woodley are defeatists. They lack any idea of how to fight on behalf of working people. It is in battles like these that people such as this are revealed as the class traitors they really are.
This weekend car workers from across the country attended a National Shop Stewards Network meeting to start to build a nationwide campaign to democratise and reclaim our unions and fight back against these job losses. We can join the Waterford glass workers and Chicago window workers in occupying our factories till our demands are met. We can stamp on the undemocratic anti-trade union laws like the heroic Lindsey workers and elsewhere who have fought and won! This crisis is not ours. So why should we suffer?! Fight people fight!
Comment by Pete — 17 February, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
#8 If you take it out of context.
Here it is in full.
” Why don’t unions resist these job cuts? posted by lenin
For all the ‘British jobs’ blather from union leaders and shop stewards in the past few weeks, there seem to be plenty of job losses that they aren’t fighting, such as the sacking of hundreds of agency workers at Cowley, with barely an hour’s notice.
Check out this video to see how angry the workers are (via Socialist Worker):
The workers are extremely angry with the union bureaucrats for lack of action. So where are the wildcat strikes? Why aren’t the union leaders demanding action to defend jobs? What about nationalising this car plant? If the government can throw money at the banks, why can’t they take the car factories into public ownership to defend jobs?”
But honesty doesn’t come into it does it?
Comment by anticapitalista — 17 February, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
I am not sure if Andy Newman is a “defeatist” (#10), but one thing is sure: AN is deeply convinced that there is no concrete alternative to capitalism. If this was not the case, he would point to transitional demands as suggested by Pete (#10).
However, AN is right when saying that the responsability for the lay-offs lie with the managment of BMW and not with the union tops. This should be the starting point for any political work around this issue. But then, AN goes on to argue that the unions “can only operate in the economic climate, and the social and economic system that we actually live in”. Right, that’s abc to any socialist. But after abc, there are a few other letters in the alphabet. If the trade unions limit their approch to the limits of the existing social and economic system that exists, they necessarily accept measures that are endangering the just interests of their social base, the workers (especially in times of crisis). Therefore, their approach should not be limited to what is possible under capitalism, but should point to alternatives to the rotten system we live in.
When you accept the capitalist logics like “if a company is genuinely losing money they cannot continue without changes”, you have to accept the sackings. When you do not want to accept the sackings, you need a different logics. But you not only need it in your brain, you also have to campaign around it. This is what AN fails to do. And that´s why he misses the whole point of trade unionism as defined by Karl Marx.
Comradely,
Herbert
Comment by Herbert — 17 February, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Its fairly clear that the Trade Union leaders have been taking their fat pay and organised little defence of workers rights - basically they were kener to keep New Labour sweet and do their dirty work than look after their members.
We seem to be entering a new period - where workers are rightly recognising the ineffectual rule of the Trade Unions and set up rank and file organisations.
At the very least the Trade Unions should had gone into occupation! That would had been some alternative and put pressure on the company and New Labour
Comment by Roy — 17 February, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Herbert #12
“When you accept the capitalist logics like “if a company is genuinely losing money they cannot continue without changes”, you have to accept the sackings. When you do not want to accept the sackings, you need a different logics. But you not only need it in your brain, you also have to campaign around it. This is what AN fails to do. And that´s why he misses the whole point of trade unionism”
Quite the opposite. I argue in th article that the unions needs ot develop an alternative economic plan, and alternativies to car production for these factories.
BUt until there is a feasible alternatve to fight for (whether transitional or not) then there can;t be a fight. For sure, these agency workers could occupy, but what would they be demanding? nationalisation? the political spadewrk hasn’t been done to make that a credible option.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure that militant action by workers demanding nationalisation - bt we can’t leap to that from where we are now. First it needs a patient and determined cmapign by the unions, and the left, to popularise alternative economic policies.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
#13
“We seem to be entering a new period - where workers are rightly recognising the ineffectual rule of the Trade Unions and set up rank and file organisations.”
See those blokes being shouted at on the platform? they ARE the rank and file - the lay union reps.
“At the very least the Trade Unions should had gone into occupation! That would had been some alternative and put pressure on the company and New Labour”
And what would they have been demanding? Practical trade unionism requires that you can take a majority with you, and that you make demands that the company, or maybe the government, can deliver. What are your demands?
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
We seem to be entering a new period - where workers are rightly recognising the ineffectual rule of the Trade Unions and set up rank and file organisations.
Got any evidence on this, because it sounds like wishful thinking to me.
And god, we can only dream of a world where we have the “rule of the Trade Unions”…
And while we’re at it, does anyone have any examples of the workers at this plant or elsewhere wanting to take action, whether with regard to agency workers rights or anything else, and being stopped by their unions?
It’s always nice to be able to blame somebody else, whether it’s the “trade union bureaucracy” or “New Labour”, or whatever. But they don’t exist in a vacuum, they were created by material conditions. And while it’s good when trade unions take the lead, the history of the last thirty years has made it very difficult for them to do so.
Comment by Graham Day — 17 February, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
In a recent article in Respect’s paper Alan Thornett describes how Swedish trade unionists are responding to the same problem.
