SUCCESS FOR UNITE IN ELECTRICIANS DISPUTE
UNITE welcomed the withdrawal of controversial contracts by Balfour Beatty Engineering Services (BBES) last Friday, which would have resulted in the termination of long-held agreements and the de-skilling of construction workers.
The imposition of the new contracts by BBES were at the heart of a long running dispute, which saw electricians, plumbers, heating and ventilating engineers vote overwhelmingly for strike action twice.
The withdrawal of the contracts follows talks between Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey and Balfour Beatty’s chief executive officer Mike Peasland. They will be followed by further high level talks to secure members’ livelihoods and the stability of the industry.
BBES was one of seven construction firms who sought to tear up the long-standing Joint Industry Boards agreements and impose new semi-skilled grades. The new contracts would have led to pay cuts of up to 30 per cent and poorer terms and conditions for key construction staff.
The union calls on the other six firms to follow the lead of the main player Balfour Beatty and withdraw the contracts and the threat of dismissal.
Welcoming the news, Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said: “Balfour Beatty’s decision to withdraw these contracts, the threat of dismissal and to enter high level talks is a welcome move. Not only is it a victory for common sense, but it is testament to the resolve of hard working construction workers who have stood shoulder to shoulder to defend their livelihoods.
“Continuing to impose these contracts would have resulted in a race to the bottom that would have been bad for the industry. We expect the other six construction firms to see sense and follow Balfour Beatty’s lead in talking seriously about securing livelihoods and bringing stability to the industry.”
UNITE’s success followed a High Court ruling the day before which dismissed a legal challenge by Balfour Beatty, who had tried to halt the prospect of strike action by challenging a ballot which saw a vote of two to one in favour of strike action.
In his ruling Mr Justice Eady said: “It seems to me that, so far as reasonably practical, every person entitled to vote had a voting paper sent to him/her and also was afforded a convenient opportunity to vote by post.”
The judge also commented “Indeed, I think it fair to say that Unite went to considerable lengths to ensure democratic legitimacy which might be thought to exceed what would ordinarily be expected.”
He went on to add: “I am not persuaded that Unite is threatening or intending to do anything that would be unlawful. There would be no ground, therefore, on which to grant an injunction.”
Lawyers for BBES had argued that Unite had breached section 230 (2) of the TULRCA. The lawyers argued that Unite had failed, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure everyone who was entitled to vote in the ballot had received a ballot paper.
Len McCluskey commented: “This is a historic ruling that supports our members’ legitimate right to strike. All too often employers are trying to use the courts to undermine the democratic will of their workforces, when they should be putting their energies into resolving disputes. We trust that employers will now recognise that disputes aren’t settled in the court room but around the negotiating table.”
Well done to the Sparks. You see militancy does pay off. Analysis from SP: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/13837/17-02-2012/sparks-defeat-balfours-now-for-total-victory-over-besna
I wondered for a moment whether Jimmy had something to say, but no just another link to an article
Bit cheeky really Andy, since all you’ve done is paste in a Unite presser.
Here we go again, accused, and deleted, for writing too long a tract when I do want to say something and when I keep my fingers to minimum I still get questioned about it. You lot are pathetic. Anyway I do not have the time at this presice moment to write long tracts because I do not sit in front of a computer all day every day. Just momentary snatches while I apply for jobs or go out in the community campaigning or do my IT class or volunteer with the CAB.
post 4 By the way Mr Newman I also forgot to say that I visit my elderly sick mother who I help with life’s travails under this Condem government. However, accrding to the post 3 you seem to be being a bit hypocritical!!!!!!!
Re: “You lot are pathetic.”
It’s not polite, Jimmy, to bite the hand that you feed.
As for the sparks, victory so far seems largely down to rank and file emphasis I feel.
A victory for militancy and rank and file pressure both with and without the official backing of Unite.
#3
Actually, it is taken from two seperate press releases, and is cleaned up to fit into SU house style.
