Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[butchersapron]

Just to put in here before it's mentioned, the bristol boycott (and the brum one) was against management, despite the TG's attempts to make it otherwise. And it was understood as this locally.

(edit:and a social boycott in those terms - and now- means a class boycott)

 

[ymu]

Unison are quoted at least once in that article.

They're quoted, but not as being behind the legal action which won the case. That's why I'm asking.

 

[ymu]

Well, it's based on an agreement between the government and the trade unions. So, yeah.

This case arose because that agreement wasn't implemented by Birmingham City Council. That's why I'm asking if there was union involvement in enforcing the judgement. We've had an Equal Pay Act since 1970, but that doesn't mean much in the absence of action to enforce it.

and all of the above is not to suggest that either trade unions, or union activists and militants have always done brilliantly in combatting racism and sexism at work. In fact, what they achieved in spite of their shortcomings (in contrast to the meagre achievements of many of their critics), rather illustrates the point that whatever the issue, class unity and sharing a common purpose has proved way more effective than dividing ourselves off into special interest groups.

I've not said any different. Just pointing out that there was a reason that equality struggles came to the fore in the 1970s; it wasn't solely down to the vacuous middle-class left pushing identity politics because they couldn't get to grips with class issues.

 

[Lo Siento.]

They're quoted, but not as being behind the legal action which won the case. That's why I'm asking.

Well, the legal action refers to the "single status" agreement that the unions negotiated for both equal pay AND payouts to workers who had already left their jobs who had been discriminated against. So whether they were paying this particular lawyer or not, it was because of collective bargaining that the council's obligation existed in the first place!

 

[ymu]

Yeah, like I said, it's enforcing the agreements that matters.

Anyone know much about Action4Equality? I can't find much about them except a specifically Scottish blog. It has this to say at the end of an article about the victory in Brum:

The pattern is always the same - big council employers and trade unions that should know better, who have been aware of the problem for years - but things only change once Action 4 Equality appears on the scene.

I'm not taking that at face value, being well acquainted with the history of middle-class types swooping in and taking credit for the years of unglamorous struggle done by others, but it does rather imply that the unions were not involved in taking this action. I'd like to know what they were doing and why it was less effective (if it was less effective and not part of the cumulative victory which other people are taking credit for).

 

[Lo Siento.]

This case arose because that agreement wasn't implemented by Birmingham City Council. That's why I'm asking if there was union involvement in enforcing the judgement. We've had an Equal Pay Act since 1970, but that doesn't mean much in the absence of action to enforce it.

Sadly the unions' shitness in taking direct action to enforce workers' rights in modern Britain is far from limited to matters of equal pay (although I seem to recall some strike action around single status over the years)

I've not said any different. Just pointing out that there was a reason that equality struggles came to the fore in the 1970s; it wasn't solely down to the vacuous middle-class left pushing identity politics because they couldn't get to grips with class issues.

I don't think anyone is arguing that struggles for equality weren't/aren't important, just about how they fit into political activity.

 

[ymu]

Well yes, the unions are shit. But the state of women's pay suggests that they are more shit for some than others, no? Or were so utterly shit for women before the 1970s that despite having been brilliant for the last forty years women's pay still lags a long way behind.

I realise that there are some very sound analyses on this from the serious left but in the rush to denounce 'identity politics', the nuance is often lost. That's all.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Well yes, the unions are shit. But the state of women's pay suggests that they are more shit for some than others, no? Or were so utterly shit for women before the 1970s that despite having been brilliant for the last forty years women's pay still lags a long way behind.

I realise that there are some very sound analyses on this from the serious left but in the rush to denounce 'identity politics', the nuance is often lost. That's all.

I'm not sure where you are losing the nuance, tbh. I've not disputed the historic shortcomings of class-based organisations and groups re: race and gender. I've just said that they achieved a good deal more on that front than the groups self-consciously practising "identity politics".

Equal pay is a great example. Cross-class feminist groups had been talking about work and gender for more than a century before the Equal Pay Act. A group of working class women, trade unionists, go on strike for equal pay and suddenly the union bureaucrats and politicians are falling over themselves to legislate. Class unity gets stuff done.

 

[ymu]

I'm not sure where you are losing the nuance, tbh. I've not disputed the historic shortcomings of class-based organisations and groups re: race and gender. I've just said that they achieved a good deal more on that front than the groups self-consciously practising "identity politics".