“An important debate around this has been taking place in Sweden where Volvo has already announced thousands of redundancies in its cars division. Socialists who are trade union activists in the plants have initiated discussions and meetings about the future of the industry based on alternative production . We have to see this as the way forward for a sustainable industry.”
http://socialistresistance.org/?p=284
Comment by Liam — 17 February, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Oops members of the BME not being represented by the union! is that not racist? Maybe my union would be better if they spend my fees on protecting my job rather than using it against BNP.
TOSSERS
Comment by ihateunions — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
It strikes me that attacking the union leaders is just a hobby for parts of the Left now - blaming the “union bureacuracy” for everything is quite a good excuse for doing nothing useful ourselves. Andy makes valid points both ways.
I voted for Simpson today to stop Coyne - he actually got rid of a lot of sweetheart deals that Jackson had put in place - but you won’t read that in the 1 sided analysis of most of the Left in Britian.
Comment by Unite member — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t understand this. It begins, “BLAME THE BOSSES NOT THE UNIONS”, then notes that only a political movement which goes beyond the bounds of official Labour politics can provide an answer. It then observes that the unions have failed to do anything to push beyond the bounds of official Labour politics. So in fact, what conclusion follows? Some would say… Blame the bosses and the unions!
Comment by c0mmunard — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
“But honesty doesn’t come into it does it?”
The rest of what Lenin wrote isn’t relevant to his attack on the workers for not walking out. They are separate questions - asking the workers why they’ve not organised wildcat strikes, asking the unions why they’ve not fought back, asking the government why it’s not nationalised the plant. Don’t try to wriggle out of it - the article attacks the right people but also attacks the workers for not walking out.
Comment by external bulletin — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Someone said: “workers are rightly recognising the ineffectual rule of the Trade Unions and set up rank and file organisations”. Someone replied: “Got any evidence on this, because it sounds like wishful thinking to me”.
Well - as we all know the L.O.R / Staythorpe actions seem to have been initiated unofficially by shop stewards from Unite and GMB - with mass meetings and a strike committe, plus websites like Bearfacts. If it had been left to the union tops, I doubt if anything would have happened. Seems like the Union was struggling to keep up.
For whatever reason, the Unions have not been able to defend workers - either in the boom or the bust. This is dangerous. The video clip from BMW Cowley shows the anger and disillusionment with the unions.
While people are correct to acknowledge the difficult conditions unions face - we are also in danger of sounding complacent here.
This depression will remake British politics - for good or bad. The unions and the labour movement have been in decades of slow decline. That could turn into a qualitative shift - a much more rapid rout if we don’t get our finger out.
Where is the strategy for working class self defence and left renewal we need to confront this economic crisis with? What would it look like?
Comment by Barry Kade — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Andy writes at #14 “For sure, these agency workers could occupy, but what would they be demanding? nationalisation? the political spadewrk hasn’t been done to make that a credible option.”
The point of an occupation in industrial disputes is to seize assets of the company in order to give the workers a far better bargaining position than standing outside the gates with no leverage whatsoever.
In this situation it is not necessarily the case at all that the demand would have to be nationalisation, the workers could demand the same redundancy rights as non agency staff for instance.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Did nobody read what I wrote in point 10? I point out what can be done. The future is in our hands, not the bosses! Check out http://www.shopstewards.net for one real opportunity to reclaim and democratise the unions. Up the fighting workers!
Comment by Pete — 17 February, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
#23
Eddie, that is a very good point, well made.
Given the anger of the workforce that may well have been possible, and presumably fear of such an eventuality informed why BMW gave so little notice.
But for such a thing to be possible would have required a determination and organisation that I don’t think exists at Cowley, nor many other places.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Pete #10 and #24
The car workers meeting of the NSSN last Saturday was a modest start to organisting a fightback, but let us have some sense of proportion. There were 26 people there, and only 13 of them were car workers; and three of those were from Honda in Swindon where they are on shutdown till June, and are therefore not in any position to organise.
The meeting on Saturrday agreed some modest and sensible steps, such as a lobby of MPs, a contingent of car workers on the G20 demo, and commissioning some professioonal engineers to come up with alteranative production plans.
I think these are all great initiatives, but they don’t amount to a programme that can turn the current situation in the car industry around in a few days or weeks. So your fighting talk comes over to me as just hot air.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
In the final analysis, even the best-led union is only as good as its members. Widespread casualisation and use of agency staff has done a great deal to create two tiers within the working classes: permanent staff who enjoy certain rights and protections, and casual staff who do not. The permanent staff tend to be better organised in unions, and the unions - which rely increasingly on legal rights rather than collective strength - are better placed to protect them. One of the reasons why BMW has sacked its casual staff is that it knows that the permanent staff are unlikely to walk out in support of their casual colleagues. In effect the permanent staff acquiesce in the sacrifice of the casuals in the hope of saving their own jobs. In most cases this happens unnoticed - workplaces cut back to their core workforces, agencies have less work to offer, and migrant workers return to Eastern Europe, Portugal and so on. It is unusual for the process to take place in such an overt and dramatic way.
