CONSTRUCTION STRIKES - EMPLOYERS UP THE ANTE - 900 SACKED
The following is a leaked memo from the employers’ side in the Engineering Construction industry. It shows that the bosses are trying to put considerable obstacles in the way of the unions conducting a strike ballot.
The employers side seem to be preparing to tough it out, and news has just come in that nearly 900 workers have just been sacked for taking unofficial action at Lindsey Oil Refinery.
GMB are currently collating names of members throughout the industry, and who they work for, in order to conduct a ballot, and the GMB CEC have approved a ballot for coordinated strike action across the industry nationally. Presumably UNITE are doing similar preparation. If the ECIA employers’ federation think they can thwart the will of the workforce, they have underestimated how determined the unions are.
Union organisation in these big construction projects is strong, and the workers are also prepared to defend themselves, as is being shown by the continuing action at Lindsey Oil Refinery. Around 1200 workers have been protesting outside the plant all week, following one subcontractor Shaw dismissing 51 workers with immediate effect on the HDS-3 project, while another contractor RDC was hiring 61 staff on the same project. This is in contravention of local agreements reached after February’s strike that there would be no lay offs while the IREM sub-contractors, employed on lower Italian rates of pay, were still on site.
Before today’s sackings, Total were refusing to negotiate without a return to work. But their intransigence was only contributing to the dispute escalating. The Morning Star quotes Lindsey shop steward Kenny Ward saying that HDS-3, which employs 850 staff, is completely shut down and that workers from the Conoco plant have joined the demonstrations. The strike has already spread to other power stations at Drax and Eggborough in Yorkshire and Ratcliffe in Nottinghamshire, and BP’s Saltend refinery near Hull. Workers have also walked at the BOC oxygen plant at Scunthorpe, Fiddlers Ferry in Cheshire and Aberthaw in south Wales.
The strike in February at Lindsey spread like wildfire throughout the country. In that dispute an Italian sub-contractor, IREM, was employing workers from Sicily and Portugal, who were segregated on a barge in Grimsby harbour, and bussed on and off site, keeping them from speaking with other workers. In a telephone interview between unions and the Italian managing director of IREM he refused to confirm which country (if any) the workforce were paying their tax and insurance in; and there are grounds for suspicion that these workers may have been bogus self-employed, responsible for their own tax; which would have been a clear undercutting of the national agreement.
Sadly, the ACAS report on this earlier Lindsey dispute was more fantastical than JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books, and without any evidence or verification ACAS claimed the Italian and Portuguese workers were being paid the UK national rate for the job – a falsehood greedily snatched upon by some on the “left” who were fixated upon the unfortunate slogan “British Jobs for British workers” and who took a rather patronising approach to the workforce, assuming they were racist. Far from it, the workers in the industry have a good understanding of the problems being caused by the EU Posted Worker Directive – it is not foreign workers that are unwelcome, but the use of subcontracting employers bringing in a workforce with inferior pay, terms and conditions by exploiting a loophole of European law.
It is characteristic of the industry for there to be a complex labyrinth of contracts, with subbies letting parts of the job to other subbies; and the unions need to be constantly vigilant to prevent national agreements being undermined. Particularly some specialised workers may only spend a few weeks on each site, and they move around the country. While this makes the formalities of strike ballots difficult, it means that there is a great deal of informal networking between the blokes, and a strong sense of community and solidarity.
The industry remains overwhelmingly profitable, and there are a raft of issues; the national pay claim for next year, the use of overseas subcontractors, and the recent lay-offs without consultation at Lindsey, and now the victimisation of 900 staff for striking.
The good news is that GMB and UNITE are both determined at every level within their unions to defend and advance trade-union organisation in the industry; and the workforce are showing their grit and willingness to stand up to the employers. Today’s sackings are a deliberate attempt to provoke the unions, knowing that there are procedural difficulties in conducting strike ballots in this trade. The response from UNITE and GMB needs to be strong.
If they want a fight, they’ll get one.
Comment by Red Bob — 19 June, 2009 @ 1:22 am
“The response from UNITE and GMB needs to be strong.”
Yes indeed.
Comment by Strategist — 19 June, 2009 @ 2:12 am
Its a declaration of war!
TOTAL B*stards!
Escalate!
The left has to hit the streets of every town and city over this.
Comment by Barry Kade — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:01 am
#4.”Has this hit the mainstream media ”
It will today. The story was prominent on the “Today Programme” with an interview with the Union leadership, where they stated that they weren’t behind the strike and wanted negotiations with TOTAL.
This stance was obviously meant to ensure that they don’t fall foul of the anti-union laws and get sequestered. But there’s also a possibility that the union officialdom could be the weak link in the dispute as a result of their failure to back what is becoming a very large unofficial movement.
All the more reason for the left to take a clear position of solidarity and demand the reinstatement of these workers and the implementation of the National Agreement.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 June, 2009 @ 8:19 am
we need to win this one
Comment by Sean — 19 June, 2009 @ 8:27 am
Do Total still have petrol garages
Comment by Sean — 19 June, 2009 @ 8:28 am
TAKE OVER THE PLANT
Comment by steelcityred — 19 June, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Prinakoff
The GMB and UNITE unions are both four-square behind the strikers. I heard Paul Kenny on the radio today and he was brilliant - hitting exactly the right balance of giving as much support as he could without falling foul of the law.
It is a complete misreading of the situation to think that the unions seeking negotiations with TOTAL is a weak point. Firstly, only Total or (perhaps the prime contractor, which I think is Jacobs) can resolve this issue of forcing subbies to coordinate their hiring/firing. It is absolutely necessary to find someone to negotiate with to get a settlement of the issues behind the dispute. It is not a revolution, it is a strike - it will have to end in a negotiated settlement at some time.
Secondly, the key thing to understand here is that although the unions will be forced to formally repudiate as part of their legal self-protection; in reality both GMB and UNITE are being incredibly supportive of the strikers. No union leader or official has said a single word of criticism of the workers themselves. The participation by the unions trying to get a negotiated settlement is evidence that in fact they are supportive of the strikers.
the management know that there are very real difficulties in their industry for the unions to hold a legally compliant strike ballot, and my judgement is that these sackings are trying to exploit that perceived weakness.
