Hundreds of workers protest against Italians/Foreigners 'taking jobs'...

[Fuchs66]

These allow firms to bring in their own labour when they are awarded contracts in another EU country which goes against the tradition that which ever nationalisty the firmm is that it recruits mainly from the host country that regulates labour and conditions. Short answer is the jobs don't have to be advertised full stop, the company just recruits and delivers with no questions asked.

Tradition? So nothing based on law then?

and since when has this concept been "traditional" for this type of contract, maybe this could be said if a company sets up a permanent base in another country but certainly not for temporary construction contracts. At least I have never come across it in my time on mainland Europe.

 

[dennisr]

I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.

Just as turkish bosses with contracts in ireland did with the GAMA workers. Worse than that monies that the company claimed was being paid to those workers living in on-site barracks was actually exposed as being siphoned off to dutch bank accounts. Luckily the GAMA workers themselves took the issue up (and in the process found out about the stolen money as well) - fought and won, cutting across the then growing anti-immigrant mood in Ireland

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77562

 

[dennisr]

If you're anywhere at all near Lindsey try going along with a tray of cookies and that poster in Italian, Portuguese and English. I don't think those on strike/demonstrating (including those who have been without work for several months) would evict you- they would welcome your support. They have however evicted the BNP.

The BJFBW placards are trying to "skewer" Gordon Brown.

No placards are perfect. You could say a placard such as Unison's "I love the NHS" from last year supports a classist, managerial, hierarchical organisation that discriminates against those without NHS numbers and hence is classist, managerialist and racist - but from the people holding it and their aspirations you know that that would be bullshit.

It's the same here - of course racists and xenophobes exist, but they are not at all the majority of those in action including the placard holders - it's facile to think so.

spot on

 

[dennisr]

Tradition? So nothing based on law then?

Thats right Fucks66 'the law' is completely neutral - as are the EU, as is the media, as are the politicians

 

[dennisr]

Why are you flogging this oh so dead horse quite so hard?

I'd love an answer to that question too

 

[dennisr]

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html

Also some interesting comments underneath that linked article

Yep - interesting stuff. This one is from a striking Lindsey worker:

... (edited because Frogwoman has already posted this up)

Gary, lyndsey oil

 

[Spion]

I'd love an answer to that question too

Because I've had serious questions about the stated aims of the strike. I've been trying to get answers from you for pages on why preference for 'locally skilled' labour is acceptable as a strike demand instead of jobs for all. I've also had no answer to why someone who appeared to be a local strike leader said what would get them back to work was local recruitment with European labour a 'last resort'.

 

[rover07]

The strikers seem to have no problem producing placards. They could manage some in Italian saying "Strike with us brothers for jobs for all", if the will was there to do so

Saw a strikers sign in English and Italian on the news this morning.

 

[dennisr]

Because I've had serious questions about the stated aims of the strike. I've been trying to get answers from you for pages on why preference for 'locally skilled' labour is acceptable as a strike demand instead of jobs for all. I've also had no answer to why someone who appeared to be a local strike leader said what would get them back to work was local recruitment with European labour a 'last resort'.

And people have taken up the understandable issue you have - again and again, fella. Eventually they give up trying reason with you given you simply ignore the replies and paste up the same accusation as though there had been no replies (the dubious - in the wake of three fair replies - video link you have re-posted at least 5 times). It seems from this that you want to prove these workers are just idiots? Admit it - this is more complicated than you are trying to make out.

In Bloom I think it was answered your original question (the phrase you keep repeating like a mantra) very gently and honestly - demands are being carefully posed to cut across the divisive spew we all agree has had an influence over this dispute. These moods can be rapidly changed - where they exist (and remember the distorting lens of for example the bbc in all of this) - that is not to say the strikers will all decide to create the 6th Communist International overnight. What we cannot do is stand on the sidelines condemning understandable concerns - clear attacks on previously agreed union rights, work conditions and jobs.

No body is arguing the demands being put across are all 'perfect'. No body is arguing that there is not any undercurrent that needs to be cut across. The question is - "how do we cut across those negative and divisive demands?". You are a socialist - so this should also be the question you would ask first (well at least as a continuation of "how do we pose working class solutions for the demands being raised to those workers"), surely rather than "how will I be seen for supporting less than perfect movements" or "how can I support these people because they do not have a fully worked out answer to the problems they face in advance of my support"

As for your new found warmth for the SWP - this was their position during a recent small dispute - along similar lines - in Ireland:

The protests were against a building company that some local builder argued was refusing to hire trade union members or local workers.