A brief look at the press will tell you this is common practice.
#4
No one is expecting “long tracts”, but you could have expressed your personal support without the link to an article from the Socialist party
Is it common practice to bodge together two bits of someone else’s writing and then whine about someone commenting by linking to a third?
Stunned M&E bosses will plot their next move at a high-level meeting tomorrow after Balfour Beatty shocked the industry last week by pulling-out of plans to introduce the controversial new BESNA contracts.
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2012/02/20/me-bosses-plot-next-step-after-balfour-besna-bombshell/
One source close to the situation said: “There’s clearly a lot to talk about before we decide the best way forward.
“Everyone is still reeling from Balfour’s decision which came totally out of the blue.”
Without the militant activity of rank and file sparks and their supporters there would be no “Unite” victory.
It does seem to have been driven from below to quite some extent, which is good news for sparks and for the rest of us.
Attended a couple of the pickets in London before Xmas, and the atmosphere and commitment was brilliant. Clearly a victory for the rank and file sparks, and a lesson to the nay-sayers
#10
KrisS
Do you think that tone is appropriate? We work hard here to try to provide a forum where debate can take place. I reproduced press releases, which is BTW the reason that organisations issue press releases. Press officers do not regard it as plagiarism for people to use their text, they regard it as a job well done.
Jimmy haddow in particular has a habit of continually posting links to articles from SP/CWI, and then getting all passive/aggressive about it.
There is no symmetry becasue we woork hard to provide a forum for debatibng issues, and Jimmy does not.
I am seeking to encourage Jimmy to participate in debates here more in the spirit that everyone else does.
It is hardly appropriate therefore for you to catagorise the work and time that goes into us running this website as being equivelent to the work and effort that Jimmy puts in to continualy post links to SP/CWI articles.
Nor is it appropriate for you to categorise the work we do seeking to steer the debate ina constructuve direction, with almost no deletions, and almost no censorship or banning as “whining”
The reason that the debate here is sometimes illuminating and constructive is not accidental, it is because of hard work in moderating.
If you think you could do better then have a go. But it is notable that the blog closest to your own political persuasion Lenin’s Tomb, has a comments policy that would have seemed overly restrictive to Pravda’s letters editor in 1p36.
I think your constant sniping at Jimmy is as interesting as his constant posting of cut and paste CWI by numbers (though clearly much less comradely). I think in this instance in particular it was rather humourously misplaced, yes. “Whining” seems about right to me.
(It is a personal remark about you, as an individual, and does not refer to or relate to the “we” who seems to be improving this place a good deal, and having some success at winding your neck in at times, too)
Anyway, do you have anything to say about the sparks’ victory?
#15
I’m tempted to agree with Kris on this, while your point about the work you guys put in to the blog is understood (and appreciated!). I agree that Jimmy could edit his personal contributions a bit more but you seem to be damning him if does and if he doesn’t. Is it that you wish this blog to debate within only a narrow spectrum of “left” opinion that you tend to be rather hostile to those from the SP or SWP tradition? And I think the comment re: LT is unfair, though Richard can on occasion be quite vicious in attacking those whom he disagrees with.
Well look, the first thing is, you can’t compare both of them Kris. Andy might’ve just posted a press release, but he spends a huge amount of time writing as well. If all Andy did was post press releases, you’d be right to have a go.
When Jimmy talks for himself, he’s got a lot of interesting stuff to say. And someone I respect and trust has told me he thinks highly of Jimmy, which is good enough for me.
But in a place where people bring their personalities and their baggage, it is notable that a certain type of person does pretty much nothing but post articles from their party’s publications.
I actually do have a bit of a problem with the way Jimmy and Rob Williams write, because there’s no real debate there.
Now, I’m not here to dictate what people are allowed to say. But, when I’ve actually pulled apart some of the claims made by CWI members, I never, ever get a response. Of course, what I might think of as friendly but serious responses might be seen as snipey, but then people should pull me up like I do them.