I think management have underestimated the determination of the unions to win this one; but clearly UNITE and GMB leadership need to avoid a reckless head on clash with the existing legislation over strikes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 9:34 am
Encouragingly, in the BBC reports I have seen, they are no longer repeating their claims that the dispute is about “the use of foreign labour”.
In previous reports they kept using one photo of a big union flag and a BJ4BW sign (even when reporting disputes where neither of these were in evidence).
The current articles seem fairly accurate in reporting the causes of the dispute and the main photo shows pickets holding signs saying Trade Union Jobs and Pay for ALL Workers and NO to cheap labour, YES to workers rights etc.
Comment by Rory — 19 June, 2009 @ 9:43 am
I think this is one that will even get the Daily Mail readers behind the workers. God forbid..
Comment by Red Bob — 19 June, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Right on, no need for all this..
Comment by Chris — 19 June, 2009 @ 10:16 am
9# Surely NOW is the time for the trade unions to take on the anti Trade union legislation. Start by calling an immediate all out national strike in construction and then if union funds are threatened by the bosses taking them to court extend the strike to all GMB and Unite members, effectively a general strike, to bring down the government unless the laws are changed.
Comment by Anonymous — 19 June, 2009 @ 10:20 am
#10 The current articles seem fairly accurate in reporting the causes of the dispute and the main photo shows pickets holding signs saying Trade Union Jobs and Pay for ALL Workers and NO to cheap labour, YES to workers rights etc.
So those holding signs saying PUT BRITISH WORKERS FIRST are a mirage?
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Why don’t you read what I wrote instead of what you think or wish I wrote? Nobody suggested that there have been no signs saying BJ4BW or equivalent.
Comment by Rory — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:03 am
Oil refinery construction workers’ dispute threatens to spread across UK
very important dispute- every socialists should give support and try to spread
solidarity action
sandy
Staff at up to 17 power stations as well as construction sites set to take sympathy action for 900 sacked workers, say union sources
* Matthew Taylor and Robert Booth
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009 09.45 BST
[CONTENT DELETED - PLEASE JUST POST A LINK TO LONG ARTICLES, NOT THE WHOLE TEXT]
Comment by Anonymous — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Sites that came out today:
Fiddlers Ferry
Drax
Eggborough
BP Saltend
South Hook
Aberthaw
Ratcliffe
Scunthorpe BOC
West Burton
Didcott
Staythorpe
Please send messages of solidarity to:
doyle_a5@sky.com
and
geminis@geminis.karoo.co.uk
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Copy of the Socialist Party leaflet put out on the 18th. It seems Bear Facts have started using our leaflet. When some of the comrades got to the sites they discovered groups of workers were giving out our leaflet themselves!
Socialist Party
Supported by Keith Gibson ex LOR strike cttee, Trevor Grewar Hull Amicus/Unite branch chair, John McEwan national stewards forum, Steve Jones LOR steward (all in personal capacities)
APPEAL FOR SOLIDARITY ACTION
SUPPORT LINDSEY STRIKERS
The Facts:- Last Weds 10th June, 51 Shaws workers were give “imminent redundancy notices” to take effect from Friday 12th. THERE WAS NO CONSULTATION. On Monday 8th June, Blackett & Charlton (RBC) had taken on 61 recruits in almost identical numbers and trades to those being sacked by Shaws. The Shaws workers were given NO OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSFER. Remember that RBC are only at LOR as a result of the 102 new jobs created by January’s strike which was provoked by a third of Shaws contract being awarded to anti-union firm IREM. On Thurs 11th, Shaws workers walked out of the gate, supported by scaffolders from S.G.B, electricians for B.K., and other trades from B.I.S. O’Hares and RBC, and have all stayed out on strike. Jacobs’ management, who’s strings are being pulled by Total, have refused to negotiate unless there is a return to work. But have stated that the 51 will still be sacked anyway. Faced with this ultimatum, a mass meeting of LOR workers yesterday (Weds 17th) voted unanimously to continue the strike until the 51 redundancies are withdrawn. It is clear now that the LOR bosses are using this dispute (caused by their own mis-management and their reneging on agreements made in February) to seek revenge for their forced climbdown by the strike earlier this year. Taken with the leaked ECIA advice to employers on subverting the official union strike ballot, the bosses have declared war against the trade unions, shop stewards and the NAECI agreement. That is why we appeal for your support. Unity is strength. Together we will win. AGAIN.
YESTERDAY’S MASS MEETING (Weds 17th) VOTED TO:
• Continue the Strike at LOR until 51 redundancies withdrawn
• Place pickets at all LOR gates and appeal to tanker drivers not to cross
• Call for solidarity strike action across all NAECI sites
WHICH SITES ARE SUPPORTING STRIKE ALREADY:
Fiddlers Ferry (since Monday)
Aberthaw (300 walked out yesterday)
Conoco (2-300 walked yesterday and joined LOR pickets)
Dragon, BOC Scunthorpe & Hartlepool Power Station
SITES BEING DIRECTLY APPEALED TO BY LOR PICKETS THIS MORNING:
Ferrybridge, Stanlow, BP Saltend, Eggborough, West Burton, Cottam, Ratcliffe,
Staythorpe, Wilton and maybe more.
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:28 am
#15 Why don’t you read what I wrote instead of what you think or wish I wrote? Nobody suggested that there have been no signs saying BJ4BW or equivalent.
Obviously quoting your exact words is a gross injustice, and I should refer to what you would like to mean rather than what you actually wrote.
Encouragingly, in the BBC reports I have seen, they are no longer repeating their claims that the dispute is about “the use of foreign labour”.
and from #16
a shop steward at Lindsey who helped to lead the February protests over the employment of foreign contractors on the project
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:29 am
#16 isn’t a BBC report, Einstein.
Comment by Rory — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:34 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8108434.stm
” The placards held aloft read “Put British Workers First”. And that’s the essence of this bitter dispute. They claim Total had offered an assurance that no jobs would be lost here while foreign workers were employed on site. A claim the company denies.”
Is “Put British Workers First” a nationalist and xenophobic slogan, yes or no.
Comment by JimPage — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Yes, but it’s one of several slogans being used, most of which aren’t. Other examples can be seen in the photo, though our diligent BBC correspondent seems to have missed them.
Comment by Rory — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Rory
“NO to cheap labour”
as it is a proven fact that is a racist lie that migrants are undercuting British Workers wages, how is this different to the BJ4BW nonsense which went before?
Comment by JimPage — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:42 am
#20 Here’s a BBC report, Max Plank:
The placards held aloft read “Put British Workers First”.
The pickets have all been here before, spending days on end in January protesting at the employment of Italian contractors over their UK counterparts.
This is from AT THE SCENE Paul Murphy at Lindsey refinery http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8108434.stm
Good luck to Neil and his comrades intervening in what has always been a complex dispute.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:44 am
The division between pure and impure left.
The pure left sees this as inherently about racism which needs to be dealt with.
The impure left sees workers grappling with a system they have no say over, striking to attack it, and some of them coming up with some shit slogans (what with being victims of ruling class ideas and all that). The impure left sees a dispute to support, to get involved with and to give full solidarity to from the very start - not least cos if you don’t, none of the people with crap slogans will give you the time of day.
The pure left likes to believe that the impure left can’t see any racism. That’s the only way that the pure left can explain the rest of the left giving wholehearted support to these disputes.
Comment by external bulletin — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:47 am
as it is a proven fact that is a racist lie that migrants are undercuting British Workers wages, how is this different to the BJ4BW nonsense which went before?
Proven by the Acas report?
While you’re here Jim, I’ve got a bridge to sell if you’re interested?
Comment by Rory — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:52 am
#25 From your recent comment on liammacuaid
it becomes clear that right now what is needed is a broad coalition – which means building to our right, given that we’re the best and brightest and most good-looking on the left
If that’s the impure left you can keep it.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 11:57 am
#9 It seems to me that TOTAL have taken a calculated position of refusing negotiations without a return to work, after which, the bargaining position the strikers have will be non-existent.
Whereas the union officials are not taking a position which reflects the solidity of the strike. That would obviously be “no negotiations without the 51 sacked workers being reinstated”.
Total’s press statement is claiming that the action is opposed by the official union.
” In a statement seen by Sky News, the oil giant confirmed: “The contractor workforce has been engaged in an unofficial, illegal walkout since last Thursday, 11 June. This action has been repudiated by both Unite and GMB unions.”
They’re also insisting that negotiations can’t take place over “illegal strikes” until the workforce has returned to work.
I recognised that UNITE and the GMB are trying to avoid the very real danger of being prosecuted and having assets seized.
But TOTAL’s response is calling their bluff and has to be taken very seriously. A big multinational like this wouldn’t have taken such a provocative step lightly.
They must be considering recourse to the anti-union laws.
What happens for instance, if individual stewards are prosecuted and jailed as a result of their action.
Will the union leadership give them its full support and risk prosecution themselves?
The Tory laws on unofficial action and secondary picketing have always been a game of bluff, because given sufficiently widespread unofficial action, they’re unenforceable.
This looks very much like such a situation, especially given that the dispute involves Drax Power Station!
Now is the time for the unions to take a united stand behind the strikers and not make unnecessary concesssions.
A coach and horses can be driven through the Tory Laws and the workers jobs can be won back.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 June, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
THE bbc are going back to there old ways .i just a had a word with one of there worker and he was on going about BJ4BW in fact this is not right .the early reports had no sign of this .it now come over that the BBC is pushing the BJ4BW line .Now it time for all the left to unite and support all the workers in this strike.
Comment by steelcityred — 19 June, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Hearing various news reports, it seems that Total, the BBC and Downing Street are presenting a united front on this ‘the strike’s unofficial’ line.
This seems to suggest some degree of planning and collusion about these ‘redundancies’.
Comment by Denzil — 19 June, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
This is now a moment of truth for the UNITE and GMB leadership and their relationship with the Labour Party.
After 12 years in power Labour have never lifted a finger to remove or even amend the anti trade union laws.
Now the unions are facing deliberate wrecking tactics, under the protection of those same anti-union laws from a major multi-national.
Workers are quite rightly taking illegal action to defend their wages, conditions, jobs and indeed their unions. It is correct for the union leadership to take a responsible attitude over the question of sequestration. The unions should not give the bosses a chance to bankrupt them on a whim or even over a sectional dispute where it is not immediately clear to other workers in the same union, let alone the wider movement, that the issue is serious enough to warrant a head on confrontation with the government.
However these disputes are of a different order to anything we have seen since the 80’s. There is no question this is a deliberate union busting drive aimed at one of the most well organised and militant section of the labour movement. If Unite and GMB lose this one it will do enormous damage to the credibility of the very idea that a union is there to protect its members and improve their standard of living amongst ordinary workers. Fertile ground for the forces of despair or even worse, the BNP.
The continuation of ‘nod and a wink’ trade unionism by the union leaders must end immediately. It is good that the unions are giving support from behind the scenes but the question every single trade unionist must ask themselves is; is that enough to win this dispute?
There can be no more equivocating by the leaderships of UNITE and the GMB. The unions must throw their full, official, support behind these strikes. If one union member is touched for taking ‘illegal’ strike action, if the courts type so much as a single letter ordering sequestration of union funds, UNITE and GMB must withdraw their funding from the Labour Party IMMEDIATELY! They should then go further and call an emergency meeting of all the Labour affiliated unions and push for the same.
Reports I am getting from the posties pickets tell me that Lindsey was the number one topic of conversation. Organised workers are looking to this dispute with keen attention. I believe the scope exists to spread this strike beyond the construction industry if the unions themselves are threatened.
Now it may well be that this dispute can be won simply on the strength of illegal action. We shall see. However we should also recognise the pattern the employers are using. Every time they have been defeated they have simply licked their wounds and then escalated.
The question I would put to Simpson, Woodley and Kenny is this: Are you prepared to escalate too?
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Neil #31
I know that the Socialist party see the issue of affiliation to the Labour party as central to industrial politics. that view has no almost zero currency within GMB.
The unions do not seek a confrontation with the courts, but if such a confrontation comes, then the appropriate response is not the distracting side-show of labour party affiliation, but to remain focussed on winning the dispute, and overcoming any obstacles thrown in our way.
It is also a mistake to fetishise whether the unions response is to make the dispute official. It would be reckless in the extreme for GMB to call an official dispute without going through a legal ballot, and the necessariry preliminaries first. You simply couldn’t take the membership with you on that. It is all very well calling on the leaders to make stirring calls to solidarity action, but I am branch secretary of one of the biggest branches in the union, and I can’t think of a simgle workplace we could get out in support if that call was made.
What is needed is some cunning and wisdom here, not to step into the trap that the bosses have tried to spring on the unions. Note that the repudiation of the action has been formal but in practice the unions are committed to a resolution in favour of the workforce.
I have seen no equivocation from GMB, I have only seen 100% commitment to winning. There is an offical ballot in process of being prepared for a national strike that will be prosecuted with the full weight of the official union machine behind it, and fought to decisively win. But the ballot process is complicated, and the trap the bosses are trying to pull is to get an action to go off half-cocked before the preliminaries are complete.
As Bob Crow pointed out at NSSN conference a couple of years ago, if you start an unoffical action, under the current union laws you have to be prepared to go on and win it unofficially as well.
The immediate task is to overturn the sackings. That is acheivable. Then we need to get back to organising for a nationa ballot over the 2010 pay claim.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
#31
Neil
You are also overestimating the degree to which this dispute is generalising. It remains sectional, and the expereince of these workers is quite atypical of most members of even the manufacturing section of GMB, let alone the wider movement.
That is not to in any way minimise its importance, but the idea that GMB could call out in solidarity school support staff and council cleaners in Compton Dando with any prospect of success is sadly not realistic.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Andy: I’m not closeing the door on this dispute being won through illegal action but again, is that enough to settle this? We know even if this is won the employers will be back because they know the anti union laws are on their side.
And what happens if workers are arrested for taking illegal action? What’s the plan then? That’s the treat facing every single one of these workers. Official backing is not some optional extra.
My point was not to call for solidarity with Lindsey, I said to call action if the unions themselves are threatened which is a different matter entirely.
You’ll also note I didn’t call for disaffiliation from the Labour Party (although my experiences of talking to GMB members differs from yours, particularly in the construction sector). What I’m saying is that the GMB and UNITE should use the leverage the huge sums of money they pay to the Labour Party gives them (supposedly) in order to stave off any threat to persue them through the courts. I think even people who would support the link with Labour could well ask for value for money from the LP.
Finally you may not think so but the Labour affiliation is central to industrial politics for the very reason that labour affiliated trade union leaders hold back struggles so as not to cause problems for the Labour Party government.
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
#34
Well how come none of these construction workers keen to disaffiliate from the Labour Party made their way to congress? If they don’t take part in the official structures of the union, then they will have no sway over policy.
I am sorry , when you wrote “UNITE and GMB must withdraw their funding from the Labour Party IMMEDIATELY! ” I foolishly though that was a call for disafffiliation. Perhaps it meant that UNITE and GMB should buy cream cakes for all their members, and I misread it.
BTW - I can think of no example from either UNITE or GMB of an industrial dispute not being prosecuted for fear of upsetting the government in recent years.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
The worries I have about his are exactly the same as I had over Lindsey in February
The news. 2 MEPS, inclusing 1 for the Y&H have come out in unconditional support of this strike.
The bad news, is that you can gues which 2 MEPs this is….
Comment by JimPage — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
“I am sorry , when you wrote “UNITE and GMB must withdraw their funding from the Labour Party IMMEDIATELY! ” I foolishly though that was a call for disafffiliation. Perhaps it meant that UNITE and GMB should buy cream cakes for all their members, and I misread it.”
Now, now Andy, there’s no need to be like that.
The unions could withdraw the funds and then restore them once the dispute had been satisfactorily resolved. Obviously I think they shouldn’t fund the Labour Party but that is a differnt matter. Disaffiliation is a bigger step than simply withdrawing the funds over a specific issue which is why I made the distinction.
By the way Andy, do you think GMB should use it’s funding of the Labour Party as leverage to defend GMB construstion members?
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
#36
The same party you refer to was opposed to the Iraq War. Presumably by the same logic you therefore were in favour of the war?
Comment by 'spotter — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
“BTW - I can think of no example from either UNITE or GMB of an industrial dispute not being prosecuted for fear of upsetting the government in recent years.”
Apart from public statements from both Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka and Janice Goodrich that they have been told at TUC general council (back when the RMT were still on the council before being voted off by Labour affiliated unions in favour of the fecking Musicians Union, can’t imagine why) by different leaders of Labour affiliated unions that they should cool their boots, industrailly speaking, otherwise they will let the Tories back in?
Or how about Simpson getting up at TUC general council 18 months ago and saying “Our number one priority must be the re-election of our government”. (According to Serwotka)
To be honest I can’t point to specifics but then again the circumstantial evidence is not so good for the Labour affiliated unions.
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
SWP statement on the sackings, emailed out:
‘THE SACKING OF THE LINDSEY WORKERS IS A CHALLENGE FOR THE WHOLE WORKING CLASS
The sacking of 900 workers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) is an attack on every trade unionist in the country.
Total used the sacking of 51 workers as a threat to activists at the site. They have now moved to break the recent unofficial strike movement based around LOR. If the employers succeed in breaking this well organised group of workers then every trade unionist will suffer.
There is only one response to this outrageous attack. That is to shutdown every construction site, every refinery and every power station. Workers across the movement have to move now to support the workers at LOR.
The fact that workers have moved to do exactly that should be applauded.
Unite and the GMB unions repudiated the action at Lindsey. They say that they were forced to by the anti-union laws. But 12 years into a Labour government that Paul Kenny, Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson tell us to back why are these laws still in place.
There are 2.2 million on the dole now and soon there will soon be 3 million out of work. A job goes every 30 seconds. We have just seen British Airways ask their workers to work for nothing.
Its time to resist now. These sackings are a challenge to the whole working class movement. We have to back the construction workers to the hilt.
Earlier this year on some construction picket lines the slogan “British jobs for British workers” appeared. Every construction strike is now branded as “anti foreigner”. This is not true.
But to win support from the whole movement it needs to be made crystal clear that the battle is for every worker to have decent conditions and one rate for the job, no matter where they are from.
Every trade unionist, every workplace has to get behind this fight.
Sometimes there are pivotal moments in the history of the workers’ movement. The sacking of the printers at Wapping in the aftermath of the miners’ strike was one such moment. It was used to intimidate the whole working class. At a time when resistance to the economic crisis is just developing we can’t allow this to happen again.
This is a battle for everyone. We have to build the maximum possible solidarity, urgently. A victory for construction workers would be an inspiration for every worker who is fighting back for the right to work, this is a fight the labour movement has to win.’
Comment by swp member — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Neil
#39
I am in favour of the trade unions using their political muscle as well as their industrial muscle at all times both inside and outside the Labour Party to prosecute the struggle for teir members interests, and for the interests of the wider labour movement. i don’t think tactically that withdrawing funding from the labour party would be appropriate in this particular case, especialy as the current funding by GMB only goes to constitunecy parties where the MP is supportive of GMB priorities.
And so you haven’t actually been able to come up with a single example from GMB or UNITE of them holding back an industrial dispute in the interests of the Labour government. What political opinions some leaders may offer behind closed doors to other unions is neither here nor there.
The issues of why Brother Crow was voted off the TUC GC is rather more complex than you suggest here.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Andy
Am I not right in thinking that affiliated unions regularly make donations (on top of the affiliation fees) to the Labour Party nationally, as well as through Constituency Development Plans locally? Not sure exactly how the last couple of years’ developments in GMB and Unison have affected this.
Comment by Rory — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
#42
My understanding is that in recent years the GMB has scaled back national funding of the labour Party, and instead targetted funding towards those who share its aims.
But it would have been more accurate for me to have written “the current funding by GMB mainly prioritises constitunecy parties where the MP is supportive of GMB priorities”
This is all a red herring, introduced becasuse Neil thinks that opening a second front against the Labour party will somehow help MB in a battle against constrction employers, based upon some remarks that the General Secertaery of an entirely different union made at the TUC GC a couple of years ago!
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
#23
I missed this piece of open scabbing by Jim Page: “as it is a proven fact that is a racist lie that migrants are undercuting British Workers wages, “
Jim Page is peddling a lie from the employers’ side, that is categorically denied by the unions; and then Jim is claiming that the strikers are racists, and for JIm the word of management, uncritically accepted as good coin by ACAS, is a “proven” fact.
Since when do socialists take the word of management over the workers and unions involved, especially when Jim is using this as an argument to weaken support for a vital strike,
I regard this as heinous scabbing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Andy, 900 workers have been sacked for taking solidarity action deemed illegal under Tory laws that Labour has done nothing to remove in 12 years of power.
So where is the value for money for GMB and UNITE members?
All options should be on the table now to bring the employers to heel and if that includes squeezing an almost bankrupt party in the purse in the run up to a general election then what’s wrong with that?
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
44 #: Not just Jim Page, Martin Smith as well.
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
#46
No the SWP statement above is OK
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Perhaps. I was at the Right to Work Conference last weekend and attended the session called ‘Stop the scapegoating of migrant labour’. Martin Smith spoke and attacked the previous Lindsey dispute using all the usual old cannards about BJFBW being the central slogan of the strike. He also said that ACAS had shown IREM had been paying ACAS rates and said “so the whole basis of the strike was a lie”
I attacked the stance the SWP took and defended the strike. I was followed by an SWP student type who claimed to have been at Lindsey. He told me I was dreaming when I said BJFBW was not the central slogan of the strike. He said, and this is a direct quote “When I was at the picket line there was Union Jacks everywhere. There was British Jobs for British Workers placards everywhere. YOU COULDN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BNP AND THE STRIKERS”. (what a contrast to this line in the statement: “Earlier this year on some construction picket lines the slogan “British jobs for British workers” appeared. Every construction strike is now branded as “anti foreigner”. This is not true.)
I objected to this in the stongest possible terms and was shouted down. In his reply Smith made no attempt to correct or clarify his comrades position. The mood of the meeting was overwhelmingly hostile to the Lindsey workers and now, lo and behold, they support these same workers when they have spent the last few months conducting a campaign to downplay and undermine the significance of this dispute.
Unbeliveable!
Comment by Neil — 19 June, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
“If that’s the impure left you can keep it.”
Skidmarx, isn’t it elementary that the hard left needs to build to its right if it’s to rebuild the left? Even a narrower conception of “left unity” than mine would concede that people to the right of us are key.
C’mon, I know we have our disagreements and little tiffs (I think you’re a despicable sectarian who does nothing but sneer at anything that isn’t pure hard left dogma, despite doing practically nothing in reality for the movement, and you think my taste in clothes could use some work), but surely this is elementary: We’re on the “extreme” left, ergo we must build to our right.
And if we take the position taken by the “pure left”, exemplified by (I think) Jim above, that all that (seems to) matter(s) is that these people are RACISTS, then isn’t it better to be impure?
Comment by external bulletin — 19 June, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
#49 To start, it’s an interesting double act you’re doing with Rory,where he falsely accuses those actually on the left of putting words in his mouth, which is then exactly what you choose to do.
You’re not on the extreme left, the hard left or anything like it. You’re a petty-bourgeois electoralist remnant of your split from Respect, the policies of which now boil down to trying to do electoral deals with the Greens and those around Compass to keep your hopes of future electoral success alive. What revolutionary socialists do is try and change the minds of workers with right-wing ideas and aid them in struggle, not to come to cosy deals with bourgeois parties.
And if we take the position taken by the “pure left”, exemplified by (I think) Jim above, that all that (seems to) matter(s) is that these people are RACISTS, then isn’t it better to be impure?
I think you’re putting words in Jim’s mouth, and those of unidentified others, trying to shift the debate from whether the actual slogans are racist, to claiming that all those that don’t agree with you are claiming that all the workers are racist.
Neil - clearly the SWP don’t wholly agree with you on the strike. Hopefully this can be kept within comradely limits.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Martin Smith has repeated that claim about ACAS before in his pamphlet about “British Jobs for British Workers”. Its not true.
http://www.gmb.org.uk/files/98341/FileName/ACASreportLindseyOilRefineryGMBanalysisFEB2009webversion.pdf
“Acas was not provided with evidence to show IREM was paying the going rate when the report was concluded (11), no initial audit had taken place up to that point.”
Comment by bill j — 19 June, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
“Neil - clearly the SWP don’t wholly agree with you on the strike. Hopefully this can be kept within comradely limits.”
They’ve had to do something of an about-turn now that the issue is the trade union principle of defending 900 sacked workers. This is to be welcomed of course.
But if it was a “racist strike” from the beginning, I’m not sure how their new position is logically defensible.
It’s very hard to imagine how the SWP would have gained any influence with the sort of arguments described in #48. It’s the SP who are much more influential amongst the workforce. Keith Gibson was interviewed on the BBC News earlier, which is giving extensive coverage to the dispute and *ever-so-slightly* playing down the BJ4BW issue. The general impression being, that the workers weren’t going to reapply for their jobs and were prepared to hold out until TOTAL back down.
The SWP statement at #40 rightly says: “Sometimes there are pivotal moments in the history of the workers’ movement. The sacking of the printers at Wapping in the aftermath of the miners’ strike was one such moment.”
Another pivotal moment they might like to remember is the jailing of the Pentonville 5, when the printshop of SW was virtually turned over to the dockers and a near general strike occured. That’s the sort of left unity that’s needed now.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 June, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Incidently, for clarity.
I assume that we are all talking about Martin Smith, national secretary of SWP, and not the entirely different martin Smith who is a national organiser of GMB.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
#52 But if it was a “racist strike” from the beginning, I’m not sure how their new position is logically defensible.
I wouldn’t be sure either. But I don’t think the SWP said that,rather that it was a strike that should be supported with some demands and slogans that should not.Maybe the “SWP student type who claimed to have been at Lindsey”[not a great way to fairly report your opponents Neil, maybe you should follow that link on splinteredsunrise to an ILR article on Far Left Polemics]has a better grasp of the situation on the ground than I do. Maybe if Neil and his comrades are trying to deny that BJ4BW had any influence, and deny the ACAS claim about wage rates (a claim I believe supported by the Italian trade unions)that’s the way the debate will be polarised. Perhaps a shame.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
#51 I see from reading the pdf that it doesn’t provide any evidence that IREM weren’t paying the going rate.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Wildcat strikes will go nuclearTotal’s contractors at the Lindsey oil refinery have pressed the big red button with mass sackings. Expect more trouble ahead
Gregor Gall guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009
It’s the dispute that won’t go away.
For the third time this year, thousands of engineering construction workers have gone on unofficial strike, fighting for the right to work. This time the dispute has escalated dramatically unlike before, with the sacking of about 900 workers by the main contractor for Total, which operates the Lindsey refinery in Lincolnshire.
A week ago, about 1,200 contractor workers at the refinery staged an unofficial strike after a contractor gave notice of redundancies to 51 workers while another contractor on the same site was looking for 60 workers to fill vacancies.
The strikers said an agreement that settled their earlier strike in February meant that vacant work had to be made available to those under threat from redundancy. The contractors and Total said this was not the case.
The issue of the right to work, and the engineering construction workers’ willingness to fight for this, was again brought to the fore last month as a strike at Milford Haven started to snowball across other sites in Britain.
Since the outbreak of the strike last week, a growing number of engineering construction workers have taken solidarity action in support of their colleagues at the Lindsey refinery. By yesterday, the roll call of support numbered 13 sites, including power stations, chemicals plant and other refineries, and involving thousands of workers. The solidarity action was spread by flying pickets from Lindsey and, using mobile phones, the networks between different sites established in the previous strikes.
The current dispute has two dimensions. One is that the workers concerned are capable and willing, unlike many other workers (unionised or not), to take robust collective action to defend their right to work in the midst of a recession. This comes down not just to being unionised but being well organised at the workplace level with shop stewards, mass meetings and a collective confidence to act. Underlying this is the nature of the labour market in the industry where job security is absent with building projects beginning and ending when completed, with employment contracts based on this.
The second is that the employers are militant and hardnosed. During the first strike in January and February, Total and its contractor said they would not negotiate with the unions unless the workers went back to work. Shortly after they relented, and a deal was struck before the workers’ returned to work. This time the nuclear button has been pressed with the sackings: reapply for your job by Monday next week on the condition of ending the strike or consider that you’ve dismissed yourself. The nuclear option has been backed up by refusing to allow the conciliation service Acas to get involved to resolve the dispute.
It is difficult not to read this as the employers wanting to take on, face down and defeat an assertive workforce once and for all. The reasons for this? The managerial prerogative – the right of management to manage as they see fit – is an obvious one. But behind this is surely the pressure to pursue profitability in a deteriorating economic environment. Common to all three disputes has been the keenness of the employers to undermine the national agreement for the industry that sets wage rates. In the first two disputes, the spark was the use of non-domiciled workers to do this. Now, it’s the more old-fashioned tool of aggressive management threatening job security to kowtow the workers’ demands.
But if the strikers at Lindsey remain solidly on strike and supported by an even greater number of sympathy strikes around the country, the political pressure on Total and its contractor will grow to make them climb down.
However, if the industry is going to be able to avoid another subsequent dogfight over the right to work then big changes are needed. The first is an explicit and binding industry agreement that is not only watertight on this issue of job security but also has an independent body to monitor and enforce it. Another is that the EU Posted Workers’ Directive is revised so that employers are not allowed to legally bring in workers from outside to undermine the wages and conditions of those already working. My money’s on further trouble ahead.