Equal pay is a great example. Cross-class feminist groups had been talking about work and gender for more than a century before the Equal Pay Act. A group of working class women, trade unionists, go on strike for equal pay and suddenly the union bureaucrats and politicians are falling over themselves to legislate. Class unity gets stuff done.

I don't disagree with any of that. I am perfectly well aware that class unity preceded identity politics, like I said:

The over-articulate, under-empathetic middle-class types could get that [equality struggles]. And they dominated the discourse until everyone else fucked off and left them to it. But the pendulum doesn't have to swing all the way back to the point that it's not even possible to discuss 'privilege' in the serious parts of the left.

The backlash against identity politics is entirely justified, but has the potential to damage class unity. That's all.

 

[Nice one]

I didn't say the unions demanded the colour bar, I said the workers did.

I know there are instances where female pay equality has been supported. How often has it been entirely neglected?

I can't work out if the unions were even involved in this case. All the reports I can find make it sound like a private legal action. Was it?

there is the example of over 1,000 women workers who were actively discriminated against in terms of pay by sunderland city council (in collusion with the unions) who won their case last year.
http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2012/03/07/women-win-in-the-workplace/

 

[ymu]

Thanks for that.

I have a vague recollection of a similar background to the case in Brum; that the unions weren't pushing for equal pay for women (or rather, for actually applying the law on equal pay for women) because it would drag men's pay down.

Can't find the reports I'm thinking of though, so I might be wrong.

 

[Nice one]

Thanks for that.

I have a vague recollection of a similar background to the case in Brum; that the unions weren't pushing for equal pay for women (or rather, for actually applying the law on equal pay for women) because it would drag men's pay down.

Can't find the reports I'm thinking of though, so I might be wrong.

that's exactly the situation in sunderland. The unions signed an agreement with the council to reinforce the pay disparity. The women originally brought a case against both the unions and the council but came to an agreement with the union in order to focus on winning the equal pay awards.

 

[ymu]

Yeah. Found this blog detailing the background to the case and the Single Status agreement. Union collusion with councils appears to have been widespread:

Whatever may have been fondly imagined, Single Status could never be cost-neutral. With (in Birmingham) men earning up to four times more than women doing identically pay-graded jobs, there would be losers as well as winners, with local authorities having to find very large sums of money on top of their required efficiency savings, and without jeopardising their primary task of improving local services. They had to devise and negotiate a more expensive unified structure, and compensate those discriminated against under the existing regime, while also ensuring that the now ‘downgraded’ bin men and road sweepers would not be penalised excessively – either through pay cuts or the withdrawal of the supposedly output-based bonus payments that tended to be the preserve of male-dominated jobs.

Righting a major long-term injustice is inevitably difficult, but 10 years was a fair time-frame. Nevertheless, in 2010, three years after the deadline, one in five councils had still not implemented a Single Status Agreement. Few emerge from the saga with much credit. Ministers set no staged timetable, enabling them to refuse to provide extra funding for back-pay settlements. They also capped, initially at a hopelessly inadequate £200 million, the total ‘capitalisation’ sum councils could borrow against their own assets: a figure that, even in 2006, would barely have covered the then estimated costs of Birmingham City Council alone.

The generally male-run unions resisted any national campaign, giving the impression of putting men’s wages – and Labour councils’ interests – above those of their women members. ‘No win, no fee’ lawyers rushed in to fill the vacuum, taking action against recalcitrant councils, against unions who had settled for less than maximum compensation, and trousering up to 25% of any payout. In a particular irony, employment tribunals, which Single Status was designed to bypass, eventually took centre-stage. One decreed that up to six years’ compensation should be paid for past injustice, instead of the two years that had become the norm – thereby adding further huge sums to councils’ pay bills.

...

http://inlogov.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/equal-pay/

 

[Athos]

To my mind, a lot of this boils down to the fact that unequal pay doesn't only serve capitalists' interests insofar as it keeps the overall wage bill down, but also insofar as it militates against working class solidarity i.e. by introducing gender-based divisions. To that end, identity politics plays into capital's hands. Fundamentally, equal pay is class issue, not merely a gender issue.

 

[cesare]

To my mind, a lot of this boils down to the fact that unequal pay doesn't only serve capitalists' interests insofar as it keeps the overall wage bill down, but also insofar as it militates against working class solidarity i.e. by introducing gender-based divisions. To that end, identity politics plays into capital's hands. Fundamentally, equal pay is class issue, not merely a gender issue.

Not just equal pay, but the whole issue of work paid and unpaid including domestic and caring.

 

[The39thStep]

A colour bar that was instigated by workers originally, no? Has there been much militant union support for female pay equality in workplaces that have more male than female workers? How is the struggle for equal pay going?

As for the SWP, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The dominance of middle-class activists fetishising the working-class without ever being part of it. That's what the middle-class left does.

The Tricos dispute in the late 70s early 80s springs to mind.

 

[Athos]

Not just equal pay, but the whole issue of work paid and unpaid including domestic and caring.

Yes, the issue of the reproduction of labour power.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Are there any cities that aren't?

Lincoln.

 

[ymu]

The Tricos dispute in the late 70s early 80s springs to mind.

And Laurie Penny worked her way up via a subs job at the Morning Star.

Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that some members of the working-class have had, and continue to have, better union representation than others?

 

[rekil]

less business lunches, more throwing punches

In light of recent events, especially her pathetic performance here where her appalling reading comprehension skills and various other deficiencies were exposed and confirmed, this april 2011 piece makes for an amusing read. The laughable lie about her "unique access" was already posted, but I'd overlooked the parts where she "reports" on the Bristol fracas, boasts about her bravery, and the somewhat delusional image she has of her role, record and capabilities.

There was a vast disparity between MSM coverage of the riot and what thousands of us watched live online that night. I held back from writing a report until, reading the BBC and Guardian coverage the next morning, I realised that noone in the sparsely occupied Bank Holiday press rooms was feeling inclined to dig beyond the official police statement that day. In the age of Twitter, we should be able to do better than that- so I hurried out a piece based on eyewitness accounts and as much insider info as I could collate.

[...]

I believe that riots, and our response to them, teach people a lot about themselves. They have taught me one fundamentally important thing about myself - apart from the fact that I have a reckless attitude to my own personal safety, tossing all 5foot nothing of me repeatedly into violent situations where journalistic integrity forbids any active self-defence.

What drags me to the scene of any riot, to any interesting protest currently ongoing, is not just politics, nor thrill-seeking: it's chasing a story that the mainstream press are still not telling properly yet, chasing a an important story, a story to which I currently have unique access as a young person within the movement.

Being inside a big story is exciting, especially for a rookie journalist, because by our nature people who choose this job like to know things other people don't, to be 'in on it', whatever 'it' is, and then to tell the world. This often produces quality, important journalism. But - crucially- not always.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of romance, but this movement deserves to be reported honestly, warts-and-all honestly. The voices of anti-cuts protesters, student activists and everyone they represent and defend deserve to be heard clearly, not distorted to the point of caricature. Full-time activists are more than capable of writing their own propaganda. A real campaigning journalist should be able to amplify unheard voices without distorting them. I think it's crucial that hacks involved or interested in resistance movements hold ourselves closely to that standard. I'm certainly going to try my best.

 

[cesare]

And Laurie Penny worked her way up via a subs job at the Morning Star.

Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that some members of the working-class have had, and continue to have, better union representation than others?

There's loads of stuff around the Working Women's Charter Campaign in the 70s and what happened with the TUC which I'll dig out if I have time.

 

[The39thStep]

And Laurie Penny worked her way up via a subs job at the Morning Star.

Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that some members of the working-class have had, and continue to have, better union representation than others?

Not sure why a reference to a CV that is at best economics with the truth is applied to what was a very difficult but hard won industrial dispute in which both men and women sacrificed wages for what they believed to be a just cause. Sometimes things work in practise that wouldn't in theory especially if one is of the view that such working class solidarity ( especially in the bad old 70s according to a recent thread on Urban) requires the benefit of identity politics which in this case would have been totally divisive.

http://ourhistory-hayes.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/trico-equal-pay-strike-1976-trico-equal.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bishopsgate/5509214870/lightbox/

Good union representation is what you get when you organise and fightback, and if you don't get it then change the leadership.

 

[ymu]

Laurie Penny's mendacity about her CV is precisely the point.

Listing isolated disputes where the unions have acted for the whole of the class in a context where unions have also conspired with employers to screw over parts of the class, is no more convincing than Laurie Penny defending herself against accusations of class privilege by claiming that she worked her way up from the bottom.

And yes, we know that we only get representation when we organise and fightback. Hence all those pesky -isms.

 

[butchersapron]

Laurie's mendacity about her CV is precisely the point.

Listing isolated disputes where the unions have acted for the whole of the class in a context where unions have also conspired with employers to screw over parts of the class, is no more convincing than Laurie Penny defending herself against accusations of class privilege by claiming that she worked her way up from the bottom.

And yes, we know that we only get representation when we organise and fightback. Hence all those pesky -isms.

Those pesky isms(the ones being thrown around by the sort of people this thread is directed at anyway) aren't coming out of struggle, but from a top down competitive use of them.

 

[The39thStep]

Laurie Penny's mendacity about her CV is precisely the point.

Listing isolated disputes where the unions have acted for the whole of the class in a context where unions have also conspired with employers to screw over parts of the class, is no more convincing than Laurie Penny defending herself against accusations of class privilege by claiming that she worked her way up from the bottom.

And yes, we know that we only get representation when we organise and fightback. Hence all those pesky -isms.

Do you really think unions act for the whole of class somehow on auto pilot? Some of most militant struggles normally entail a fight against the union leadership.

Do me a favour and put down your back copies of Spare Rib and read a bit about the history of working class struggle, always against the odds. In fact go and read a bit about pesky isms when they had some of the Councils in the 80s.

 

[ymu]

Those pesky isms(the ones being thrown around by the sort of people this thread is directed at anyway) aren't coming out of struggle, but from a top down competitive use of them.

I've not said otherwise. I've argued that the struggle for equality within the class got co-opted by the middle-class loudmouths because it was more comfortable for them than class issues. And that the backlash against shallow identity politics is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Parts of the serious left do have a decent analysis but if that was making it through to action, women and minorities would be over-represented amongst the membership. I don't see that happening, but I might be wrong.

 

[ymu]

Do you really think unions act for the whole of class somehow on auto pilot? Some of most militant struggles normally entail a fight against the union leadership.

Do me a favour and put down your back copies of Spare Rib and read a bit about the history of working class struggle, always against the odds. In fact go and read a bit about pesky isms when they had some of the Councils in the 80s.

I'm aware of that. Like I said, that's why women and minorities had to get militant in the first place.

I don't even know what Spare Rib is, but I'm guessing it's a reference to Eve and therefore a feminist magazine? Nice putdown, well done.

 

[butchersapron]

I've not said otherwise. I've argued that the struggle for equality within the class got co-opted by the middle-class loudmouths because it was more comfortable for them than class issues. And that the backlash against shallow identity politics is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Parts of the serious left do have a decent analysis but if that was making it through to action, women and minorities would be over-represented amongst the membership. I don't see that happening, but I might be wrong.

I didn't say that you did. I was attempting to cut these clowns off from historically claiming participation/leading role in these struggles by virtue of having an ism - and thus to stop them writing their leading role into the future struggles around these issues.

It being about class doesn't just mean middle class issues/demands/needs being substituted for working class ones (or co-opted as you put it)- it means their voices dominating. That's an ism that a lot of people are still struggling over. That's one reason the 'serious left' doesn't appear in those forums and media dominated by these people. Hence this thread and the disgust at the people who do get to do that.

 

[cesare]

I didn't say that you did. I was attempting to cut these clowns off from historically claiming participation/leading role in these struggles by virtue of having an ism - and thus to stop them writing their leading role into the future struggles around these issues.

It being about class doesn't just mean middle class issues/demands/needs being substituted for working class ones (or co-opted as you put it)- it means their voices dominating. That's an ism that a lot of people are still struggling over. That's one reason the 'serious left' doesn't appear in those forums and media dominated by these people. Hence this thread and the disgust at the people who do get to do that.

I suppose it's arguable, but if it hadn't been for Thatcher and her anti-union legislation; the chances are that the TUC/trade union leadership might well have been changed from within to be more representative of the working class as a whole.

 

[butchersapron]

I suppose it's arguable, but if it hadn't been for Thatcher and her anti-union legislation; the chances are that the TUC/trade union leadership might well have been changed from within to be more representative of the working class as a whole.

Just as a quick aside on that, and i know i always mention it, but it really is important - the 74-79 period, the one we are sold as seeing the turning of the working classes back on the unions, membership actually went up and went up quite steeply (iirc).