Comment by Francis King — 17 February, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
I think Andy would make a brilliant trade union official.
Comment by Pego — 17 February, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
external bulletin, you are truly external to reality. the fact that you could misread Lenin’s statement and then attempt to back it up with that kind of crap is astounding. Asking where the wildcat strikes are is an attack all of a sudden, not a serious question that all socialists need to be engaging with and trying answer concretely. And heaven forfend that the trade union bureaucracy might be part of the answer. You know, like the BJ4BW strikes got the nod and a wink when these didn’t.
Andy’s position on this is pathetic. This blog is like a turd spinning round the toilet waiting for the current to finally flush it down the drain.
Comment by gobsmacked — 17 February, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
A horrible mess that encapsulates how multinationals have divided the workforce.
The union should never have allowed this situation to develop in the first place. It’s happened because the use of agency contracts has been been tolerated for too long.
In the boom years workers on these contracts felt secure and probably made good money, but now they find they have no rights at all. I don’t get the impression that they have other options or will be going anywhere.
The only way to recover from this situation is to formulate demands that will unify the workforce. Cutting the working week and sharing the work would be one.
Occupying is definitely a tactic to be considered because of the exemplary affect it would have across the industry.
The unions can’t afford to leave casualties behind because it will split the unions down the middle and reinforce the negativity displayed in this video clip.
Fighting rank and file led trade unions are on the agenda again.
Comment by prianikoff — 17 February, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
I don’t know whether Andy N is trying to suggest that Shiraz Socialist’s coverage is “anti union”: I think a glance of our coverage will confirm that we have deliberately avoid launching an attack on UNITE as a whole, and even upon the UNITE national leadership (which would, indeed, have been unjustified in this context): however the role of Bernard Moss and the Cowley plant leadership appears to have bee thoroughly craven, and surely has given amunition to anti-union elements:
(From the ‘Oxford Mail’)…
“…plant convenor Bernard Moss says the union couldn’t have done anything to prevent job losses:
“‘We held meetings about three weeks ago and said to the workforce they could either stay as they were and have the same stand-downs — or possibly double the number there had been in 2008 — or they could go for the shift change with lower volumes and possible job losses.
“‘They voted overwhelmingly for a change of shift.
“‘The problem we had was that we were under clear instruction we could not give out any information until the
company said so.
“‘That caused a lot of concern from the workforce over the last couple of weeks.
“‘Although we are a trade union, we are employed by the company. If they give out an instruction, it would be a brave person to defy that. These days not many people would support a shop steward if he was sacked’.”
Comment by Jim Denham — 17 February, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
” don’t know whether Andy N is trying to suggest that Shiraz Socialist’s coverage is “anti union”: “
No Jim, I am making no such criticism of you, or Shiraz blog.
When I referred to ultra-left criticism I specificaly linked to two comments, one from martin Wisse on Su blog, and one from Ray on Lenin’s Tomb, that i thought were anti-union.
I was just referencing your blog at the top of the article out of courtesey because that is where I first saw the video, I thought your coverage was sensible and fair comment, even though i don’t totally agree with you.p>
Sorry if you got the impression that i was criticising you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
“‘The problem we had was that we were under clear instruction we could not give out any information until the
company said so.
So they were under “instruction” from the company not to discuss redundancies with the workforce! This is the end result of years of “partnership”. How can a union discuss redundancies without taking their instructions from their members? The leadership of the union in the factory has been in the pocket of management for years because they have identified the interests of their members with the company.
Comment by Martin Wicks — 17 February, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Excellent and well thought out post Andy. To be honest I think that us on the left are sometimes a bit too ready to reel out the same old narrative of good, militant grass roots workers betrayed by self-interested union bureaucrats. Sometimes this is what happens. Sometimes this narrative completely fails to get to the heart of the situation.
I witnessed a similar issue arise today at a London postal workers reps meeting which i was able to attend in an amateur journalistic capacity. Dissension arose over the question of job cuts and whether the union should accept as a fiat accompli that some redundancies will take place. The official - quite plausibly in my opinion - explained that the industry was being fundamentally changed by automation, that the union wanted as far as possible to inflence and control that change so that the interests of weorkers as far as possible were protected, but that it wouldnt do any good for the unions credibility to promise to protect and fight for every job.
Comment by Reuben — 17 February, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
The Cowley plant union branch swung right after the Thornett days and bought hook line and sinker into buisiness trade unionism, doing everything BMW asked of it. When Convenor Moss talks he talks as if he is part of the Car plant management. This worked pretty well up to about a year ago. Now he is left covering for a shody tradition which has left 850 workers, many with over two years of service, without access to redundancy. He says in the ox mail he had no choice but to keep the management plans secret because workers won’t defend reps who take chances. He has done nothing to win such support over the years. The man is a disgrace and should stand down now. The sacked agency workers had one chance to get a better deal and could have occupied the plant Monday morning when their blood was up. They had nothing to risk but a weeks pay.
Comment by Karl — 17 February, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Martin #33
“So they were under “instruction” from the company not to discuss redundancies with the workforce! This is the end result of years of “partnership”. How can a union discuss redundancies without taking their instructions from their members? ”
That is so abstract martin! How can the union take “instructiosn” from the mebership until they have spoken to management and found ut what the situation is? What does the order book look like? What are Munich saying? What is liquidity situation? What options do the company have? What are the implications of the govt support package?
I don’t nkow enough details to say whether the Oxford Reps did a good job or not, but they had to talk to management first to be able to draw up credible alternative options for the workforce to decide on.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
AN at #14 writes: “Nothing would give me greater pleasure that militant action by workers demanding nationalisation - bt we can’t leap to that from where we are now. First it needs a patient and determined cmapign by the unions, and the left, to popularise alternative economic policies.”
Very well about your pleasures. But it is obvious that these two things - the fight of the workers at the shop floor and the policy of the “unions” (read: union tops) - are interconnected. Therefore, you can’t set conditions on what has to happen “first”, as you did. You have to acknowledge that almost all concrete steps forward in the history of the working class movement happened when workers are in political or TU action. Only action can break the ideological or legal (cf. the LOR strike and the anti TU laws) restrictions placed on the TU movement. And that’s why potential fights and open discontent by any group of workers has this central importance to socialists.
You simply can’t wait for the union officials to change their mind (and campaign for a “alternative economic strategy”, as you suggest) , it will never happen without pressure from below. Why? Just because no human being wants to change an existing comfortable position, in which Derek Simpson & Co are.
Of course we (as the working class) can’t leap forward from where we are. But as socialists we are duty-bound to propose concrete steps which point forward in the policy of our TU organisations. If we fail to do that in the concrete situation of sackings, there is no point in being socialist at all.
Comradely,
Herbert
Comment by Herbert — 17 February, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
It’s not abstract at all Andy. You cannot negotiate behind the backs of the members - not if you are a principled trade unionist.
Comment by Martin Wicks — 17 February, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
What a disgraceful sectarian and ill informed post
Mr Newman an attempt to defend the indefensible
CAR INDUSTRY BLAME NEO LIBERAL LABOUR
EXPLOITING BOSSES AND THE CRAVEN UNIONS
1.Neo Liberal Labour Party, presides over flexible temporary work contracts, opts out of any legislation that tries to protect UK workers, enforces anti union laws and its philosophy of Neo Liberal free markets and no regulation, Digby Jones in the Government, Lordy Mandelson unelected Minister for Business Exploitation and Deregulation.Murdoch chair of the Labour Cabinet and Minister of Propaganda
2. The exploiting Bosses the lowest wages for the most productivity and no regulations they would put your kids back up chimneys if they thought they would make a buck and get away with it.
3.Craven Trade Unions Homer Simpson and Woodley made the Temporary agreements allowed the Agencies like Manpower to casualise 1/3 of the jobs, knew what BMW was doing and defends every privatisation and attack on workers organisation by the Labour Party
Galton and Simpson, and Woodley, (the Steptoe and Son of the Trade Union Movement prepared to put up with any old shite) should resign
UNITE should repay all subs to the BMW workers they abandoned and apologise
Truly the most disgraceful shameful day in Union history.
UNITE doing the bosses work, casualising the workers and passing on the message your sacked.
New slogan for Socialist Unity
Temporary Jobs for Temporary Workers
More Permanent Jobs for More Permanent Workers
UNITE the Bosses flexible friend
Comment by PanDemonium — 17 February, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
Reading the blurb that came with the nominations papers trying to smear Jerry Hicks campaign by the ‘working people’ on the exec and knowing the shafting that good militants have had from the Trade Union leadership at national, regional amd local level is it surprising that more backwards officials have been sucked in by management.
The problem is that people have had enough of swallowing the new Labour crap promoted about loving your boses and expect the Union to stand up for them.
Like Lindsey - unfortunately not at Cowley it seems. As people as pointed out the control despite the best efforts of the Trade Union leadership was kept carefully by the workers themselves at a local and shop steward level.
The anger of these workers if justified - get up off your knees and some back bone!
Comment by Roy — 17 February, 2009 @ 11:28 pm
O/T
Kevin Coyne for General Secretary
This is the unsolicited load of old email garbage is being sent out apparently, allegedly by the UNITE Coyne it Campaign
Any one who thinks Jerry Hicks can compete with Simpson using the UNITE money 250,000 and the membership list and Magazine and Coyne using the Email list better think again
Building a Union with Integrity
Yeah tell that to the NHS workers who are fighting privatisation thanks to your pals in the Labour Party
Voting Has Started - Vote Coyne
Dear Friend,
Voting has started in one of the most important elections our union has ever seen. There is a chance for us to deliver real change and build a union which puts our members, their families and communities at the centre of everything it does.
In 2002, Derek Simpson opposed Ken Jackson as General Secretary of the AEEU, arguing that it was wrong for him to stay on beyond 65, and that he had misused members’ money by living a lavish lifestyle at their expense. Seven years later and Derek Simpson stands accused of doing exactly the same.
We were promised that the Union would be returned to its members. We were told enough waste was enough. There was a hunger for change in the union. We were fed up with being in the back pockets of the Government and we wanted the Union to stand more firmly for the members interests. We wanted a prudent yet strong union.