Comment by Fleabite — 19 June, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
In his pamphlet “Why ‘British jobs for British workers’ won’t solve the crisis” Martin Smith writes;
“ACAS also agreed to conduct a report establishing the facts surrounding the IREM contracting arrangements at the Lindsey refinery. The report published on 16th February 2009 came to the following conclusion;
‘The ACAS inquiry has found no evidence that Total, Jacobs Engineering or IREM have broken the law in relation to the use of posted workers or entered into unlawful recruitment practices. We have also recieved assurances from management that they abide by NAECI agreement though there are clearly some issues of interpretation to be determined between management and the trade unions.” p10
But when we read the report itself
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/lindsey_report_apr_09.pdf
Point 11 states;
“The unions were also extremely concerned about the lack of wage transparency and the employment status of the IREM workers. IREM had said that their workers were permanent employees and would be paid according to the NAECI agreement.
Acas has inspected the contract documentation which commits IREM to pay the going rate; but IREM were not yet in a position to provide evidence to demonstrate that they were doing this.”
IREM provided no evidence that they were paying the going rate!!!
Read it.
Martin Smith claims that ACAS report confirmed that this was a racist dispute;
“But what is a good 50/50 deal? One where workers fight over which worker gets a job and the only criterion is where you come from? A deal where the multinational corporations are not forced to fork out an extra single penny on wages or create on extra job?”
Based the ACAS report stated that there was *no evidence* that IREM were paying equal rates!!
Why would an employer go to the trouble and expense of employing a workforce from hundreds of miles away if they were paying them the same rates? How hard is it to find a pay slip? The fact that they could produce *no evidence* to support their position proves they were lying.
Yet Martin Smith effectively takes the side of IREM against the union based on *no evidence.*
Make of that what you will
Comment by bill j — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
What the SWP said about the January strike was that “those who support this strike are playing with fire”. So they did not support the strike.
The SWP statement on the strike this time is a welcome and total change in emphasis away from the holier-than-thou propagandism that skidmarx, for example, lectures external bulletin about above.
The evolution of this dispute from January to now must surely reflect the way those socialists who gained some influence and the union, both locally and nationally, have intervened. It doesn’t reflect the impact of those who set themselves against the January strike and forged no links with the workforce.
Comment by ferrier — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
#54
From Skidmarx:
“Maybe if Neil and his comrades are trying to deny that BJ4BW had any influence, and deny the ACAS claim about wage rates (a claim I believe supported by the Italian trade unions)that’s the way the debate will be polarised. Perhaps a shame.”
Which Italian trade unions supported the claim that IREM were payinfg uk national rates?, you made that up. IREM are a non-union firm!!!
Let us be clear. puffing up the status of ACAS claims is just repeating management lies. ACAS made no independent assessment, and just repeated what managament told them.
How come the Uk branch of rifondazione Comunista backed the strikes if they were racist against italians?
National officials of GMB spoke to the managing director of IREM, and got no assurances that these workers were being paid within the Uk national agreement, nor that the workforce were even paying tax and insurance, notr which country their contracts of employment were in; or indeed whether they were even empoloyed by IREM, or whether they were agancy workers
Yet Jim page calls these GMB officials racist liars!!!!!
It seems unbelleivable to me that so-called socialists are prepared to repeat managem,ent lies agianst a trad euion and worklers on strike, without a shred of evidence
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
Skidmarx:
The ACAS report said that IREM had provided no evidence that they were paying the union rate on the site. Follow the link helpfully provided by Billj above.
You may or may not be aware of this, but two IREM workers were interviewed on the television news during the original strike and stated that they were being paid less than British workers on the site.
The repetition of the company line by the SWP has been a really disgraceful episode.
Comment by Mark P — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
Just to clarify. The above post is by me (Mark P from the Irish Socialist Party) and not by the other Mark P (from Respect). I sometimes forget that there’s another Mark P here and end up causing confusion by posting under the same name.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
It’s time to clarify some outstanding matters.
No more deceptions and delusions about the New Labour party New labour and the ever pusillanimous and craven Labour aristocracy,The TUC.
The TUC has never done nothing of any real importance or relevance worthy of mention or mame to challenge the anti trade union legislation brought in by the Tories during the 60’s and 90’s other than grovel and accept and accept the terms.
The Labour party in the form of the New Labour project in Government has done absolutely nothing, other than making a few minor concessions such as unbanning the ban on trade unions at GCHQ in Cheltenham, but has to all intents and purposes strongly supported and fully backed up the main thrust of this reactionairy unjust and iniquitous anti trade union and anti working class legislation in all it’s 12 years of misgovernment.
At this vital juncture in time,as the global capitalist economic crisis bites ever deeper on a daily basis and unemployment spirals ever upward,the employers go on the offensive and the vile egg splattered fascist racist BNP hovers in the wings, gloating as it gains ever more recognition with it’s two new MEP’s, as the political establishment parties lie disgraced and discredited, mired in fraud and corruption.The political vaccuum widens daily as political representation and so called democracy is a sick joke
The trade union leadership stands tranfixed and clueless, staring into the abyss as new Labour and the Labour party lie in ruins,the ruins amongst the wreckage of the failed and ever disatrous neo liberal capitalist project and the bloody imperialist wars in Iraq / Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine.
It is timely then that the base and grassroots of the trade union and Labour movement fights back and resists and as a necessary and crucial part of the this process “breaks” from the stench of the rotting carcass that is and once was the Labour party, which has alienated, lost and fundamentally betrayed the confidence of millions of workers,voters and members alike.
Now is the time that the Socialist Left grows in maturity and responsibility,rises to the plate and takes an active role in helping to organise and shape this vital fightback, putting aside it’s differences and it’s wholly self defeating and self destructive infighting,building trust and solidarity throughout working class communities and workplaces and within trade unions to campaign for complete disaffiliation from the Bilderberg monstrosity that was once the Labour party and unites to build a new fighting workers party.
Now is the time!
Fight back ! strike back !
Comment by Fleabite — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Fleabite are you for real, or from central casting?
I mean, you couldn’t make up phrases like “the vile egg splattered fascist racist BNP”
Also, can you please not use phrases like “rise to the plate”. Is that something Gordon Ramsay does? The yank expression is “step up to the plate”, as in their curious baseball game. Here, in England we tend “to step out to the crease”.
Whereas in Wales they do things with strange shaped balls and in Scotland they toss things.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
The forthright tone of the SWP’s recent statement will also be a signal to its members to do an about turn in their approach (without acknowledging any deficiency in the previous position). I was very taken by Neil’s description of Martin Smith’s and other SWP members’ total justification of the old position just last week.
The welcome reversal of approach ought to occasion some frank discussion in the SWP as it throws itself into supporting this strike. That ought to be met with comradely engagement by others. This is a complex set of issues and it was rather depressing to see both the SP and the SWP regard each others’ positions as reason for drawing yet another bitter line of division. That kind of thing should be left to embittered sectarians.
That said, the SWP cannot be expected to be taken seriously if he is incapable of admitting mistakes. I would hope that other SWP members, particularly those who were uncomfortable with the emphasis in January, will be mature enough to do so. Even if that doesn’t happen within the organisation, those members who put the SWP line to work colleagues and others in January are going to face an awful lot of hard questions when they put the new line today.
Comment by ferrier — 19 June, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
From the vitriol of some of the comments on here by SP supporters, you’d almost think that the workers had been dismissed not by Total but the SWP.
Ferrier, if you were serious about for example Neil’s proposals at #31, to defeat this attack by mass illegal secondary strike action, somehow I don’t think you’d be online right now going “my party’s better than yours”. You’d be finding rather more direct ways to relate to the rank and file GMB and UNITE members who’d be needed to make the idea of mass secondary strikes a reality.
I was one of the comrades who supported online the SWP’s analysis of the original dispute. Faced with a bunch of people on this blog and elsewhere who were saying that the strike was nothing to do with BJ4BW, or if it was there was no problem with the slogan, I’m proud of the position my party took.
If nothing else, it meant that the RMT didn’t want to have us in No2EU, which right now feels like a blessed relief. (Who knows it may even have created the possibility of some future joint work between our two parties - hopefully with Bob Crow and his tankie mates way out of the picture…)
Since January, the dynamics of the dispute have changed. The initiative isn’t with the workers any more but the bosses. The workers themselves are raising different slogans. 900 people have been sacked for taking unofficial strike action. Unlike before, they weren’t striking out of any desire to promote UK over non-UK workers; all they are trying to do in the short-term is save jobs.
Supporting them now isn’t about supporting BJ4BW retrospectively; it’s about supporting a different strike involving the same group of workers.
Comment by harrods — 19 June, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Cobblers.
Comment by bill j — 19 June, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Harrods, #65, were you trained as a jesuit?
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 June, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
harrods -
1) I am not in any party
2) I sincerely hope that the SWP’s vision of unity is not getting even narrower to the extent where you spurn Bob Crow and his ‘tankie mates’.
3) The objective circumstances have changed again, have they? Just like they changed on 7 June making an electoral unity project possible when it wasn’t for the preceding 12 months? This kind of thing gives Marxists a bad name.
Comment by ferrier — 19 June, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
# 62 - 68
Comrades, Comrades?
Is this a new tactic ( or maybe more of the same )?
ie: We all beat each other up in the hope that the bosses back off?
Comment by Halshall — 20 June, 2009 @ 7:19 am
well put Halshall may be one or two Comrades need to read Marxs again .time is now on our side so let get on side and get behind this lads.
Comment by alan munro — 20 June, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Great to see the SWP give full support this time. A good sign. Meanwhile, is everyone sending those solidarity messages, and getting other TUists we know to do the same?
Comment by jota — 20 June, 2009 @ 9:13 am
So did ACAS find no evidence of the same pay rates, or did it believe management lies? Make up your minds.
#59 I was thinking of this statement by Italian socialists.
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/contractors-strikes-socialist-resistance-statement/#comment-13840
#58 the holier-than-thou propagandism that skidmarx, for example, lectures external bulletin about above.
WTF are you on about. I pointed out to exfernal bulletin that he was putting words in people’s mouths and now you’re doing it.
Comment by skidmarx — 20 June, 2009 @ 11:23 am
BBC news blackout on the Lindsey/Total.Comrades as been outside 1 Total garage in protest ,the response was good .time to move on up
Comment by steelcityred — 20 June, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
“So did ACAS find no evidence of the same pay rates, or did it believe management lies? Make up your minds.”
It did both. It wasn’t shy about it. It said so in its report.
This is a really bad example of loyalty to the sect. Martin Smith writes a really bad pamphlet based on at best a misreading of the ACAS report at worst a deliberate misreading of it.
When this has been clearly established SWPers continue to defend him against all logic and the facts.
Its the reason why the SWP are dead from the head down.
That isn’t to say that the SWP are any worse than the rest of the bureaucratic socialist groups (SWP, SP, AWL, WP etc.) in that regard, but because they’re (still - just about) the biggest, its crassest in their case.
Comment by bill j — 20 June, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
The Lindsey sackings and instinctive support from other construction workers needs urgent support from all parts of the movement.The feeling at many workplaces at the moment is a mixture of fear and anger and in this situation a vital ingredient for success is immediate solidarity with workers who can swing from anger to desperation very quickly.There is a desperate need for some national move towards supporting the construction workers who are in the front line of employers attempts to use this recession to discipline the trade union movement.The ander on the political front (MP expenses,Bankers and Banks, etc) can have a massive impact on the industrial front in terms of people prepared to have a go.Immediate solidarity for all the workers out must be married with some move to bring all this anger together.
Respect
Comment by Derek Fraser — 21 June, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
BJ- what are you on about?
You (rightly) criticise the SWP for not supporting the strike originally because of the alleged BJ4BW slogans, and then lump them in with the SP who helped to lead it. Is that what you mean by bureuacratic?
Do you find it necessary to justify the existence of your tiny organisation to go out of your way to find reasons to attack everyone else?
Is it the 6th International now? We should be in double figures soon.
Absolutely incredible.
Btw I’m not a member of any organisation at the moment, and I’m not interested in sticking up for the SP as a matter of course.
Comment by Armchair — 21 June, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Well maybe. But then again maybe not.
As I’ve already said I basically think the SP got it right over Lindsey. Certainly I’m not going to start lecturing Keith Gibson and the others who did so much that was right there.
As for the sixth international I don’t know what you’re on about. I always thought that was a load of bullshit and I haven’t changed my mind.
Comment by bill j — 21 June, 2009 @ 2:25 pm