UCATT - VOTE MICHAEL DOOLEY FOR GENERAL SECRETARY
Bizarely Today’s Morning Star has published a long puff piece by Alan Ritchie, the incumbent General Secretary of UCATT. Ostensibly this article is about the serious problem of blacklisting in the industry, but Ritchie’s own priorities are clear, because he spends nearly half the article attacking other members of his own union; and we must remember that Ritchie is currently being challenged in an election for the General Secretary job by Michael Dooley (also known as Mick Dooley)
Ritchie is making a great deal of his claim that he has personally been blacklisted. But the blacklist was drawn up by construction industry employers to block employment of building site militants. Let us be clear about this. Ritchie has NEVER worked on a building site, and has NEVER worked for an employer in the construction industry. Ritchie is a carpenter by trade, but he worked in the ship building industry for Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS), and he has been a full time employee of UCATT since 1983. So it is at least twenty six years since he has been on the tools, maybe longer as he could have been on full time release as a senior steward before that; and he was in the very different environment of working for a big engineering company, with a stable workforce and established trade union organisation. A far cry from the Wild-West reality of today’s construction industry, with dodgy health and safety, shaky trade union organisation, and half the workforce in bogus self-employed status, with no holiday or sick pay.
Indeed, if Ritchie has become known to construction industry employers it has been as a full time officer of UCATT, not because of any shop floor militancy on his part. I understand that since he became General Secretary of UCATT the union has not conducted a single industrial dispute, so I don’t think the hard nosed bosses of the building trade see him as exactly a wildcat militant, more a pussy cat..
The issue of blacklisting is a serious one, and it is welcome news that legislation is planned to outlaw it, and that both UCATT and individual workers are suing firms that have discriminated against them. But Ritchie talking up the issue at the moment is much more to do with the election than building the union. Indeed it runs the danger of scaring people away from becoming activists.
The answer to the blacklist is for there to be strong, combative organisation on the sites, with a professional trade union to back up the shop stewards and convenors. This needs to be based upon an organising model of lay activists and workplace reps organising themselves backed up by the union’s officials, rather than a service model of full time officers substituting themselves for lack of site organisation, running around doing case work, and lobbying MPs.
If UCATT continues on its current course under Alan Ritchie, the union will become more and more irrelevant. And workers only join unions that are relevant to their day to day lives. The members of UCATT have a stark choice, the ballot papers went out last Friday, and if they want the union to continue to decline they can vote for Alan Ritchie; if they want to try to turn the union around and make UCATT into a union that will really stand up to bosses in the industry, they can vote for Michael Dooley, who supports the ideas set out on the Builders United web-site.
From what I recall from time spent working on sites, a piece in the Morning Star is unlikely to have a huge effect on the results of the UCATT Gen Sec election.
Having said that, if membership really is only about 58,000 as that website claims, and assuming a turnout of about 10% as seems to be normal for union postal elections, every vote really will count.
Comment by Rory — 18 May, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Indeed, Mick Dooley has done quite well by getting in the trade press:
Contract journal: http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/05/06/67463/mcalpine-faces-blacklist-action.html
Silobreaker: http://www.silobreaker.com/mcalpine-faces-blacklist-action-5_2262298747423686665
and
Heating and Ventilation: http://www.heatingandventilating.net/news/news.asp?id=6286
These are read by builders because they have news of upcoming projects and jobs.
It is more a question of why the Morning Star is puffing Ritchie?? and this does have a subtle effect, I also see that the LCDTU is backing Ritchie, and their newsletter will have gone to UCATT branches.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
It’s clear from contributions so far that some comrades are not clear about the way in which a daily national paper, with a broad base of substantial support in the trade union movement, needs to operate. Unless it wants to turn into a narrow, sectarian paper, that is.
A shoal of letters have been published in the Morning Star recently, disputing the claim that Ritchie has appeared on an employers blacklist.
Ritchie has obviously demanded a right of reply - the kind of democratic right we demand for the left and the trade union movement when we are attacked by the bourgeois press.
I remember John Monks and others successfully doing likewise from the Star in the past.
As a forum for the labour movement which carries a wide range of views in its features and letters, the fact that the Star publishes something does not mean that it reflects the editorial line of the paper. Unlike the position in other left-wing papers, where little or nothing is published - even in the news stories - which does not reflect the party line.
It would seem that Ritchie’s name did indeed appear on the recently uncovered blacklist. There’s nothing “bizarre” that he has now been given speace to defend himself, while also setting the whole issue in wider context.
The Star has recently carried news, features and letters which reflect favourably on Mick Dooley and his supporters. Intermittent, second-hand readers of the paper may not be aware of this.
Mick is a long-standing and staunch supporter of the Morning Star, and I am sure he understands its role as a paper of the broad left and the labour movement, while its editorial positions usually reflect the programme of the Communist Party.