That was the right agenda. It’s just not what we got under Derek Simpson, the General Secretary. We wanted change but we got more of the same.
I am standing now to finally deliver that change.
With your support, as General Secretary we will:
* Deliver the merger
* Strengthen the Union
* Cut the lavish pay and perks of the General Secretary
* Build our influence
* Build unity, both here and abroad
Please help me change our union. Vote Kevin Coyne for General Secretary.
Read the full manifesto at www.coynecampaign.co.uk
Junk Mail
simpson-letter1.gifOver the course of the last week, you will probably have received a letter personally addressed to you from Derek Simpson, laying out his strategy for your Sector of the union. This unprecedented personal approach was made in the week before the election opens, and I believe it has gone to every Amicus member. The union has paid for this letter, using your subs, at a cost which must exceed £250,000. Its purpose is clear. It is a cynical attempt to influence voting.
I have tabled complaints with the Returning Officer and Election Commissioner, but I have been told that there is nothing untoward in the production, printing and distribution of such a letter. I find this staggering and have now complained to the Government’s Certification Officer in order to defend our union’s democracy.
The letter has been followed by “United” magazine, delivered to every Unite member. The magazine is littered with photos and articles about Derek Simpson, and carries letters complaining about other candidates. I have been given no right of reply. In 2002, when he stood against Ken Jackson for the General Secretary position, Derek Simpson said:
“Journals have carried multiple photos and articles about Jackson whilst I was told that unless the law or the rules forced it they would not grant equality of access. If Jackson is so popular and is recognised for his ability and leadership, why do all these issues arise? According to his spokespersons, there is little chance that Jackson will be overthrown. However, members … are sick to the back teeth with the way the union has become divorced from its rank and file members, who now have little or no confidence that the union will stand up for them.”
I hope that members will see the hypocrisy of this situation and vote to save our union from such abuse of power. It is no coincidence that I have said I want to build a union with integrity, a union we can be proud of. There is little sign of integrity and nothing we can be proud of in the way my opponent has acted this week.
Make sure you use your vote! Vote Kevin Coyne for General Secretary. www.coynecampaign.co.uk
Ballot Hotline
Ballot papers for the election will be distributed over the weekend and will start arriving on 16th February.
The ballot closes at 12 Noon on 6th March.
hotline.jpgMembers of Unite the Union - Amicus Section who joined before 2 February 2009 and who have not received a ballot paper by Wednesday 25 February 2009 should contact the Amicus Conference and Elections Department on 0800 7313407 (for members in the United Kingdom) or on 1800 812755 (for members in the Republic of Ireland) without delay.
Your vote is critical - make sure you use it!
Vote Kevin Coyne for General Secretary.
www.coynecampaign.co.uk
Forward this message to a friend
Comment by PanDemonium — 17 February, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
#38
But martin, unless you have a source of information that I don’t, it is not clear that they were “negotiating behind the backs of the members”
It seems that there were discussions about BMW’s intentions, and then management jumped the gun and sacked the agency workers before the unions had a chance to go back and consult.
Or maybe the uniosn were just given an early “heads up” of management intentions without any possibility of influencing. Now in that case they shoudl have told people, but that would clearly not be negotiating
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 February, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
I do think that, as a botom line, unionnegotiators aught to inform the membership of forthcoming redundancies. I fail to see how any “left-winger” can justify “secrecy” -ie collaboration with management against the membership - on such an issue. Andy N has scraped rock-bottom in his attempt to defend the worst elements of the Cowley plant union “leadership” over this.
Comment by Jim Denham — 18 February, 2009 @ 12:36 am
JIm and martin
I am not disputing the need for the unions to keep the members fully informed, but I am less cock-sure of the facts than you are on this.
It seems you are condemning without ful knowledge of what went on.
maybe the union reps were in the wrong, may be they were not.
But the big vilains here are BMW, not the unions reps.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 February, 2009 @ 1:13 am
“But hang on. Overall car sales in the UK are down about 50% since last year, and BMW Mini sales have gone down 33%. So of course the union has been in negotiations trying to AVOID redundancies. And of course those negotiations will have involved confidentiality, as management and unions explored alternatives.”
You supplied the knowledge Andy 44* look above, “so of course the union have been in negiotattion with management to try to avoid redundancies”
If the workforce were informed from day 1, that redundancies were possible, discussions could heve begun about strategies to oppose them, (not discussions between management and union officials) but amonmg the workforce, all the workforce.
For all his bluff and bluster about defending the working class (as opposed to ultra lefts who just ‘pose’) on every issue Andy’s starting point is collaboration with employers. Get on the stage with them Andy its where you belong, justifying why militant action can’t be taken, becuase the ‘workers’ are not ready.
As long as the ‘unions’ are lead by politics like yours (reformist pleading) they never will be. BMW might be the villians but the officials are holding BMW’s coat while they lay into the agency staff…. disgusting.
Comment by non-partisan — 18 February, 2009 @ 6:39 am
I think people need to look very carefully at what actually happened, and also think about how this actually plays out in real life before they start throwing accusations around of other trade unionists being unprincipled, class-collaborators, etc, etc.
The accusation is basically that the lay union reps at Cowley sold jobs down the river ( and a minor issue that I apparently agree with them!)
The car industry is in crisis, and BMW have sold 33% less minis over the last 12 months than they did last year.
This hasn’t just affected BMW, but every car manufacturer in the country, and there have been either mass lay-offs or shut downs in every car factory, and car component factory.
Obviously the union will have been involved in talks with management to discover the scale of the problem, and obviously there will be issues of commercial coonfidentiality. BMW will reveal information to the unions in these talks that they would not want Honda or Toyota or Ford to know, and would not want in the press, as it could affect their stock price; or their ability to borrow from the banks.
That discovery of information is preliminary to negotiation but it is NOT yet negotiation. There would also be some preliminary exploring of alternatives.
And the confidentiality has to be respected - within certain limits - as otherwise the union could be jeopardising the commercial viability of the plant.
Now look at what the Oxford mail reports, see #31 above
So if this is true, the workforce, who must have known for example that Honda were on 4 month shut down, 850 jobs had gone at Ford, etc, voted for a change in shift and possible job losses. And you don’t have to be Einstein to work out that with sales down 33%, it would be lay offs of about a third of the workforce.
At #45 above “non-partisan says: “If the workforce were informed from day 1, that redundancies were possible, discussions could heve begun about strategies to oppose them, (not discussions between management and union officials) but amonmg the workforce, all the workforce.”
But look at the Oxford mail - the workforce DID know about the possibility of job losses, and voted to accept shift changes that would involve job losses. I tell you the truth, i susppect the core workforce voted to acceot with reasonable expectation that the cuts would fall on the third of the workforce on agency contracts. Welcome to the real world.
So nothing there was behind the backs of the members. And once the members had voted to accept shift changes and redundnacies rather than trade off shut downs to save jobs, then what “negotiating” was the union able to do?
The charge from martin, Jim and others is that the union at Cowley then negotiated and agreed the job losses, behind the backs of the members.
But that is far from clear to me. What was the element of “negotiation” from the union? Wasn’t this more likely a case of BMW saying this is what they were going to do and simply informing the union? Being informed about something is not the same as negotiating it.
By saying that they negotiated the job losses, then martin and Jim are both clearly saying that the union got something or were offered something in return, and agreed to the job losses. That is what negotiating means. So what are Jim and Martin claiming that the union got?
What does seem to have happened is that the lay union reps had prior knowledge of what management were going to do, and didn’t share it. But having prior knowledge of something is not the same as negotiating it. Words are importnat and what martin and Jim have accused them of is “negotiating” - not having advance warning.
So OK, a different trade union leadership in the plant might have walked out of meetings with management when the bosses asked for confidentiality over the reduncdancy plans. A different leadership may even have broken the commitments of confidentiality to management if they thought there would be a fight. But it is a big ask, gieven that they would then most likely have been sacked for gross misconduct.
We have to start from where we really are, not from where we wish we were.
There is a certain amount of grandstanding from the comrades going on here in this discussion.
I can see that there is easy popularity to be gained by saying there needs to be a fight, and that the workers should have occupied. But people only fight if they think they have a possibility of winning. Tha needs credible alternative options - not in thhe heads of the trade union leaders or politicias, but in the heads of the grassroots trade unionists and shop floor workers.
Faced with a global recession, and a massive crisis in the car industry, there have to be credible immediate demands to fight over.
Ok - it would have been brilliant if the agency staff being laid off had occupied the plant and demanded redundncy payments. That would have been a fantastic response. But more than twenty years after the defeat of the miners, and after yesrs of partnershio and business unionism, it is a big ask for the unions in the plant to suddenly learn the lesson of the Flint sit-down strike, and for Bernie Moss to suddenly morph into Kermit Johnson.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 February, 2009 @ 10:18 am
Do the permanent staff now feel they have a plant union leadership that can fight for their interests? Some may feel relieved it’s not them, but even they must have realised they have shuffled a step closer to the guillotine.
What would be wrong with calling a mass meeting of all union members to insist that any strategy to fight redundancies be discussed with them first? Maybe a change of leadership is required.
Without knowing the feelings on the ground it’s hard to say what would be the best way forward.
Comment by paulv — 18 February, 2009 @ 10:39 am
The options offered at previous meetings were both defeatist and came before this embryonic rank and file revival.
Comment by paulv — 18 February, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Andy; I think you should think very carefully before politically identifying yourself with the strategy of the officials at BMW, because in the real world, people remember misleaders, and every step to accommodate management is a step away from the interests of workers.
We all know you have done your negotiation courses, were the union acts as a facilitator between the interests of management and the workforce, but in the real world management’s interests are not the same as the workforce. That this point needs underlining on a socialist site, shows how far the political retreat has gone within the trade unions. You see its not the job of a principled socialist to ‘save’ the company, it is the job of a socialist to advance the struggle against the system and to raise political solutions that will help to generalise local struggles onto a much wider front.