I recognise Andy’s frustration with the wooden and formulaic style of Jimmy, and while we probably both should let up on it, I think it’s worth understanding that it comes from how much time people put into debating and writing and moderating, only for the first response to be “here’s an article from the CWI”. I think Andy’s snippiness stems in part from frustration because we all know that those people who only post newspaper articles are usually much more interesting and rewarding to read when they post their own thoughts. Personally, I have a real problem with the passive-aggressiveness that drips from Jimmy’s posts, but I think that’s cos it used to be my stock-in-trade.
And whatever one thinks of just how much of a right-wing sell out bastard Andy Newman is, you’ve got to hand it to him: the comments moderation policy on here is more liberal than any other site. That’s why you notice when we get in a bad mood and have a go at people, cos all the other sites silently delete people and then delete criticisms of those deletions.
I had lots to say about the sparks’ victory but I used my word count up in my post above. So here’s an article from Socialist Unity
#19 – very good, tony.
Anyway look, we’re all damned whatever we do, aren’t we? Andy runs a blog and should maybe be a shining example of decorum, but actually that would make him a robot.
Jimmy’s a good bloke, so in a sense the snipey comments are like sitting in a pub after a demo having a bit of a fake argument.
What would we all do if the Sparts started posting here?
I’m a member of a website where the owner chimes in on debates, and it feels really out of place, especially given that he breaks the rules he sets for everyone else. But then we all do that don’t we? If you’ve got a “delete” button, it’s not fair to leave it there, unloved and unused
Maybe we need a common enemy. Shall we un-ban Jim Denham?
Not only is this victory impressive the question is what can the rest of us learn from it?
I think it’s very important for the sparks to drive home this victory and to that end I’m glad to see Saturday’s activities were redirected at NG Bailey, via Morrisons.
Here’s what I said on Charlie Pottins’ blog:
This is a historic ruling that supports our members’ legitimate right to strike.
Actually I suspect that it won’t set a precedent, and the richest employers will still be going to the courts to subvert union rights at every possible opportunity.
Balfour Beatty’s decision to withdraw these contracts, the threat of dismissal and to enter high level talks is a welcome move.
As long as McCluskey doesn’t give away what the bosses couldn’t achieve by imposition.
A good start, and hopefully the other employers that pulled out of the JIB will follow suit.
#21 Shall we un-ban Jim Denham?
Actually this is one (and perhaps only) case where his lot seem to have the right position, but if anyone wants to find out in more detail they can find Icannotbelievetheyclaimtobetrotskyists.con for themselves.
And the Sparts have become much more polite in recent years. Maybe as boring.
the comments moderation policy on here is more liberal than any other site.
http://rlv.zcache.com/gross_exaggeration_tshirt-p235067972730369599z8nf9_400.jpg
To be quite honest this discussion around me is quite tedious.
When I intervene in socialist websites I give contributions as a trade unionist, socialist and member of the Socialist Party and CWI. I do not just go to demonstrations against Government policy, or in support of the Electricians, or to anti-cuts activity, or public meetings, or stand out in the street every week at a stall just because I am anti-establishment or a namby-pamby observer. I do it because I am a trade unionist, socialist and a member of the Socialist Party and CWI; of which I have been a member for over 3 decades. When I am out in public activity I give out SP/CWI leaflets, attempt to sell the Socialist newspaper and any other SP material that I have.
The majority of my time is out in the ‘real world’, and I am not being patronising here, I mean by that it is not in the cyber world. So when I come on to the cyber world I do attempt to communicate the ideas that I believe in, which is the ideas the SP/CWI support. And for the readers who are the uninitiated and blinkered these ideas are democratically discussed and decided within the branch, district, nationally and internationally.
