VISTEON - A CLEAR CUT VICTORY
Trade union tactics must often be very finely judged.
Any industrial action needs to both involve the maximum unity of the workforce and membership, and also exert the maximum pressure on management; but because the political and trade union consciousness of the workforce is very uneven, you need to be constantly conscious of whether the action could dissipate, as some members stop believing they can win.
There is an added problem, that often there is a minority who want to continue the struggle come what may, perhaps without a nuanced tactical understanding of the possibilities.
The recent Visteon strikes are a good example. In an exemplary show of initiative and militancy the workers occupied in Belfast, Enfield and Basildon, which then became the foci of networks of trade union and community solidarity. It was an heroic and inspirational fight, that blew away the cobwebs of inertia that had greeted the closure of Woolworths, and other job losses.
But before we get too carried away with our assesment of the workforces’ bargaining position, let us consider that Visteon were seeking to close the factories, so the occupations were an interruption to cash flow stopping the selling the assets, but were not hitting their production; and secondly that through the use of threats of courts, police and bailiffs, only Belfast was still in occupation at the time a deal was reached.
That is, the leverage that the workforce had over Visteon and Ford was potentially peaking when the deal was agreed, and there was a substantial risk that if the deal was turned down, the bailiffs would have gone into the Belfast plant, and the pickets at Enfield and Basildon would boil down to a hard core of last-standers, like the tragic defeat at Gate Gourmet, while the rest of the workforce melted away.
Now it is possible to construct other scenarios, but experience of the British labour movement over the last few years suggests that this would be a likely enough scenario to base calculations upon it.
In that context, getting a deal out of Ford and Visteon while the workforce has maximum political leverage was an outstanding victory. The risk of rejecting the deal was that management could have withdrawn it, and the workforce could have got nothing.
Now it is true that the workforce didn’t get their jobs back, and the pensions issue was unresolved. But what were the realistic chances of getting the factories reopened?
To have done so would have needed a political context where there existed pressure on the government to step in. That is not the current political reality, and occupations by relatively small factories in the recession stricken car industry were not going to be able to change that.
Therefore, to talk down the deal, and say that the workforce should have stuck out for a rescue package, as some are doing, would both be a strategic and tactical mistake, and is perhaps objectively anti-trade union; because it is demobilising and demotivating to criticise a clear victory , because it feeds into a climate of cynicism.
Visteon was a victory, militancy was shown to pay, and if we want to create a different political climate where the government steps in to save threatened manufacturing jobs, then there will be no short cuts - we need to do the patient long haul hard work of winning that argument in wider society.
I don’t think it was a clear-cut victory. Talking it up, as this piece does, reflects a demoralised British left’s need to whistle in the dark.
Comment by Faust — 9 May, 2009 @ 9:34 am
There are never, or almost never ‘clear cut victories’, most victories contain elements of defeat,defeats will nearly alwas contain within them gains. On balance however this is a victory and should be treasured as such.
Andy’s analysis however strikes me as being weak. Firstly because it appears to assume that outcomes must either be ‘clear cut’ victories or defeats. And secondly because it takes as a given that ‘through the use of threats of courts, police and bailiffs, only Belfast was still in occupation at the time a deal was reached’. The fact is that at both Enfield and Basildon posession of the plant was given back to management without a mass struggle to prevent them obtaining it.
I AM NOT SAYING that IN THE CONCRETE CIRCUMSTANCES CONFRONTING THE WORKFORCE of the two plants at the time THIS WAS NECESSARILY THE WRONG CONCLUSION. I was not there, and the reports of both decisions I have seen make it pretty clear to me that this was a deocratic decision of the workforce. However it is equally clear to me that a factor weighing significantly in their minds at the time was that the UNITE leadership would have washed their hands of them, and refused to mobilse support if they had chosen to defy the law, the step which was necessary if an even less qualified victory was to be won.
I think, Andy, that your one-sided presentation of the issues runs the risk of obcuring this fact and the conclusion which flows from it: that the Unite leadership needs to be replaced with one which WILL back its members up in this way in future. If your contribution to the discussion hinders the drawing of this conclusion then it will only lead to the victory being even less clear cut than it would otherwise have been.
Comment by paulm — 9 May, 2009 @ 10:34 am
#2
“because it takes as a given that ‘through the use of threats of courts, police and bailiffs, only Belfast was still in occupation at the time a deal was reached’. ”
I take it “as a given” because factually that was the actual situation.
You have to ask whether if they had stayed in occupation they would have been isolated, and got even less. And even with a more militant leadership of UNITE, that would not have been enough to transform the overalll political and economic situation to force government intervention.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 May, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
“And even with a more militant leadership of UNITE, that would not have been enough to transform the overalll political and economic situation to force government intervention.” - yes, tahts right. to be honest i think it is quite hard to argue with the unite leadership line on these disputes, but that wont stop people doing it for the sake of it!
Comment by matt willgress — 9 May, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
It is possible that the outcome was the best obtainable in the circumstances. Like the retreat from Dunkirk, which was sometimes presented as a victory rather than as it really was, a defeat from which large numbers of troops were salvaged rather than simply lost as dead or POWs.
Comment by Faust — 9 May, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
We all know what defeat looks like. We have had more than enough experience of this over the past three decades.
This does not feel like defeat - it is something else. We now have an example of militant working class direct action winning a vastly better deal. The lesson is clear for the whole working class: No occupation = no payout. Occupation = significant payout. Clear message. Saving jobs and pensions would have been better still - but this is still massively better than nothing. And we have all had plemty of experience of winning nothing and loosing it all.