The idea that united we stand and divided we fall isn’t just in one factory or industry, but is as a class against the capitalist class. I know for you this struggle ( for socialism) is all very much in the future, while today we have to deal with the real ‘bread and butter’ issues, like saving 50 out of 100 jobs, or winning a slightly better deal here or there.
To call someone a reformist, is not an insult, but a realistic assessment of a political position. The same with collaboration, it is your strategy to work with management to reduce where possible the effects of the crisis.
All this guff about protecting managements ‘confidentiality’ vis a vis other companies etc? shows how far you are sucked into their trap, of seeking solutions based on their interests.
Never mind the tautological defence of ‘was it negotiations or talks? Or being informed’ as soon as the unions knew job losses were on the cards it should have been a point of political discussion about the response, but this can only be led by people with either a political or material interest in the struggle. These officials it appears had neither.
We can all find examples of workers voting to accept attacks, and negative changes, usually this isn’t a sign of complete unwillingness to respond, but that the ‘option’ of fighting was never realistically presented, which appears to be the case here as you quote;
Now look at what the Oxford mail reports, see #31 above
“…plant convenor Bernard Moss says the union couldn’t have done anything to prevent job losses:
So if this is true, the workforce, who must have known for example that Honda were on 4 month shut down, 850 jobs had gone at Ford, etc, voted for a change in shift and possible job losses. And you don’t have to be Einstein to work out that with sales down 33%, it would be lay offs of about a third of the workforce.
1. The union couldn’t do anything to prevent job losses- really? Ever? And why?
Well
“‘We held meetings about three weeks ago and said to the workforce they could either stay as they were and have the same stand-downs — or possibly double the number there had been in 2008 — or they could go for the shift change with lower volumes and possible job losses.
O I see, so, its we vote to accept something bad, or we are told something worse will happen- good choice
And then bold Andy tells us,
They voted overwhelmingly for a change of shift.
I wonder why?
Andy continues to make sure we don’t miss the point; (it was the workers fault for not fighting)
So if this is true, the workforce, who must have known for example that Honda were on 4 month shut down, 850 jobs had gone at Ford, etc, voted for a change in shift and possible job losses. And you don’t have to be Einstein to work out that with sales down 33%, it would be lay offs of about a third of the workforce.
It doesn’t take Einstien to work out that the union never argued for a fight, and most workers are not fools Andy, they know when someone is throwing in the towel and giving up.
Its funny, whenever you hear the phrase “We have to start from where we are, not where we would like to be,” you know you are about to be on the receiving end of a crock of shit. We are were we are because for years there ahs been a refusal to fight oby the TU and LP leadership, and we wont be ‘were we want to be’ until there is a political break from them.
I think Herbert (I don’t know who he or she is) has made the most sense on perspectives for a fight during this thread.
I know you like patronising others Andy, how about you start to live in the real world? And maybe you can grow up to be a socialist?
Comment by non-partisan — 18 February, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Non-partisan
You are painting yourself into a position of arguing that any workplace leadership or trade union official who doesn’t argue for a full scale battle over every job loss is a sell out.
What do you think is going on in industry at the moment? Last Monday 80000 jobs around the country were lost on that one day alone.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 February, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
51* Not true Andy, not all ressistance has to be a full scale battle, and every threatened job is an opportunity to ask both what the union and the government are doing to defend jobs? if they are doing nothing, then what can ordinary workers do? not just in one company or industry but as a class? what can be done politically? starting now, not waiting for next round of job losses.
There is always a dilema for Trade union reps, are they reccomending accepting what management want? or saying this is the best we can get? ( but then question is always what have we done, or could we do to get more) the problem is that it can’t be resolved with a trade union consciousness alone, it has to be argued politically.
precisely Andy, 80000? jobs in one day, we might not win, and the unions reps might be isolated, but the arguement should be, occupy, demonstrate, campaign- for govt intervention to save jobs, shorter working week, open the books. etc
With a willingness, theres lots that could be done, national/local conferences on fighting job losses, LOR speakers toured round to show how fighting can save jobs, announce a levy to be collected for those willing to fight etc etc….
Comment by non-partisan — 18 February, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
As I said early on in this debate: I think Bernanr Moss, er, I mean, Andy would make great trade union offical.
Comment by Pego — 18 February, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
As I said early on in this debate: I think Bernard Moss, er, I mean, Andy would make great trade union offical.
Comment by Pego — 18 February, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
A comparison of reactions to the Cowley Sackings in the Socialist Press this week
(excerpts)
The Newsline:-
“…This is a class war. The response to the mass sackings should have been the immediate occupation of the factory and an instruction to the entire Unite union to take strike action.
Now all the bosses are watching to see if BMW will get away with their coup. If they do, this Gate Gourmet style of industrial relations will be used in every manufacturing plant in the country.
Unite members must demand that their union acts at once and organises the occupation of the Cowley plant and demands the immediate reinstatement of the 850 workers.
Unite must declare that it will not accept a single sacking in the motor car industry and call for the entire industry to be nationalised under workers’ control.
If the Brown government can bring in state control of banks to defend the interests of the bosses, trade unions must demand the nationalisation of the motor car industry to defend the interests of the working class.The Brown government is not ‘our’ government, it is the government of the bosses and bankers.