I post SP/CWI material because no one else is saying the type of things that they say. Other Left political tendencies whether reformist, counter-reformist, Marxist, Stalinist or Trotskyist are allowed to post their perspectives without any serious comment; so what is the problem with me doing it. And yes there is a lot of spurious double standard comment about cutting and pasting when a number of contributions on this website, which includes Mr Newman’s, do just that, but nothing is said to them.
I have already made a comment on another thread about this side way slap about me being Passive-Aggressive. As I said then it is a bourgeois psychological concept to explain how the lower classes when they defend themselves against the orders from above are being truculent. I will defend the political ideas of the SP/CWI on this and any other political form, including out on the community, because I have been involved in and part of the process; so their ideas are my ideas.
I raised in a critique against Vanya in the Syrian thread that the collapse of Stalinism 20 years ago pushed back the political and socialist consciousness of the working class and this included the ‘political leadership’ of the working class. While the events of 30 November turned that corner we are miles away, at this moment, from even reaching the levels of the early 1980s let alone the 1970s; but that will come and even more. But that lower of consciousness is reflected in the discussions on ‘socialist’ websites like this. But that does not mean I will not intervene, in fact it is grist to the mill, but only when I have the time to do it and at the level I have time to do it in. And if it means as a short-cut I post something by a comrade who knows better than me the situation, then what is your problem. Again I will raise there are no other complaints raised against other contributors who do what I do.
Do not tell me that you are all writing your own pure political thoughts, because that is bull-shit. Your accuse me of being a clone, but are you not also a clone of the particular political current that you support, whether it be the Labour Party, the right-wing of the trade union movement, the SWP, the CP/B or GB, or some other ‘Left’ tendency. I have no problem with anyone defending their political corner and I do not see it as ‘passive-aggressive’, but supporting something they believe in. What gets my goat is someone who will not defend their ideas and becomes offensive and/or politically diverts attention away from the politic al point that has been raised by using pseudo-social science as a shield.
Anyway I have said my piece!
Excellent victory by the Sparkies. Shows that militancy can work, despite the reservations and words of caution by Andy Newman on this blog about this dispute, and I quote
“But while such visible protests are useful in building a mood of combativity among the workforce, the employers can sit it out as long as it doesn’t hit them in the pocket. Nor do such protests necessarily help to keep union officials on board…This also raises the question of whether it is strategically wise to concentrate on Balfour Beatty, who are a large multinational with deep pockets. Perhaps militants might be better off focusing on some of the smaller companies, and seeking to make them break ranks.”
http://www.socialistunity.com/electricians-dispute-at-the-crossroads/#comments
Stephen
I was repeating an argument made to me by a very well known and respected militant in the construction industry.
I am glad to have been proven wrong, but clearly any serious dispute involves a debate on tactics, and I am happy to stand on my own record as someone who is competent to make informed comment.
The bad faith of Stephen is clear that he wants to characterise me as a TU conservative, because of some cautious comments on s blog, ignoring the real life role I am currently playing in a militant dispute.
SantiagoTalk
Surely saying that the unions victory would not have been possible without rank and file members is a truism applicable to all disputes?
It is also worth pointing out that Stephen is referring to debate where I was mainly highlighting a debate between militants in the dispute, where the there was an obviously legitimate argument about which of the 7 should be targeted, and whether national action was the next step.
Sometimes the wisdom of experience is that escalating is the best thing, sometimes it may not be.
Mr previous argument back last year that a strike by electricians on N30 would be a big ask for UNITE was correct.
I don’t think there is any bad faith at all and I apologise if that is what was construed. I was merely pointing out what had previously been said about this dispute on this blog. Surely, that is fair comment. I applaud the work that you are doing in your union and hope your struggle can be as equally successful, pointing out mistakes in analysis in the past can only strengthen analysis in the future. Dare to Struggle! Dare to win!
No need to be so touchy. You were wrong about this and you have been right about other things like most people.
Fair enough Stephen.
I obviously misundetstood what you were saying. My bad. Sorry for being so grumpy.
maybe we need a common enemy
Always happy to help out. I touched on the Balfour Beatty ruling recently too.