During that dispute the SWP put out leaflets which argued that "On previous developments in the area, there were agreements with the local community that a certain proportion of the workforce on the site would be local labour.The same should happen here”"

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74191

The local branch of the People Before Profit Alliance, the SWP led electoral coalition, according to its own report of one of its own meetings “voted unanimously to support their campaign for a proportion of local labour to be employed on the site”

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74406

One rule for one, one rule for another?

 

[butchersapron]

where does it attack the strikers you dodgy little toad ?

It might not attack strikers, but it ceratinly attacks the strikes and in a pretty dodgy manner that socialists of all people should reject after having thems used against them so often in disputes. It takes a few isolated incidents or unsupported reports from the hostile media and uses them to characterise the strike as a whole, to paint the motivations of the stikers as the same as those in those incidents - ignoring the repeated rejections on the line, in statements in interviews and so on of behaviour like that.

But too of ten the focus has become foreign workers.
Beneath the cautious statements,there is open hostility to non-British workers on the placards and shouts against foreign workers at the rallies.

This is why the filth of theNazi British National Party(BNP) have been sniff ing
around.

The stupid thing is that they report in the next section that the BNP have been chased off and nationalist or racist demands have not got a supportive hearing. Which rather undermines the whole pointof their postion.

Anyway, the SWP are neither here nor there, i just wanted to point that out. - back in the real world the proposed deal sounds like typical panicky fudge on first glance.

 

[butchersapron]

Any Irish posters might be a bit surprised by the SWP's line on this strike if they recall their fervent support of workers involved in a dispute in Dublin a little while ago. Have a look at the demands in leaflets and reports put out by the SWP and its electoral coalition, the People Before Profit Alliance.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74191
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74406

How things change.

Ha! Ha! That sums up this opportunist nonsense perfectly. Do people really think they'd have this position if they had an 'in' like the SP have? Of course not - it's a branding exercise.

 

[tangentlama]

I'd love an answer to that question too

I read back through the thread and frankly, it's just silly that you didn't try to answer questions put to you by Spion.

But that aside.

Gordon Brown brought the reactionary nationalist slogan "British Jobs for British Workers" into play, in 2007.

The demand from the strikers for "local workers first" plus "union-held unemployment register" also reflects one of Brown's 2007 promises to "offer jobs to people on the unemployment register"

I have to agree with Spion about how the above appears at an international level, and there's no reason that demands can't be refined to be inclusive of all workers. Without international solidarity, there's no way that workers can successfully oppose the neoliberal agency/contract tendencies (see CAL.ICEM and the recent demands of French strikers on 29th Jan 2009)

I doubt the strikers, who were took that slogan in the initial phases of this unofficial strike, knew that it was an old National Front Slogan from the 1970s.

To people looking on from the continent, and indeed, to many here, that divisive slogan must have been very disheartening to see on the picket line.

The BJFBW slogan was the antithesis of solidarity with all workers and confused the situation. But this is not the strikers fault, this is Prime Minister Brown's fault who made promises in 2007 and failed to stand by them because he could not stand by his own promises as apparently they are against laws which he signed up to. Confused? Brown's the idiot, not the striking workers.

Those reactionary sentiments are what enabled the media and Lord Mandelson (et al) to initially misrepresent the strikers concerns, and the strikers concerns are shared by continental trades unions.

The Italian Union CGIL also was disheartened to see that nationalist sentiment. What has been highlighted is a lack of pan-European Union solidarity and coordination. Those BJBFW misrepresented the position and could have proved disastrous to cooperative future actions. There's alot at stake here. Even when a pan-European Union cooperative agreement has been achieved, there's little to stop French company Alstom from bringing in Indian construction workers or other non-European workers, who would be outside of any European agreements, so it's absolutely essential to ensure the strikes aims are internationalist and coordinated with other Unions, else the bosses will continue this neoliberal track.

Don't explode at me for saying this, but TBH, I don't see how Spion is saying anything different from what we've been saying, he's just saying it differently.