Most importantly, the working class in Britain now has an example of a new, powerful tactic that can win results. Occupation! Since the 1984-85 miners strike, people associate traditional ’strikes’ with defeat. Occupation is a breath of fresh air. Something new that has made a difference.
Its interesting how this idea has spread. Waterford Crystal occupation had an impact in Ireland but not Britain. But this example could spread to Belfast in the six counties. Then with the Belfast Visteon occupation the tactic could spread to South East England. Now the cat is out of the bag. We must spread this example to every workplace under threat of closure.
Comment by Barry Kade — 9 May, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
maybe not a 100% victory but then we would be on our way to the revolution
This was a trade union dispute and instead of a strike which would have (in this case) secure limited support from the public and media
It secured massive support because it was an occupation, people like occupations…it was run by the unions in the factory, and used great media coverage.
It also had so clear objectives
and recognised when they had secured the best possible deal (even if not 100%)
Its a great success and a shot in the arm, if not we wouldnt be talking about it
If only we could have occupied a few Woolworths stores it would have focused on the poor redundancy deals if nothing else…even if these occupations had been token.
Occupatiuons are one of the most efffective forms of trade union action…however its got to be run by the workers…not imposed
Comment by Sean — 9 May, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Talking to Visteon workers at the Enfield factory there is a recognition that a significant victory was won. The fight continues for the moment because the money is not yet paid to the workers. And yes it would have been better if jobs could have been saved and pensions protected. I tend to think that there would needed to have been more pressure within Unite to push the Union on those fronts, but also wider solidarity action. Useful things to get, but not always easy ones, so considering where we started from it remains a real victory and the important thing to take from it is that if you fightback then you can get somewhere. If that message can get out to workers face attacks from employers and sackings then the Visteon struggle will be the beacon it really should be.
Keith Flett, Haringey TUC
Comment by keith flett — 9 May, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
It’s a bit of a travesty to describe the article which this piece critiques as “objectively anti-trade union”. A partial victory is better than an outright defeat and the workers are rather better off because they fought. However their union leadership restricted the struggle to improved redundancy payments and the Belfast press says that they have lost their pension rights.
It was the bureaucracy’s refusal to support workers’ control or development of alternative production plans that allows them to present this result as an unalloyed victory. It is not helpful to accept their logic which is what Andy’s piece does.
Comment by Liam — 9 May, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Liam
Only in the sense that stressing the negative aspects, and thinking the union could have acheived more than was actually possible is the sort of argument you hear from disruptive anti-trade union types on the shop floor.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 May, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
comrade go and have your revolution in the pub
lets us just stick to the bloody hard work of getting workers to join unions and say no now and again to the bosses
trade unions will not deliver your revolution comrade
unions are for all workers…not just revolutionary sects
Comment by Sean — 9 May, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
We must appreciate that workers and unions are on the backfoot due to the Recession. Struggles now and in the near future will be of a ‘defensive’ nature. I’d say this was a victory for those involved as they consessions from the employer. Sure, it’s a small victory but nonetheless a win.
Comment by Henry — 10 May, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
As a union FTO who regular reads this site
I can honestly say I welcome any fight back by my members
I am not under any pressure from above to stop strikes, resistance etc…
My biggest problem is getting workers a) to join the union b) helping them get the confidence to make a difference and make a stand
Thats why I appreciate this web site doesnt just slag of union officers for the sake of it
the idea that we are holding back the masses from a strike wave is simply not true
Strikes and national demos that secure on miniority support and/or no media coverage only serve to undermind the little confidence we have.
Thats why I admire the work of the RMT union. As it takes a cool calculating look at industrial action (and delievers on it)before embarking upon it.
Its easy to call strikes much harder to win them and leave the shop floor workforce in a better position to fight another day
Comment by Tim — 10 May, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
They are still campaiging for pensions www.visteonoccupation.org.uk
Comment by fatbongo — 11 May, 2009 @ 2:07 am
Visteon workers fought hard and long. They refused to take closure lying down. They occupied and were/are a beacon and an inspiration. They received unstinting support at every level from their union in all sorts of public and less than public ways and one General Secretary flew to New York with a Convenor to press Visteon, the other repeatedly met Ford and Visteon to pile on the workers pressure. And a substantial victory was won: originally they were not even to be paid the previous weeks pay, let alone redundancy because the comapany was in Administration.
The result for those pre-2000 employees originally on Ford terms(the bulk): 1. Statutory terms including shift premiums without a cap,
2. Pay in lieu of notice up to 12 weeks plus 52 weeks salary including shift premium,
3. 52 weeks pay including shift premium
4. Gross Annual Holiday Pay;
And all subjected to the 5.25% increase won at Ford.
The shortest service people with less than three year’s service who were never on Ford terms still get an uplift of 26 weeks pay.
So a thirty year service person aged 55 gets around 100 weeks money - perhaps £60,000. Pensions are still not sorted and are still under discussion.
Has everything been won - No. Have the jobs been saved - No. But did the Visteon workers win a great victory, and a victory for militant action and a fighting trade unionism -emphatically Yes - Shout it from the rooftops and encourage others - when you fight you can win.
Comment by Steve — 11 May, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
#15
Very good points Steve, thanks for clarifying all that.
One of the most remarkable aspects of both the Lindsey and Visteon disputes is how supportive officials were, from all the unions involved, indeed going beyond the strict bounds of the law.
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 May, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
well said steve.
Comment by matt willgress — 11 May, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
Good debate
Good campaign
Comment by Tim — 12 May, 2009 @ 11:32 pm