VISTEON – UNITE DID WELL AT EVERY LEVEL
You will recall an earlier article on the Visteon dispute, where I criticised those who are seeking to minimise the scale of the victory.
Liam Mac Uaid has since published a reply by John McNulty to this, as follows:
One left critic of my article illustrated this perfectly, falsely claiming that my view was that only the full restoration of jobs would have counted as victory and arguing that, because police and courts had forced workers out of the English factories, a deal had to be struck before bargaining chips slipped from the workers hands. But this is a wild distortion. There are plenty of workers available to testify that they were not forced from the factories by police, but coaxed out by the union bureaucracy. So the steely negotiators determining the best moment to strike a deal are also those removing cards from the workers hands!
It is of course the case that a battle can end without meeting its objectives but can generate a strategic advantage. In order to establish this it is necessary to look at the nature of the employers attack.
In the Visteon struggle Ford used shell companies, creative accounting and specialist administrations who more and more use the shock tactic of instant dismissal to force workers out.
All of these remain intact. Even when the ‘bankrupt’ Visteon came up with severance pay no questions were asked. Both the unions and the local political parties remain committed to sweetheart deals with the transnationals
The other direction in which gains might have been made is in the development of broader forms of organization able to force back these kinds of attacks in the future. Unfortunately the Visteon struggle remained in-house, with offers of support from local NUJ and INTO activists not taken up and official demonstrations almost comic in their insincerity and ineffectiveness.
Now it is worth quoting how amazingly anti-trade union original article by John McNulty was, and which Liam said “accurately reflects the real outcome of the strike”
The article argued that:
“‘Visteon Victory’ means something different to workers. It means that organisations like the UNITE bureaucracy … cannot possibly be considered as useful aids in the battle against capitalism and must be removed from the field of play if workers are to have a fighting chance.”
And
“the union admitted that the workers had lost their pension rights and said that they would revisit this issue. Almost 600 jobs were lost at Visteon’s three plants in Belfast, Basildon and Enfield, with staff being given less than an hour’s notice. At the end of a 34-day occupation the job loss stands, as does the loss of pension rights that the workers contributed to. If the union leadership consider this a victory what would defeat look like? ”
So the article described the deal in terms akin to being a defeat, and said that workers would be better of without the unions, and that the UNITE “bureaucracy” should be swept from “the field of battle”.
Ok, so let us revisit this.
What was the original position? The workers were given an hour’s notice, and told they would not even get the previous week’s pay, as the company were in administration. At the end of the dispute, even workers with less than three years who had never worked directly for Ford service got 26 weeks pay, and some long term workers got up to a £60000 payout.
The pension issue remains unresolved, and is the type of question where legal action is likely to be fruitful, as there are contractual obligations involved, that the company seems to have reneged upon.
Now, UNITE gave assistance at every level, including behind the scenes, and working to get favourable press coverage; both General Secretaries were involved in negotiating with Ford and Visteon, including flying a General Secretary and a convenor to New York for talks.
Without UNITE being able to leverage its influence as a big national union there would have been no possibility of the high level talks with Ford that resulted in the deal; and had the union not shown that level of commitment to the workers, then the morale of the workforce would not have sustained a long term struggle. Without UNITE, the workforce would not have been able to get a deal; and without the big umbrella of the union to protect them, Visteon managers would have been able to crush the workplace leaders in the courts.
So what of the union advising workers to discontinue the occupations? This reminds me of a speech by Bob Crow at the National Shop Stewards Network conference two years ago. Bob had taken some stick for the RMT officially repudiating some unofficial action on the tubes. He was forthright in response, he said he saw nothing wrong with unofficial action, but if you start an unofficial dispute you have to be able to go on and win it as an unofficial dispute. The anti-trade union laws means that the unions need to be very circumspect about being seem to endorse unofficial or illegal acts.
Visteon was an inspiring and inspirational action, but that militancy was a delicate flame in a storm. The union was right to nurture and encourage the dispute, but it was never going to spread like a forest fire and overturn the whole culture of timidity and lack of workplace organisation. Even my own limited involvement representing workers in individual redundancy consultations and appeals at a Honda components factory informs me that the mood at Visteon was exceptional, and in the main workers in the car industry are not confident nor combative over redundancies. Putting the UNITE union into direct challenge to the authority of the courts was not a realistic option, and would not have been either strategiclaly or tactically wise or justified.
So what about the gains that McNulty thinks the workforce should have held out for – to stop Ford using shell companies; and to build lasting forms of trade union organisation.
Well, I am sorry but that is not how trade unions work. The workforce of three small components factories in the UK were not going to overturn the entire business structure of a major multinational, and McNulty’s idea that the workers should have turned down a great severance package in order to take on Fords over their company organisational structure is utopian.
McNulty also says that he was not arguing keeping their jobs was the only result he would have considered a victory; but that is incompatible with saying that the Visteon workers should have fought for “development of broader forms of organization able to force back these kinds of attacks in the future”. But if they lost their own jobs, they wouldn’t have any organisation! Never have I known of workers being prepared to turn down a good deal, in order to pursue the abstract concept of “better organisation” for other workers in other workplaces. And certainly some on the left think that UNITE failed in not keeping the plants open, the SWP rather unrealistically claiming that:
The jobs could have been saved. The Occupations, pickets and solidarity forced Ford to the negotiating table. Had Unite the union supported calls for workers to black parts and stop production throughout the Ford group, the outcome and result would have been far better, including the plant being re opened.
There is one thing I agree with McNulty over, he concludes:
“The sorts of attacks represented by Visteon will become more and more common. The pressure on workers to defend themselves will become more intense. That’s why it is so essential that questions of victory and defeat are dealt with fully and honestly.”
Indeed, so when the unions win a clear and brilliant victory, then we should say so, and not minimise what was gained, and we need to avoid ridiculous anti-trade union rhetoric like
“organisations like the UNITE bureaucracy … cannot possibly be considered as useful aids in the battle against capitalism and must be removed from the field of play if workers are to have a fighting chance.”
Andy, without necessariy endorsing everything Liam says, if you think that the Unite leadership are up to the task, and capable of leading struggles effectively to win the maximum gains possible, why did you support Jerry Hick’s challenge to Simpson?
The fact taht some support from the General Secretaries and other levels of the bureaucracy has been forthcoming in the Visteon struggle is direct result of the pressure created by Jerry’s campaign and the action of the Lindsey and other construction workers in defying the stategy of leadersip (as did the Visteon workers by occupying in the first place), this show we need to redouble, not abandon, the struggle to reclaim the unions.
More urgently, something I hope was can all agree on, can you please give publicity to this urgent financial appeal from the Linamar workers?
Swansea Linamar Plant Shop Stewards Committee
Unite the Union (ex-Fords / Visteon)
Appeal Letter
Our Plant Convenor, Rob Williams was sacked by Linamar management on May 7th. This is blatant victimisation for Rob’s record as a union representative prepared to defend his members against job losses and attacks on their terms & conditions.
Management have now announced their intention to renege on agreements made when they acquired the Plant from Visteon last July and look to break our members’ contracts, including pension entitlements. They see the sacking of Rob as a means to break the union and the will of the workforce in the face of these attacks.
This sacking is a warning to the rest of the union movement in the midst of the worst recession in 60 years. Much bigger companies will be looking at the response of the union to this move as they too look to make workers pay for their crisis.
Unite members in the Swansea Plant are balloting for strike action to force management to reinstate Rob. We are appealing to the trade union movement to contribute to our hardship fund as our members move into struggle.
Make cheques payable to ‘TGWU branch 4/1’ – c/o 31, Waun Wen Terrace, Swansea SA1 1DX or pay into Unity Trust Bank - sort code 086001 account number 20055051
For more information – phone Rob on 07816134690
or email robbo@redwills.freeserve.co.uk
Comment by paulm — 13 May, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Paul
There clearly remian problems, and Jerry Hicks would have been the better General Secretary, which si why I backed him.
But the fact that we would prefer left leaders, and that there is still a lot of work to be done in making rhe unions more effective organisations doesn’t mean that we should indulge in slagging off the unions leaders when they do actually deliver.
The victory at Visteon was provided by the determiniation and courage of the workforce themselves, but the union did help turn this into actual gains from Ford.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 May, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
I think it needs to be pointed out that the article Andy is responding to above was not written by Liam, but by John McAnulty.
Comment by Ciarán — 13 May, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
So the article described the deal in terms akin to being a defeat, and said that workers would be better of without the unions
No, it said they would be better off without the bureaucracy.
both General Secretaries were involved in negotiating with Ford and Visteon, including flying a General Secretary and a convenor to New York for talks.
Whatever the convenor was flown to New York for, he did not participate in the talks. The union successfully kept workers out of talks with the company, just like it tried to do at Lindsey. Do you condone this?
and had the union not shown that level of commitment to the workers, then the morale of the workforce would not have sustained a long term struggle.
So you haven’t spoken to any of the workers about how they feel about the union? In any case, it wasn’t the union tops that won, it was the Bridgend Ford Fleet making clear they would not cross a picket line. The power of the workers consisted in their solidarity with other workers; the threat of illegal, secondary action. That power was not utilised to the full; therefore it is reasonable to expect that more could have been won. The pensions, yes, and what about the shift allowance?
The pension issue remains unresolved, and is the type of question where legal action is likely to be fruitful, as there are contractual obligations involved, that the company seems to have reneged upon.
I’m moderately familiar with employment law, and this sounds like nonsense to me. It’s the same legal difficulty as that involved in getting a holding group to take any legal responsibility for the employees of its subsidiaries. I’ve had an opinion on a similar case before, and it was not positive. If you can find a lawyer willing to put an opinion to the contrary in writing, I’ll believe you, until then… I won’t.
So what of the union advising workers to discontinue the occupations? … The anti-trade union laws means that the unions need to be very circumspect about being seem to endorse unofficial or illegal acts.
What of it? They gave false advice. They didn’t say “we think you should leave”, and then leave it at that. They gave dire, hyperbolic warnings of the likely consequences of staying including riot police storming the building and criminal convictions which were totally false and which workers now recognise as such. The question is not “did the union have to issue an official request to leave”, but “why did they lie to their members?” Furthermore, if they weren’t going to support it, why on earth did they take the ridiculous step of standing in front of a judge and appearing to take legal responsibility for it? They didn’t have to do that at all…
More details here:
http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/the-struggle-at-visteon-the-union-and-the-development-of-class-consciousness/
Comment by communard — 13 May, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
#4 how silly all that is.
A union with “bureaucracy”, a union without officials, without office staff, and union iwthout a bank account, a union without access to legal council.
If you are advocating everyone that leaves their real unions and joins the IWW, then say so. Even the IWW doesn’t say that and recognoises their limitaions, and encourages dual membership with proper unions.
” you haven’t spoken to any of the workers about how they feel about the union?”
So you are encouraging anti-trad eunion feeling among workers who woon a victory?
The fact that there was solidarity action promised doesn’t alter the situatioon at all, this dispute as finely balannced to get the most out of Ford while the pressure was growing. Once a good deal was offered, then it was sensible for the workforce to cash in their advantage, rather than hazzard an escalatioon.
Especially as the outstanding pension issue did not affect all workers.
With regard to the legal situation, if there is an aruable case then a collective greivance can be raised, and even if the legal case is not the strongest the company may settle a compromise rathert than have a long bdrawn out dispute, especially as they will be insured and the insurers will be looking possibly to settle to trade off reduced legal costs against the amount they end up paying out. Ii don’t now the details, but I would be suprised if the union had no tricks up their sleeve with this one.
And surely, the union did have to take resposnsibility for the action and occupation, otherwise they couldn’t have offered support to the workers involved. The courts would have sequestrated them sooner than you could say NUM if they had acted in support of an occupation without taking some legal precautions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 May, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Two minor corrections.
I didn’t link to the original article apart from the link on the second line.
The piece is written by John Mc Anulty not me. The clue there is the third line which says “John replies to some of the points here.”
Comment by Liam — 13 May, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Sorry Liam, I didn’t notive that little box at the top of your article.
It doesn’t alter the political points I am making, but I apologise that I have misrepresented your position, I will alter the original article.
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 May, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
A union is not simply comprised of officials and bank accounts. criticism of officials is not ‘anti-union’.
Comment by johng — 13 May, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
#8 John
That is uncontroversial, but what would a union without a “bureacracy” look like?
Criticsm of officials is differrent from saying that the entire institutional structure of a major union shoudl be swept from “the field of battle”
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 May, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
What would a union without a bureaucracy look like?
A damn site healthier.
I spoke to one of the Belfast stewards who opposed the deal. He explained that the national leadership had put them in a position where they had no real ability to oppose it and put the case that they fight for jobs not compensation.
What made Ford move at all was the threat of unofficial strike action against the Fiesta plant at Bridgend. This pushed Ford to negotiate with Woodley (who flies around in the Ford Co. private jet) who then stitched up a deal.
That’s what the bureaucracy does sells jobs so it can fly around in a private jet.
Even the US Congress objects to that.
Comment by bill j — 13 May, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
9# Exactly andy,
I would love to know how these people who are moaning about the bureaucracy would run a union.
presumably union rank and file will autonomously go on an unlimited strike…forever…. and then Captalism will be destroyed….somehow.
get a grip
Comment by YCLer — 13 May, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
a deliberate confusing of the political term ‘bureacracy’ with the normal usage is a bit silly Andy1 I would expect even you to know the difference.
Of course thier would be requirements for support workers and infrastructure in any umion, the point is that the union is not run in the interests of preserving this infrastructure but its members.
even you can see the difference surely?
Comment by non-partisan — 14 May, 2009 @ 10:56 am
non-partisan
What you mean by “the political term ,bureaucracy’ “, is an ideological construct that obscures rather than clarifies what happens in actual unions, based upon cod sociology, and self-serving delusion.
Given that you acceot that the professional infrastraucture is required, and needs to be managed, and given that all unions activists, including those lay actvists not employed by the union, see the need of preserving the long term stability of the union, then that political clarity is brought by using the term “bureaucracy”
Do you mean the present incumbents in those positions, or do you mean their social role in the unions?
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Take what you’re given and be grateful
Andy Ewman distorts the discussion with dishonesty. He claims that the threats of courts, police and bailiffs, were what ended the English Visteon occupations. When I point out that it was the bureaucracy who ended the occupation he immediately changes tack: “So what of the union advising workers to discontinue the occupations? “ Having conceded the bureaucracy’s role he then amends his definition of victory. In his first post it was the gain in morale and the network of support that will encourage further workers action. Now that he has conceded that the only force still standing after the jobs were lost and the campaigns wound down is the bureaucracy itself that argument falls flat. The settlement becomes a victory in itself and his tone becomes bombastic : “some long term workers got up to a £60000 payout” . Just what do these people want? We negotiated our fingers to the bone and a few got 2 years severance pay.
Instead of correction or retreat we get more slurs. He claims that my position is that “workers would be better of without the unions”. “McNulty’s (he can’t get my name right) idea that the workers should have turned down a great severance package in order to take on Fords over their company organisational structure is utopian”.
For the record I do not believe that workers would be better off without unions. I hold to the completely unremarkable Marxist idea that the union bureaucracy has interests as a bureaucracy that are frequency at variance with those of the workers and the greater the self-organisation of the workers and the more they seize democratic control of the unions the better their interests will be represented. I did not suggest anywhere that the workers should have turned down a severance pay in order to take on Fords. As anyone can see by reading the original piece at: http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentAVisteonVictory.html I was arguing that the wider the demands and the broader the struggle the greater the gains at the end. It is only in the eyes of the bureaucracy and their sycophants that a broader struggle and gains for the workers are in contradiction.
What Andy’s comments make clear is that the division between us is ideological. He believes that the workers must support the bureaucrats. I believe that the union must support the workers. The fact that Andy comments patronisingly about workers getting 26 weeks severance pay fills me with rage. The only person who has the right to call that a good deal is the person who ended up with the payment. In fact Ewman’s comments abound with all the sins of the bureaucracy, conservatism about what can be achieved, the union stands above the workers, solutions are long-term and reformist involving a friendly government that will use the law in the workers interest, the workers are patronised and, when not suitably grateful, the tone becomes hostile.
Ewman quotes Bob Crowe: “he saw nothing wrong with unofficial action, but if you start an unofficial dispute you have to be able to go on and win it as an unofficial dispute. The anti-trade union laws mean that the unions need to be very circumspect about being seen to endorse unofficial or illegal acts”. So we get to the nub of the matter. We have an unrestrained attack on workers. The workers react in the only way that could offer them any protection. The action remains unofficial for the duration of the dispute – the negotiations, and the settlement are conducted primarily to protect the bureaucracy rather than widen the struggle and it is followed by endless bombast – in part because the bureaucrats have surprised themselves by getting any kind of settlement.
By the way Andy, my name is John McAnulty. It represents many generations of very stubborn people who refused to allow their name to be anglicised. I would be grateful if you would get it right.
Comment by John McAnulty — 14 May, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Well I am sory I missplled you name, but the rest of your argument here is just self-delusional trotskyite bombast, isn’t it?
Your argument is completly lacking in nuance or subtlety.
The trade union mediated the legal, politial and economic context, but it doesn’t create that context.
The courts, bailliffs, police and property laws stand in the way of workers occupying a factory, and the anti-trade union laws condition the likely respnse of the trade union. So of course the advice of the union is given cognsicent of that context, and what the likely outcomes will be.
Now for sure, laws can be changed by people acting outside of them, but we have to judge that in tersm of the political situation, and the lack of a prevailing national-popular mood that alterantive economic models are indeed possible. The relatively small scale occupations of three car compainents factories involving 600 workers were not able to overturn the general political context, and the lack of a popularly supported ideological alternative to letting bankrupt firms go to the wall. Visteon was very impressive, but they did not have the social, economic and political weight of Upper Clyde Shipbuilers.
It wasn’t possible to force government action to keep the factories open, becasue the political mood for that is not there yet; and Ford were never going to buckle on that. Don’t overestimate the hand of the workforce here, with much of the UK car indusry on shut down, Fords wouldn’t have exactly been desperately worried about the strike spreading. Fighting over an issue that you can acheive is an importnat tactical onsideration
It seems that you are reckless as to whether or not the workforce could have lost everything by continuing the dispute, rather than cashing what had been gained. Your contempt for the actual dynamic of trade union struggle, and the intersts of trade union members is shown by this argument:
“the negotiations, and the settlement are conducted primarily to protect the bureaucracy rather than widen the struggle”
It is not the task of trade unions to “widen the struggle” it is the task of trade unions to win industrial disputes in the interests of their members. There is an elememt of risk managemnt involved, and there is also the need to recognise the uneveness of commitment and militancy of the membership.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Or rather its the task of trade union bureaucracy to narrow the struggle. And its the task of Andy Newman to defend them. And you’re ignorant. There’s a 12 week wait for Fiestas - made at Bridgend where the Visteon workers proposed their picket.
Three out of three.
Comment by bill j — 14 May, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Bill
There is a wiating period for all new cars. That is the way the industry works now. Generally, I should think the car bosses would be more sanguine about a strrike now than they usually are.
There are two issues to consider:
i) would a strike really have spread to Ford, given the Ford workforces own uncertainty abut their jobs
ii) even if the Fords workforce were prepared to strike over the injsutice of the Visteon workers not getting their reducndacy pakcage, would they have been prepared to strike for the more nebulous demands of saving the factories - in the absence of the political cntext of people believing that is posssible
I am sure it is very reassuring to live in your self-righteous bubble where you are sure that the unions officials are pantomime villans, and every deal is a sell-out. But I see no evidence that there is the mood to fight that you outline
At our branch committee last night we heard of a food factory voting to acceot 0% pay deal, against the advice of the union. RMT saw staff at South West trains vote against strike action, even though RMT were strongly recommending action. The recession has knocked people’s willingness to strike, there is not doubt of that.
To gamble the good redundancy deal that the Visteon wrkers got on such an uncertainty would be reckless. SAnd yes JOhn, 26 weeks is a good deal, a lot of workers are getting ust statuatory redundnacy pay at the moment, and Vistein is an inspiration that more can be won by militancy.
But for intervetnion ot keep the plant open would requite a widespread political bellief that social ownership is feasible, and currently that case has not been won.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
It’s curious how, whenever Andy is backed into a corner, he starts yelling “trotskyite” or “trot-addled” or some such stuff. I guess that’s what Eurocomm trash considers name-calling.
Comment by christian h. — 14 May, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
#18
Actually Christian, it has become the insult of choice in the movement nowadays for anyone with unrealistic expectations, I get called a trot myself.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
On a more serious note, I would have thought it is entirely possible that this was neither a “sell-out” nor a “total complete bestest victory ever”. In fact I thought that what people were arguing was that it was, yes, a brilliant victory, but that more could have been achieved.
Andy’s defeatism as regards the working class is his defining political trait; it’s why he embraces Labour, why he considers getting severance pay the best result one could possibly imagine, etc.
Comment by christian h. — 14 May, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Christian,
Some more sensible people are arguing that more could have been acheived. That is a deabatlable point.
What JOhn McAnulty described its as was:
“If the union leadership consider this a victory what would defeat look like? ”
i.e. tantamount to a defeat.
Normally, i woouldn’t care what McAnaulty argues, but the argument was reproduced on a website associated with Respect.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Andy (19.) makes my point: “unrealistic expectations”. I don’t find it in the least insulting if somebody says I have “unrealistic expectations”. In the end, it’s about shifting what “realistic expectations” are.
Comment by christian h. — 14 May, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
John McAnulty replies with the view “What Andy’s comments make clear is that the division between us is ideological. He believes that the workers must support the bureaucrats. I believe that the union must support the workers.”
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/take-what-youre-given-and-be-grateful/
Comment by Liam — 14 May, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Andy, I agree that the Visteon workers have won a victory; measuring everything by an all-or-nothing stick is nonsense. Still, the title of your post didn’t say “UNITE did well, on balance” - it was much stronger than that (similarly with the previous one on the topic).