 

[dennisr]

it's a branding exercise.

of course swp posters are welcome to correct the rest of us if we have made any unfair assumptions as to this apparent 'contradiction'

 

[Fuchs66]

Thats right Fucks66 'the law' is completely neutral - as are the EU, as is the media, as are the politicians

I presume you're talking to me, at least IF the unions had got off their arses back in the early 90's and started organising better across the EU instead of being more worried about how full their own personal trough was then they might have been in a position to influence the labour laws of the EU a bit more effectively rather than act all surprised when the tide turns. Speaking of "traditions" doesn't hold a lot of weight in a court no matter how much you want it to.

 

[dennisr]

I read back through the thread and frankly, it's just silly that you didn't try to answer questions put to you by Spion.

But that aside.

Not really an aside though - while the initial discussion 'is this a racist movement' i only ever posted up information - not even an opinion - you say i did not try to answer the questions - they are answered by the information posted up. i have a high-enough regard for even spion that he can work these things out for himself. plenty of people answered spion's questions directly. its hard to give replys a number of times just to have the same questions/inference and implications then posed again and again despite the counter-evidence pointed to

I have to agree with Spion about how the above appears at an international level, and there's no reason that demands can't be refined to be inclusive of all workers. Without international solidarity, there's no way that workers can successfully oppose the neoliberal agency/contract tendencies (see CAL.ICEM and the recent demands of French strikers on 29th Jan 2009)

Of course, spot on - the question is how do you pose that in a manner in which those workers can begin to draw the same conclusions from their own experience

The BJFBW slogan was the antithesis of solidarity with all workers and confused the situation. But this is not the strikers fault, this is Prime Minister Brown's fault who made promises in 2007 and failed to stand by them. Those reactionary sentiments are what enabled the media and Lord Mandelson to misrepresent the strikers aims.

The Italian Union CGIL also was disheartened to see that nationalist sentiment. What has been highlighted is a lack of pan-European Union solidarity and coordination. Those BJBFW misrepresented the position and could have proved disastrous to cooperative future actions. There's alot at stake here. Even when a pan-European Union cooperative agreement has been achieved, there's little to stop French company Alstom from bringing in Indian construction workers or other non-European workers, who would be outside of any European agreements, so it's absolutely essential to ensure the strikes aims are internationalist and coordinated with other Unions, else the bosses will continue this neoliberal track.

Again we don't really disagree on the general points you are making. But how to we turn a mood in an internationalist direction. It can come partly from the reaction to accusations of racism - you only have to look at strikers comments - approaching other european workers is already being posed by left wing strikers to the rest but they can only do this on the basis that they are 'with' their fellow workers - on the progressive demands - already.

Don't explode at me for saying this, but TBH, I don't see how Spion is saying anything different from what we've been saying, he's just saying it differently.

I don't explode contrary to the whimperings of those who don't like people coming back at them in the same way they right off and condemn others. He is saying one thing very differently imho - he will not support the progressive elements of this movement. He claims that is because the movement is wholey reactionary on the basis of some comments and phrasology (which he then repeats endlessly so as to 'prove' the point - at least I can only assume that is the aim?). He cuts himself off

 

[Divisive Cotton]

The demand from the strikers for "local workers first" plus "union-held unemployment register" also reflects one of Brown's 2007 promises to "offer jobs to people on the unemployment register"

I agree with all the post actually in many ways apart from this - there is no comparison with a state and union held unemployment register. The latter is about power while the state unemployment office is all about disempowerment.

Nobody claims that the workers involved are holding some sort of advanced internationalist position - everybody here recongnises that much of the sentiment is confused and politically primitive.

But what do you expect at this point of time? Haven't you read thread after thread on this forum over the years bemoaning the state of the left and alternative ideas, while at the same time how globalisation / neo-liberalisation has disempowered and alienated much of the w/c?

The greatest political educator is action. There is no true substitute for this. They may start with one political position, but end up with another.

 

[tangentlama]

I agree with you, Divisive Cotton!

 

[danny la rouge]

The greatest political educator is action.

Yes.

The thing is, it isn't us (ie, contributors to this thread) on this action. We would basically agree on the way forward. But it isn't, and condemning from the sidelines will only help the bosses.

 

[tangentlama]

Yes.

The thing is, it isn't us (ie, contributors to this thread) on this action. We would basically agree on the way forward. But it isn't, and condemning from the sidelines will only help the bosses.