The trade unions must bring it down and replace it with a workers government that will bring in a planned socialist economy under which there will be jobs for all.
Trade union leaders who are not willing to fight for this must be sacked and replaced by leaders who will… ”
Full article:-
http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/3994
Socialist Worker:-
“.. an assembly line worker, summed up the mood of the workers when he told the local paper, “Clearly someone knew this was going to happen.
It seems they have been having meetings so someone must have known.
“Where has the union been all this time? Why did I bother paying my subscription? They did nothing for us.
“The government has done nothing in this recession apart from hand money to the banks and bankers. Why can’t they help us?”
Full article:-
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17181
Morning Star:-
“…BMW’s disdain for workers deliberately employed on precarious agency contracts was savaged by Unite joint leader Tony Woodley, who stormed: “Sacking an entire shift like this and targeting workers who have no rights to redundancy pay is blatant opportunism on BMW’s part and nothing short of scandalous.”
Mr Woodley’s fellow joint general secretary Derek Simpson added: “This disgraceful mass sacking shows just how vulnerable these workers are to the current economic downturn, as employers treat them as second-class citizens….”
morningstaronline.co.uk
The Socialist
“…Workers, trade unionists, and young people have two roads before them. One is that of Woolworths and Zavvi, of massive job losses and lengthening dole queues. The other is of fighting back, the path of Lindsey oil refinery and other construction workers around the country, of the workers occupying Waterford Crystal in Ireland and of the many other campaigns taking place that you can read about in The Socialist.
The Youth Fight for Jobs campaign is winning support from trade unionists and campaigners across the country. We say ‘no’ to increasing unemployment. If the government can bail out the banks to the tune of billions of pounds, they should be able to offer young people a decent future.
We’re fighting for a real programme of job creation. Why should car workers lose their jobs when their skills are urgently needed, in order to mass-produce vitally needed ‘green’ technologies for instance? Why should people have to take several jobs working long hours whilst others are unemployed? Why should graduates not be able to use their skills in a socially productive way? …”
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/567/6922
Workers Power
…Occupy Cowley BMW factory to stop the job cuts!
Absolutely everything about the sacking of 850 agency workers at the BMW Mini plant in Cowley on Monday stinks.
• The workers were told the news one hour before the start of their shift
• They were told to hand back their overalls and ID cards or have up to £35 deducted from their final pay
• Most disgracefully of all, their own shop stewards told them that they had to keep the news secret - or they would also lose their jobs …”
http://www.workerspower.com/
World Socialist Website
“…The pro-business policies of Unite, like all other unions, have produced a decades-long decline in jobs, living standards and working conditions, a process that has accelerated by the economic crisis. Auto factories that have not yet laid off workers have cut production, putting staff on short hours or sending them home on reduced pay. At Honda’s plant in Swindon, 4,800 people have been sent home for 50 days on 80 percent of basic pay. Upon returning to work—if they still have jobs to go back to—workers will be required to do unpaid overtime to make this up.
That the Unite trade union appeared before the BMW workers as representatives of management, enforcing its dictates, is not accidental. The refusal of the unions to defend even the most basic aspects of their members’ interests is rooted in the organic opposition of these organisations to the development and extension of the class struggle. Committed to the defence of capitalism and the interests of the British nation-state, the union bureaucracy is a privileged social group whose wealth and status is dependent on its role as industrial policemen of the working class.
In this respect, it is worth noting the contrast between the actions of the Unite trade union at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire at the beginning of this month with those at BMW.
In the case of the Lindsey oil refinery, Unite was extraordinarily active in the so-called “Britons First” dispute, appearing on picket lines, producing banners and posters, and generally being only too willing to sound off about what it had described as “unfair” competitive practices by an Italian sub-contractor at the plant. This is because its reactionary policy of insisting on the employment of “local labour” in no way contradicted its role in enforcing the interests and requirements of big business. Rather, it presented the opportunity for the union to make common cause with “British” employers and to bang the drum for economic protectionism as a means of defending the interests of British capital more generally….”
http://wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/bmw-f18.shtml
Comment by prianikoff — 18 February, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
oh
Comment by bysshe — 18 February, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
apologies for above hit return rather than delete
So we have
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4128875.BMW__Union_says__we_couldn_t_have_done_more_/
we couldn’t do more cos that’s what the workers wanted
and we have
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/search/4131590.BMW__We_put_union_man_on_spot/
what worries me is two things:
When it goes wrong it goes wrong lets be honest. I am sure (so to avoid the libel) that Bernard Moss is a fine trade unionsit with only the the interests of the whole working class at heart.
However, we have a union rep standing on a platfom with management while they sack people in the early hours of the morning when he knew what was happening and the workers did not. We have the union saying warm words over the method of the sackings , but the union was clearly complicit in that method. And we have an argument that nothing can be done.
Second we have a comparison. 1: A significantly high proportion of asian workers and southern and eastern european workers being sacked on the spot while the Unite union says they can do nothing. and 2 we have http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17182 9 (i refer to the picture)
as you were
Comment by bysshe — 18 February, 2009 @ 10:10 pm