Comment by christian h. — 14 May, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
#23
JOhn McAnulty: “I believe that the union must support the workers.””
well what an amazingly controversial view!
this is a ludicroulsy simplistic counterposition, because I also believe that the union must support the workers. And John trying to paint himself prolier than thou is a cheap debating trick.
The fact that greater militancy can change the envelope of what is possible doesn’t mean that everything becomes possible, nor that escalation itself is possible in the prevailing political climate.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
“Andy’s defeatism as regards the working class is his defining political trait; it’s why he embraces Labour, why he considers getting severance pay the best result one could possibly imagine, etc.”
Interesting that what any normal person would read as pessimism, you read as defeatism. Andy clearly doesn’t have much confidence at the moment, but isn’t that a matter for debate rather than ridicule?
You’ve caricatured Andy’s point into “he considers getting severance pay the best result one could possibly imagine”.
Either you haven’t read what Andy says, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting him.
Why argue so dishonestly?
As it happens, I disagree with Andy’s pessimism. But it’s pessimism that’s rooted in the real world, and as such should be debated on its own terms.
Comment by external bulletin — 14 May, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Can anyone please translate what EB is saying? It makes no sense whatsoever. I am not ‘ridiculing’ Andy’s position; I am describing it, accurately, as defeatist, as in: predicting that a fight is inevitably headed for defeat and therefore not worth fighting. I’m perfectly happy to call it “pessimistic” if that’s what the language police prefers, however.
Andy has made quite clear that he considers what was achieved at Visteon the best possible outcome under the circumstances. I guess in the eyes of EB, correctly stating that this is Andy’s position amounts to being “dishonest”. Ironically, I happen to think Andy is likely correct that there was no chance to save the Visteon jobs at this point. I just happen to disagree with the conclusions he draws about what to fight for - because, get this, they are defeatist. Sorry, I meant “pessimistic”.
Comment by christian h. — 14 May, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Well, this is a bit ridiculous now.
I am neither “defeatist” nor “pessimistic”, i am just making an assessment of where we are, and what conclusions we should draw from recent disputes.
It is hugely encouraging that around Lindsey, Prisme and Visteon, there was imaginative and militant action, and solidarity, and confident networkng by grass roots activists.
But if we also want to understand the current situation and make a nuanced tactical appraisall, we also need to look at the quite supportive role of both the UNITE and GMB officers at national and local level. Compare this with how the union leaderships would have responded to occupations and wildcat strikes back in the era of Sir Ken jackson, Bill Jordan, Eric hammond, Sid Weighal, et al.
By and large, what you call the “bureaucracy” has not stood in the way, and we have seen clear evidence of behind the scenes encouragement of militancy and escalation outwith the law by the officials.
This is in the context of a generally subdued mood and lack of confidence among members, partly due to the recession, partly due to atrophied shop floor organisation.
It was one thing for syndicalists like Tom Mann to berate the “bureacracy” back in the great unrest around 1910 for holding things back when there actually was an explosion of workplace militancy; it was reasonable for shop stewards in the 1970s to think they coudl get more sometimes without the officials.
it is idiocy to think these are the current prevailing conditions.
And in the case of Visteon, a good result was acheived, it was accepted by the workforce, and there was no “sell out”. the union did good.
That is why some idiotic Numpty from Ireland saying it is tantamount to a defeat, and the workers need to sweep the UNITE bureacracy from “the field of battle” is joining the anti-trade union choris, especially when he gets on his high horse wbout how furious he is when he hears 26 weeks pay described as a good deal. That is considerable more than the statutory redundnacy that most workers are getting in the recession, and was worth fightinfg for, and celebrating. Especillay as that was the lowest payout!
And it is simply offensive for this guy to get on his high horse and argue that only he, and others who think this is a near defeat care about workers and trade union members.
In many workplaces the unions at the moment are holding a rearguard action negotiating to save jobs,. and often temporarily trading away bonuses and pay to acheive that. Sometimes the mangagment are genuinely on the verge of bankrupcy, sometime more could be acheived perhaps but there is absolutely no mood to fight, even though the unions are recommending rejection, and offering leadership.
In that context the ones on the shop floor moaning that the unions are useless, like John McAnulty does, and that it is all the fault of the officialls (and often the fault of the stewards as well) are objectively anti trade union.
I don’t know what union or what workplace you are in if that is not your experience. But it is what i am hearing from all around.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 May, 2009 @ 8:30 pm