On this thread, there has been plenty of support for the strikers and speaking openly and criticising the BJFBW thing is not condemnation from sidelines. Concerns are justifiable, and the picket realises the Brown-Labour Party BJFBW trap is being used to undermine their action in the media and alienate broader support.

Read this: http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=163.0

Handy Andy, a good chap who engaged with strikers and supports strikers does more good by talking openly about how BJFBW is perceived abroad. People are trying to act before continental unions are alienated by this strike action/demands.

Read how it's portrayed in Spain (link from Handy Andy) http://www.elpais.com/articulo/inte...Reino/Unido/elpepiint/20090131elpepiint_3/Tes

 

[danny la rouge]

Concerns are justifiable

Of course. But people have condemned from the sidelines: the SWP has.

My first post on this thread asked what had been done to involve the migrant workers. And if Spion were to go to Lindsey with his banner saying "Join Us, Brothers" in Italian, I'd cheer him on. But I'm not near Lincolnshire, nor likely to be, so I'm not going to sit here and say the strike isn't about sub-sub-contractors undercutting pay and conditions. It is. Of course it is.

 

[Spion]

It seems from this that you want to prove these workers are just idiots? Admit it - this is more complicated than you are trying to make out.

Sorry, that's just projection. You need to take my words at face value.

In Bloom I think it was answered your original question

In Bloom said in effect, 'what's wrong with favouring local labour'? Not really an answer, is it?

No body is arguing the demands being put across are all 'perfect'. No body is arguing that there is not any undercurrent that needs to be cut across. .

This is the crux. You admit the demands are 'not perfect', which looked at from the opposite direction means there is something wrong with them. All I have sought is an honest discussion of the seriously flawed demand that amounts to 'local jobs for local people' in this dispute because it needed addressing in the real world . . .

The question is - "how do we cut across those negative and divisive demands?".

. . . by arguing against demands that favour one set of workers over the other. Of course, it's a really difficult situation. If you argued against striking on that basis and then lost you're put in a bind - do you go along with the strike or not, and I could see why anyone would. Trouble is I see no-one involved that argued against the reactionary elements of the demands and any socialist that is seen to be uncritical is tainted with the fact they failed to show clearly they were against a demand of 'local jobs for local people' and that could really bite us/them on the arse in future. BJ4BW could have spiralled out of control and that had to be very clearly and publicly opposed.

As for your new found warmth for the SWP - this was their position during a recent small dispute - along similar lines - in Ireland:

I think they're as rotten as your lot actually I just thought the front page was a good one

 

[butchersapron]

Workers rejected the panicky potential stich up between unions/total and ACAS.

 

[Fruitloop]

Good.

 

[dennisr]

Sorry, that's just projection.

OK, fine

 

[In Bloom]

The thing is, it's not just the nationalist sentiments of 'some of those involved' or 'cack-handed sloganeering'.

The strike has a list of demands as agreed by a mass meeting, and the only strike demand that has anything to say about who should be employed in future at the site - THE main issue here, no? - explicitly limits that to 'locally skilled' labour. Then there's the statement of the local union leader on the BBC video who was asked 'What will it take to get you back to work?', to which he replied, "I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour."

How else am I supposed to take that other than BJ4BW?

The reference to "European labour" is about non-union workers being imported from outside, often on lower rates than local labour, for a particular job, not a generalised opposition to foreigners. This is not an issue of migration, but of union busting.

 

[In Bloom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/strikes-unions

Other demonstrators held up cardboard signs reading "Workers of the world unite" and claiming that foreign workers at other sites were joining the strike in solidarity.

Any thoughts, Spion?

 

[Nigel]

re Unemployed Workers Union

There were a number of intiatives going on in the mid 90s around the time of the JSA. They did not fare well. The fall out is well documented on the web.

National Claiments Alliance was one.

 

[dennisr]

Italian Language version of the SP Lindsey Oil Refinery leaflet can be downloaded from here:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk ( Word document )

 

[In Bloom]

Italian Language version of the SP Lindsey Oil Refinery leaflet can be downloaded from here:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk ( Word document )

Good stuff, are the SP planning to try and get that leaflet to the Italians at LOR?

 

[goebfwai]

How about changing the call to "Human jobs for human workers"? Automation, robiticisation and the rise of self-service systems in retailing is decimating the British jobs market.