Comment by Daily reader — 18 May, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
By the way, positions taken by the LCDTU (Liaison Committee of the Defence of Trade Unions) do not necessarily reflect the line of the CP as they once did. Former CP industrial organiser Kevin Halpin withdrew publicly from the leadership of that organisation some years ago, when it took a turn to the right on a number of key issues. It may have moved back a bit towards the left since then, but the CP is far more involved in the work of the United Campaign for the Repeal of Anti-Trade Union Laws and the Institute of Employment Rights.
Comment by Daily reader — 18 May, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Daily Reader
Thanks for the clarification, particularly over the LCDTU.
It doesn’t explain why Alan Ritchie’s name and picture was prominently on the front cover of the Star with a big banner headline saying “Shame on the Blacklisting”. This is the bit I found bizarre. That is going a bit further than giving him “a right to reply”.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Incidently, I am well aware of the coverage in the Star that has sympathetically mentioned MIck Dooley in the context of his court action, and the letters critical of Ritchie. I do buy and read the paper every day.
And I do appreciate the difficult balancing act of not being too partisan, in order to represent the breadth of opinion in the movement, particlary difficult when the incumbent of a position is under threat.
But I still think that the front page banner given to Alan Ritchie in the full flow of an election comes over as a plug for him.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Your points are appreciated Andy - and I was not having a dig at you about not being a daily reader.
You will have seen from today’s paper that a huge power cut made production very difficult. Ritchie’s appears to be the only feature that made it into a much shorter edition than usual - leaving very little choice about what to put on the banner.
I write this as a supporter of Ritchie, personally, but also as someone who - I think - understands how sometimes there may be politically less to something in the Morning Star than meets the eye.
This might run counter to the reputation of those wicked Stalinists for fixing everything to the last calculating detail - but sometimes, it just ain’t so.
Comment by Daily reader — 18 May, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
#7
Fair enough, and I must admit that my reason for hanging an article around the Morning Star piece was just a pretext giving me another opportunity to plug Mick Dooley’s candidacy. As such my comments about the Morning Star are really only in passing.
I do apprececaite you point about not over analysing the content of the Star, I suffer from the same problem myself when people assume that everythig written on SU website refellcts my own views. Often quite the contrary, but I value the idea of letting different sides of the debate be expressed.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
go for Alan Ritchie when the election comes plug for him. not the man from the tgwu, Dooley {only five years in ucatt} 15 in tgwu not the man for the job
Comment by ucatt member — 18 May, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Is this really the best that Ritchie’s supporters can do? Allege that Dooley used to be in a different trade union? WOW. Who cares? Honestly?
Comment by bored of this now — 18 May, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
#9 Hang on. You claim that Dooley has only been in UCATT for five years?
But he stood for UCATT General Secretary in 2004, and that was five years ago.
Dooley has a very good record as a militant on the sites, and as I understand it has had to use asssumed names to get past the blacklist, including being a member of different trade unions.
Nobody is impressed by the argument that someone used to be in the TGWU.
I personally have never been in TGWU, but i have been in NUPE (now UNISON), HBSSA (now Accord), APEX (Now GMB), MSF (now UNITE/Amicus), and GMB - because I have changed union as I have changed employment, it doesn’t matter too anyone what union you are in, what matters is the record of what you have done in those unions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
#7: Daily Reader:
I gather from your posts that you are a supporter of the CPB. At least I don’t think that’s a rash conclusion to draw about someone who primarily identifies themselves by reference to the Morning Star and who seems to know a lot about the ins and outs of CPB involvement in the LCDTU and the like.
Why then are you (”personally”) supporting one of the least left wing bureaucrats in the entire movement in this election?
Comment by Irish Mark P — 18 May, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Wierd isn’t it Irish Mark P? They also backed Derek Simpson for amicus GS and Dave Prentis for unison GS and now they’re whining because those two are blocking the People’s Charter
Comment by Anonymous — 18 May, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
I think the scientific term for it is “arselicking”
Comment by Anonymous — 18 May, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
#12
I could point out though that the Morning Star has reported Mick Dooley’s challenge for t general Secretary, and reported his legal action over the blacklist against Sir Robert mcAlpine’s.
the Star also carried several letters recently from Dolley’s supporters.
Whereas in you paper, “the socislist”? And no mention of supportiing Dooley on the SP’s web-site?
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Andy:
I have no idea what the Socialist Party’s position on the UCATT general election is, although I think you can take it for granted that they won’t be supporting Ritchie. The Socialist has a lot less space than a daily, so it doesn’t cover every union election (particularly in smaller unions) in detail. What precisely this has to do with my straightforward question to the CPB supporter who is openly supporting Ritchie, I’m not sure.
I know that you’ve gone all soft and fuzzy about that particular bunch of Stalinist pensioners, but surely even you are curious about why “communists” are posting in support of Ritchie?
Even by the dismal standards of the CPB and its attempts to cultivate links with various bureaucrats, that’s a bit peculiar isn’t it? I mean, to some Tankie junior union official (unelected of course) supporting the likes of Derek Simpson probably makes a certain amount of sense - perhaps in career terms, or as a way to get a little bit more cash for the Morning Star. But why Ritchie?
Comment by Irish Mark P — 18 May, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
So why did the Star support Simpson and Prentis and then complain in a recent article(it was put up on this site I think)about leaders of the biggest unions trying to block the people’s charter? Who are the leaders of the biggest unions again?
Comment by Anonymous — 18 May, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
The Communist Party does not worship the Stalin personality cult Mark and the “tankie” phrase is meaningless.
The Morning Star’s leadership is certainly not beyond criticism, but the paper remains an enormous asset for the working-class movement.
It’s the only daily paper that supports No2EU for example.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 May, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Unfortunately for the trots, as Andy Newman says, Mick Dooley is a big supporter of the Morning Star. Clearly Mick and Alan Ritchie see its value. Mick has had coverage and a number of letters in support and I’m sure there will be more to come.
Comment by Star Supporter — 18 May, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
#16
Mark
I am mystified by the rudeness of Sp members.
If you see NO2EU as a step towards some sort of futre cooperation, then why are you so incredibly rude about your allies in the same project?
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Star supporter, it’s equally unhelpful if we resort to phrases like “trots.” Why not just argue over the relative merits of the two candidates?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 May, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
Incidently, while we are talking about an equalities agenda, this comment from mark P descibing people as a “bunch of Stalinist pensioners” would certainly result in a formal rebuke in my trade union, for age prejudice.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 May, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Fair point Andy, although to be fair, I can’t imagine any other environment in which I could be referred to as “a young hot-head.”
Comment by Karl Stewart — 18 May, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
#19 and #21: The term “Trotskyite” meant something when Trotsky was keeping Marxism alive in opposition to Stalin’s bureaucratic hogwash. But now that the USSR has gone, the term has lost its usefulness. Surely we can just say “Marxist”?
Comment by little black sister — 18 May, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
About “rudeness”, Andy, in a context where CPB supporters have been involved in witchhunting Socialist Party members in the union movement I’m not really particularly concerned with whether or not I hurt their feelings.
I’m willing to work with people I don’t like, and more importantly people I disagree with politically, where principled alliances can be formed around set goals. That doesn’t mean that I have to bury my views about, for instance, the reprehensible role that CPB supporters can play in some unions.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 18 May, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Mark: An individual CPB member is involved in witch hunting the SP members in Unison. Kevin Nelson will get his come-uppance soon enough just like Reamsbottom and his cabal of right wingers did in the PCS when he thought he could take on the SP and get away scot free. (For sure the CPB could do more to distance itself from Nelson but you can’t expect other parties to behave as you would like, unfortunately)
Until that great day comes we are still engaged in quite fruitful work with other CPB members particularly those involved in NO2EU. None of them are pensioners as far as I know and we tend to get on better when references to armoured vehicles and ice picks are kept to a minimum
Andy: I can’t say the SP would have anything useful or interesting to say about the UCAAT elections, we have very few members in that union, none of them hugely active. That’s probably the reason the Socialist has not carried anything on the elections. We’ll leave that to people who are better informed.
Comment by Neil — 19 May, 2009 @ 12:37 am
#24 - Little Black sister usually has something interesting to say, but not today. The point of a thread is to make a meaningful contribution to the debate taking place, lbs, not provide us with your marxist thought for the day.
Comment by Freddy — 19 May, 2009 @ 12:53 am
The SP support for the no2eu campaign and Bob Crows call for import controls shows how opportunist they have become in their desperate but futile attempt to form a new workers party
Comment by Anonymous — 19 May, 2009 @ 12:56 am
I disagree Anonymous (28), the fact that an important union and two of the significant UK left organisations - along with key elements of Respect - are working together in No2EU is hugely positive.
This bodes well for our prospects in the ongoing struggle to build the Workers Party that our class needs.
It’s clear - as we have seen here - that important differences remain, but our common essential principles - a core belief in serious class-struggle politics - provides the material class/political basis for enduring unity.
My hope is that this process can go forward after the Euro-elections, hopefully with the addition of the remaining significant party of the left the SWP.
I also agree with LBS’s suggestion at (24) that much of the terminology that divides us is now obsolete and belongs to a previous era.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 19 May, 2009 @ 7:09 am
Mick Dooley is not allowed to speak to the press. If he replied to Ritchies comments about him being a hothead who is jepordizing other peoples claims he could be barred from office or dismissed. In 2004 when Mick stood against Ritchie he narrowly escaped dismissal. He was accused of assualting another union official in a car park, he was pillered by the press and responded, he was then threatened with a disciplinary. He is now under threat of a disciplinary because of a press statement which only mentioned his name.
For the record Mick Dooley studied law, he has taken and won cases in the Appeal court, he is no mug if he is taking legal action its a safe be the knows what he is doing, is it any coincedence out of the 40 companies on the Blacklist Mick chose to take on Sir Robert McAlpine? How does Ritchie arrive at the fact that Micks claim will effect other peoples? How many claims have UCATT got ready to go to court with? Ritchie says thousands? lets see the only one who will do the bussiness in this will be Mick Dooley.
Comment by Donny — 20 May, 2009 @ 12:21 am