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/02/19/trade-union-news/
Only insofar as it being logically impossible to have a dispute without a membership in dispute with management in the first place.
Withou being overly critical, of course the idea of a militant rank and file organising network with high degrees of militancy pushing their union and being prepared to accept unofficial action if need be, and your average trade-union branch membership accepting the terms of the debate around tactics and acceptable bargaining positions being set by professional union officials are not exactly synonymous.
There is an implied critique in that, but I think it’s fair to say that there is a special sense in the Sparks dispute in which, without overt rank and file organisation (that is, organising more horizontally, outwith established official channels), it truly wouldn’t have been winnable.
More good news for sparks – NG Bailey have pulled out of the BESNA attack as well.
I understand that the BESNA struggle is over – all the remaining companies have capitulated! Well done to all the elctricians and trades in this fight, again I say militancy does pay.
Indeed – a brief article here (SW link).
In this case, surely. In others, clearly not. It would be a mistake in my opinion to draw such a simple conclusion.
Very important victory.
The fact that Andy’s article fails to draw out any lessons what’s so ever regarding rank and file type organisation says it all really. Remember he thinks Paul Kenny is great!!
It seems that not many SU readers are interested either way, HJ. A shame.
#35
BUt from my understanding there was no lack of willingness by UNITE officials to prosecute this struggle.
So of course there is a lesson here that a well organised workforce prepared to use innovative tactics will be able to wage a more effective struggle; but there is a big political difference bwteen strong rank and file organisation working in partnership with the officials, as we pretty much see in this dispute; from the case of rank and file organisation being opposed by and therefore working in opposition to official structures – which has not happened in this dispute to my knowledge.
As such, we are pretty much in the area of truism, that well organised and combative workforces are better able to engage in industrial action. who knew.
Almost no-one in the trade union movement would disagree.
The political question is how that confidence and combativity can be extended, and this is an inspiring example, but i am not sure it tells you very much we can generalise from about the relationship between rank and file and official organistion
post 38, I am shocked a SW link but no SP one,crying shame
I’d happily have a discussion about our papers, Jimmy, but this doesn’t seem like the right thread for that.
Andy – your “no lack of willingness by UNITE officials to prosecute this struggle” is quite precisely vague. I’m glad we agree that rank and file organisation and activity is important even when the official structures aren’t strongly working against activity, though.
#44
But I can’t think in recent years of any examples of official structures working against activity, either strongly or weakly.
For example, the strategic difference between some on the left and the judgement call made by GMB and UNISON of the LGPS heads of agreement was not about working against activity, but reflecting the patchy nature of strike participation.
What i thought was interesting was that in the South West, the only lay members bodies that I know of who opposed signing the heads of agreement were left led UNISON branches who delivred no stronger turnout on N30 than the more moderate branches, and indeed were arguably at the lower end of strike participation.
Generally the political landscape in the unions is that the official structures will encourage militancy whenever they can; the only caveat being that the talk has to be matched by ability to deliver it.
post 44~~~Vanya is right irony does not work on the internet……..
Just for you mate:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/13962/23-02-2012/construction-workers-struggle-victorious
I understood it was irony on your part BTW
#40
What i do see here is extremely hard work and commitment by UNITE to carry through a ballot, whch in the construction industry is a very hard task to ensure that the membership system records are sufficiently accurate for the ballot to meet legao criteria.
And UNITE putting up a very robust legal argument that prevailed in the high court.
It was the prospect of OFFICIAL strike action, with the full weight of UNITE behind it that cracked Balfour Beaty.
That does not for one moment lessen the significance of the self-organisation, detemination or innovative tactics of the grassroots electricians.
But it does suggest to me that people trying to create a false polarisation between the “rank and file” and the officials are living in the past.
post 47 thanks
There’s a good piece here (LRC link) on how the dispute was won and what next:
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture