snadge
metal alchemist
earlier in this thread, he got caught on another forum.
Hundreds of workers protest against Italians/Foreigners 'taking jobs'...
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
earlier in this thread, he got caught on another forum.
dennisr
the acceptable face
some analysis and discussion:
LINDSEY OIL REFINERY- WHAT WAS WON?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3538
And from Bill Mullins (SP Industrial Organiser) on the CWI site:
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0701.html
"The Left
To their shame, some on the Left were completely taken in by the headlines in the capitalist press during the dispute, which highlighted the “British jobs for British workers” elements of this struggle. What they did not realise or refused to face up to was that the whole previous period had led to this battle. If this dispute developed a year ago, it is likely that it would not have developed as it did. What was new in the equation was the rapid onset of mass unemployment threatening every worker in Britain and across much of the globe.
The economic crisis has created a fear amongst workers not just for their jobs today but what jobs will there be for their children in the future. In the previous period, it was possible for the workers to get jobs on other sites.
A feature previously was the blacklisting of union activists on different sites, which led to localised battles in the past in the ongoing class struggle over who runs the sites - the management or the unions? Now the whole workforce of some 25,000 who specialise in skilled construction engineering on major projects, such as oil refineries and power stations, are becoming increasingly aware that things are changing. In fact, some 1,500, at least, are unemployed.
Recently, the trade unions were preparing, through shop stewards organising on a national level, to take on the bosses. But the whole thing was precipitated suddenly, as Keith Gibson explained in last week’s Socialist newspaper, when Total gave a contract to IREM before Christmas (or at least gave it to an American company, which, in turn, sub-contracted out to IREM).
The timing of this was not an accident. The Total bosses were using the downturn in the economy to give the work to a contractor who did not have to bother with trade unions, as most of the British contractors on the major building project were forced to do under normal circumstances.
The capitalist politicians, like Labour Business Minister, Pat McFadden, bleated that the principle of free movement had been breached by the deal. He meant “freedom” for the bosses to move labour across the continent, hiding under the EU laws backed up by the courts (and against the interests of .workers, everywhere) to undermine trade union organisation. This “freedom” has indeed been breached by the strike which has in the process struck a blow against the ‘race to the bottom’ and has introduced a more level playing field.
What it opens up now is the need for much more co-ordination amongst all the European unions and particularly the shop stewards organisations, at site level but also at national and indeed on an all-European level, as well to come together in a massive campaign to spread the victory of the Lindsey oil refinery workers across the whole country and the EU."
LINDSEY OIL REFINERY- WHAT WAS WON?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3538
And from Bill Mullins (SP Industrial Organiser) on the CWI site:
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0701.html
"The Left
To their shame, some on the Left were completely taken in by the headlines in the capitalist press during the dispute, which highlighted the “British jobs for British workers” elements of this struggle. What they did not realise or refused to face up to was that the whole previous period had led to this battle. If this dispute developed a year ago, it is likely that it would not have developed as it did. What was new in the equation was the rapid onset of mass unemployment threatening every worker in Britain and across much of the globe.
The economic crisis has created a fear amongst workers not just for their jobs today but what jobs will there be for their children in the future. In the previous period, it was possible for the workers to get jobs on other sites.
A feature previously was the blacklisting of union activists on different sites, which led to localised battles in the past in the ongoing class struggle over who runs the sites - the management or the unions? Now the whole workforce of some 25,000 who specialise in skilled construction engineering on major projects, such as oil refineries and power stations, are becoming increasingly aware that things are changing. In fact, some 1,500, at least, are unemployed.
Recently, the trade unions were preparing, through shop stewards organising on a national level, to take on the bosses. But the whole thing was precipitated suddenly, as Keith Gibson explained in last week’s Socialist newspaper, when Total gave a contract to IREM before Christmas (or at least gave it to an American company, which, in turn, sub-contracted out to IREM).
The timing of this was not an accident. The Total bosses were using the downturn in the economy to give the work to a contractor who did not have to bother with trade unions, as most of the British contractors on the major building project were forced to do under normal circumstances.
The capitalist politicians, like Labour Business Minister, Pat McFadden, bleated that the principle of free movement had been breached by the deal. He meant “freedom” for the bosses to move labour across the continent, hiding under the EU laws backed up by the courts (and against the interests of .workers, everywhere) to undermine trade union organisation. This “freedom” has indeed been breached by the strike which has in the process struck a blow against the ‘race to the bottom’ and has introduced a more level playing field.
What it opens up now is the need for much more co-ordination amongst all the European unions and particularly the shop stewards organisations, at site level but also at national and indeed on an all-European level, as well to come together in a massive campaign to spread the victory of the Lindsey oil refinery workers across the whole country and the EU."
dennisr
the acceptable face
Among the replies to a linked thread ( http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3535 ) here - an important point:
From the [second...] article linked to above is a piece by Alistair Tice. He says of the Lindsey strike:
"By Tuesday and Wednesday, although still a couple of union jack flags were seen, all the BJ4BW posters had gone. In their place were placards in Italian appealing to the Italian workers to join the strike and another which stated “Workers of the World Unite!” (as commented on by Seamus Milne in the Guardian newspaper)."
This cuts across the new variant on the mistaken view of the strikers and the movement behind them that started with the wrong slogan raised at the start of the strike. Something like: the strike has been a step forward for the Lindsey workers, but has generalised a reactionary slogan throughout the movement. I don’t buy that and it smacks of trying to justify a wrong position.
Maybe SW could have got some of the italian placards among the images used on its 'supportive' (sic) front page?? (to go with the belated petrition in support...?)
From the [second...] article linked to above is a piece by Alistair Tice. He says of the Lindsey strike:
"By Tuesday and Wednesday, although still a couple of union jack flags were seen, all the BJ4BW posters had gone. In their place were placards in Italian appealing to the Italian workers to join the strike and another which stated “Workers of the World Unite!” (as commented on by Seamus Milne in the Guardian newspaper)."
This cuts across the new variant on the mistaken view of the strikers and the movement behind them that started with the wrong slogan raised at the start of the strike. Something like: the strike has been a step forward for the Lindsey workers, but has generalised a reactionary slogan throughout the movement. I don’t buy that and it smacks of trying to justify a wrong position.
Maybe SW could have got some of the italian placards among the images used on its 'supportive' (sic) front page?? (to go with the belated petrition in support...?)
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
I think that is overegging the pudding somewhat. Unite both generated and supported nationalistic statements - their shop stewards gave public statements which could have and still could threaten to isolate British workers from much need EU-worker solidarity. 'The Left' saw the danger and had no choice but to speak out about those dangers. We are not out of the woods yet, and Unite need to rein in these tendencies, else be blamed for betraying those they pupport to represent.
I cannot implore you enough to research the history of British Trades Unionism. Look at the Aliens Act of 1905. We do not want a repeat of the union support for the exclusion of 'aliens' in 1892 that led to the Aliens Act of 1905. Unite/Amicus need to drop their nationalist chauvinism.
Voice from the Aliens: About the Anti-Alien Resolution of the Cardiff Trade Union Congress said:
'The Left' strove to ensure that International Solidarity moved to the top of the agenda, recognised that liberal Europe had sold out over the Laval affaire, and pressed for the strikers to realise the impact their choice of slogan and expression was having abroad.
'The Left' knew where Brown's slogan-trap had originated (NF/BUF) and hadn't seen it as racist or xenophobic.
'The Left' also knew that without international solidarity these strikers would be vilified abroad, since the same worries about contract/agency work and rising unemployment are experienced by workers in other EU-states.
'The Left' knows that with international solidarity, the workforce and unemployed of EU-states including Britain can achieve the changes to prevent social dumping. Europe-wide strikes will force the EU/State hand, if needs must.
'The Left' knew that words are important, that translations of slogans and statements by shop stewards are what the others (workers abroad, unions abroad) see first, and these slogans would inform their initial opinions about the strikers here in Britain. 'The Left' knew that the recycled Brown/BUF/NF slogan came with an ugly baggage that gave the wrong message to our fellows abroad.
I'm certain that 'The Left' are wholly pleased with the expansion from Brown/BUF/NF slogan to 'Workers of the World Unite!' and this was ever the aim of the constructive criticisms and wordy interventions.
All in all, the strike has achieved more than 102 jobs for the contract/agency construction workers who were laid off by Shaws prior at the end of 2008. It has brought opportunities for a Europe-wide solidarity to the fore and increased awareness in the British public of the shady wage-undercutting practices of leading EU companies through their contract/agency employment.
Much has been achieved, but there is still some way to go yet!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, it was the case. You might have been pure - others certainly were not.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
I am only young, but my collective memory stretches back to the time when the British Brothers' League exploited fear in the working class and stirred up anti-foreigner sentiment, dividing the working class with protectionist slogans, marches, and demonstrations against 'the foreigner'.
dennisr
the acceptable face
imo the 'left' who spent their time condemning the strike from a distance were either ignored or invisible to the workers on the ground. They cut themselves off from those workers and had no influence on turning the strike. But weve gone over this ground many times and probably best to 'agree to disagree' The unite leadership played with echoing the reactionary demands. The left stewards on the ground turn that strike around while others, luckily on the sidelines, simply tried to paint the movement as a wholey reactionary (or - in the case of union tops 'tailending' in an empiric manner) which could not go anywhere positive - those sideline 'lefts' should at least recognise that they miscalculated what the actual existing mood and reasons behind the dispute were even if they cannot admit the mistaken tactics that resulted from that miscalculation.
I agree with your last point - its only a beginning, but that is obvious - at this moment in time we can say that, in turning that movement around, the real left on the ground have played an important role in the potential further direction that movement can go in.
dennisr
the acceptable face
which kind of misses the point folk like BA and me would both make - HOW we interviene can shape the direction of movements. We are all aware and all agree about the dangers of cul-de-sac nationalistic politics - it comes as no surprise. In fact - far from having some stereotype leftist view of the workers on the picket line we work from the basis of actual conciousness alongside them.
There was an element of artificial and abstract views of the 'working class' turning into thier mirror image - of an equally simplistic vision of a homogenous reactionary mob in the misreading of some sections of the so-called 'left' - luckily not those on the ground. I think those 'simplistic lefts' should be seriously questioned on the point
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Okay, okay.
So educate me.
Which other Unions in Britain are nationalist besides Unite?
How nationalist are the CPs and SPs in Britain?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Leave off with the daft loaded questions please.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
No chance, butchers doesn't do answers, EVER.
dennisr
the acceptable face
No chance, butchers doesn't do answers, EVER.
is this irony on your part?
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
I would appreciate an educated answer!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
We were talking about the the dismissive and hostile (not critically supportive as some fo them claim) reaction of elements of the left to a series of important wildcat strikes in key sectors. You say that the left didn't react in the way i (and the text above that dennis posted) characterised some of them as acting, i say i think that you're attirbuting your own approach (which did appear to be critically supportive) across the board and to those where it simply doesn't apply IMO.
You then say that two unions are nationalist and aks me what other ones are nationalist - come on, that's neither here nor there in relation to my point.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
We were talking about one thing, and now I'd like to briefly talk about another. You can go back to your tirade against borgeouis lefties soon enough 
Please educate rather than dismiss my asking the question. I find that patronising.
Anyway, I thought Amicus/Unite were the same union.
I thought that Amicus and the TGWU merged and became Unite. So really I just mean 'Unite', as in the newly merged Amicus and TGWU.
I think given the history of Trades Unionism in Britain, that the question as to which unions are nationalistic are important, especially if we consider the statements made by Unite shop stewards.
I also want to know which CPs and SPs in Britain tend towards nationalist chauvinism, if any.
Please educate rather than dismiss my asking the question. I find that patronising.
Anyway, I thought Amicus/Unite were the same union.
I thought that Amicus and the TGWU merged and became Unite. So really I just mean 'Unite', as in the newly merged Amicus and TGWU.
I think given the history of Trades Unionism in Britain, that the question as to which unions are nationalistic are important, especially if we consider the statements made by Unite shop stewards.
I also want to know which CPs and SPs in Britain tend towards nationalist chauvinism, if any.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I didn't dismiss the question. I a) didn't see the direct relavence to the particular issue we were talking about at that juncture (the reaction of some of the left to the strikes) and b) objected to the loaded nature of it. It's hardly an attempt at asking a balanced and neutral (as far as possible) question is it? It assumes a negative state of affairs (i.e you beat your wife) and asks how many others that applies to today (how many of you also beat your wife?).
There are just far too many issues and questions jumbled up in this - for starters, unions are an integrative institution in contemporary capitalism, they're neccesarrily reformist and dependent upon the continuing functioning of capital, so their role is in part to support one capital in its competion with other capitals in order to benefit their own members - is this nationalist if the other capitals are from another state? Should they give up their defence of their own members in the name of a higher principle? Should the members of the union in the competing company? Should support only be given to those who reach the requisite awareness - decided by who and on what basis? External parties? Why?
Which brings us to another issue the unions, the left and the w/c are three seperate things, there is significant (but nowhere near total) overlap in the case of unions and the w/c but only really in that case - so all the comments that have been slipping between the strikers, the w/c and the left have been serving to muddy the picture IMO.
Questions about how far the strikes were nationalist, or how backward some strikers are not what people should be concentrating on here. They are the wrong questions. The right questions concern how the class logic of the conflict opened up space (and had to open up space) for a leftward movement and how rthis will play out in the future and ongoing disputes, why they took place in these particular industries and so on, why thousands of workers were prepared for the first time in years to openly flout anti-union laws and why no one was able to do a damn thing about it, how direct worker-to-worker contact outside of the usual official union channels spread the strikes nationally and so on These are the important things, the things we need to be clear on. Not all this rubbihs about nationalism or racism.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Not the strikers - the Unite Union!
What's the point of paying dues for leadership if they just lead you down a blind alley?
Better that the rank and file make links to other EU-workers if their well-paid unions are too complacent to do so.
What's the point of paying dues for leadership if they just lead you down a blind alley?
Better that the rank and file make links to other EU-workers if their well-paid unions are too complacent to do so.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
A copy of a resolution going to my union branch AGM next week.
And yes, before Spion comes in and calls us various names from Horst Wessel to David McCalden
, the mover will also be critical of the original slogan of BJFBW.
This PCS branch notes with concern the continuing attempts by both government ministers and the Media to portray the striking workers at Lindsay Oil Refinery (LOR) as simply xenophobic and anti-foreigner. The BBC going that extra mile in misinformation by editing an interview with a Lindsay striker that, perhaps deliberately to undermine public support for the strikers, made him look like he was refusing to work with Portuguese and Italian workers. Contrast this with the unedited interview shown later on that night that gave a wholly different story to the one portrayed by the earlier news item.
The continuing gross misrepresentation flies in the face of the demands from the LOR Strike Committee that was passed overwhelmingly by a mass meeting of those on strike which was as follows
*Re-instatement of sacked worker John McEwan.
*No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
*All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI (National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry) Agreement.
*Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
*Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for
a future for young people.
*All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
*Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including
interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members.
*Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.
As DWP staff we recognise the continuing attempts by governments and multi-national companies to outsource work in an attempt drive down wages and attack hard won terms and conditions of workers in an attempt to keep costs down and profits up. The consistent attempts to pit British workers against their Italian counterparts by these companies in an attempt to take the heat of their own relentless attacks on workers rights is the where the LOR workers are really aiming their anger. The continuing demonisation of workers who take official and unofficial strike action as anti-foreigner and xenophobic will only add fuel to the fire and further play on peoples concerns in a world where the spectre of mass unemployment looms.
This branch offers solidarity to those fighting to stop yet more attacks on their terms and conditions.
Supports the demands of the LOR Strike Committee and welcomes them in light of the continuing demonisation of the strikers by government and media.
Sends a message of solidarity to the LOR UNITE union branch and the LOR strike Committee.
And yes, before Spion comes in and calls us various names from Horst Wessel to David McCalden
, the mover will also be critical of the original slogan of BJFBW.This PCS branch notes with concern the continuing attempts by both government ministers and the Media to portray the striking workers at Lindsay Oil Refinery (LOR) as simply xenophobic and anti-foreigner. The BBC going that extra mile in misinformation by editing an interview with a Lindsay striker that, perhaps deliberately to undermine public support for the strikers, made him look like he was refusing to work with Portuguese and Italian workers. Contrast this with the unedited interview shown later on that night that gave a wholly different story to the one portrayed by the earlier news item.
The continuing gross misrepresentation flies in the face of the demands from the LOR Strike Committee that was passed overwhelmingly by a mass meeting of those on strike which was as follows
*Re-instatement of sacked worker John McEwan.
*No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
*All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI (National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry) Agreement.
*Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
*Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for
a future for young people.
*All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
*Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including
interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members.
*Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.
As DWP staff we recognise the continuing attempts by governments and multi-national companies to outsource work in an attempt drive down wages and attack hard won terms and conditions of workers in an attempt to keep costs down and profits up. The consistent attempts to pit British workers against their Italian counterparts by these companies in an attempt to take the heat of their own relentless attacks on workers rights is the where the LOR workers are really aiming their anger. The continuing demonisation of workers who take official and unofficial strike action as anti-foreigner and xenophobic will only add fuel to the fire and further play on peoples concerns in a world where the spectre of mass unemployment looms.
This branch offers solidarity to those fighting to stop yet more attacks on their terms and conditions.
Supports the demands of the LOR Strike Committee and welcomes them in light of the continuing demonisation of the strikers by government and media.
Sends a message of solidarity to the LOR UNITE union branch and the LOR strike Committee.
Spion
I hear ya
*laughs* you poor tender petal you
Why isn't it part of the resolution then? The resolution witters on about the portrayal of the strikers as xenophobes then ducks the chance to send a clear message of opposition to that slogan. Why leave it to the mover's preamble?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
*laughs* you poor tender petal you
Why isn't it part of the resolution then? The resolution witters on about the portrayal of the strikers as xenophobes then ducks the chance to send a clear message of opposition to that slogan. Why leave it to the mover's preamble?
Because it will be easier to criticise constructively rather than like spme mocking purist. Apologies if it's not upto scratch....
You'er a fucking beard stroker and a half aren't you?!
Spion
I hear ya
So the mover is prepared to criticise BJ4BW in his preamble but not in the resolution that the refinery workers will see?Because it will be easier to criticise constructively rather than like spme mocking purist. Apologies if it's not upto scratch....
The worst that can happen is that someone amends it out. You won't die.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Funnily enough no-one said we willl die, but hey you carry on stroke your beard issuing your purist communiques.
Any idea when you'll finish that book of yours, 'How to win friends and influence people the Spion way'?
A very short book no doubt.
Spion
I hear ya
Careful how you swing that handbag, love
Anyway, that resolution, so you'll be leaving the criticism of BJ4BW in the spoken preamble rather than putting it in print where the refinery workers can see it then?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Careful how you swing that handbag, love
Anyway, that resolution, so you'll be leaving the criticism of BJ4BW in the spoken preamble rather than putting it in print where the refinery workers can see it then?
Yes, sorry if we don't dive right in and have a pop, but given the LOR Strike Committee NEVER argued for BJ4BW then i'm not gonna criticise them for it. There will be a clear criti when we send the message and speak to them. But wou carry on up there on purist mountain.
Spion
I hear ya
Then I don't understand why the mover is going to be critical of BJ4BW in their preamble. It's either worth tackling or it's not and the way you're suggesting they will proceed indicates that they're prepared to say something in the environment of their own union meeting that they're not prepared to say to the strikers.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Because it is imho important to clarify why our union is supporting the LOR Strike COmmitte, to ignore the isue would be stupid as everyone will have heard of/seen the banners and the headlines. Not to mention it could be counterproductive especially if there's no criticism of the slogan from a union well versed in dealing with racists etc in our workplace.
It's a tactical issue Spion, remember tactics? The LOR Strike Committee never argued for the slogan, as such why criticise them for something they never did. However when the debate takes place it is undoubtedly an issue that will arise, as such to ignore it would be silly.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Public meeting on lessons of the Lindsey oil refinery strike
7pm Friday 13 February, Small Hall, Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, NW1, opposite Euston station.
A Joint meeting hosted by the Socialist Party and Respect (Renewal)
Speakers include: Keith Gibson, Lindsey strike committee
Jerry Hicks, left candidate for Unite (Amicus) general secretary
Leaflet for meet can be downloaded from here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
7pm Friday 13 February, Small Hall, Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, NW1, opposite Euston station.
A Joint meeting hosted by the Socialist Party and Respect (Renewal)
Speakers include: Keith Gibson, Lindsey strike committee
Jerry Hicks, left candidate for Unite (Amicus) general secretary
Leaflet for meet can be downloaded from here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
That meeting sounds like it should be good, dennisr. Not only will people be able to get reports directly from workers who were actually involved, there will almost certainly be some entertainment laid on by crazy sectarians denouncing everyone from the floor.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Definitely!
Euro-wide worker solidarity is v. important.
But after Euro-workers win against crazy contract/agency undercutting, then comes the fight against the contractors who will try another tactic and bring in non-Euro workers or something equally cynical.
Did our lads make contact with the Swedish Union who fought and lost the Viking/Laval affaires?
Spion
I hear ya
I've never said the strike cttee should be criticised for something they've not done. But as the first point of yours I've bolded makes clear, there was a clear BJ4BW sentiment evident among the strikers.
To not make a clear stand about a sentiment that was quite evident seems a bit daft to me, ignoring the elephant in the room. The slogan will almost certaily arise again and if the SP or similar is not in a position to 'absorb' it as it did last time then it could gain real legs.
Similar threads
- Poll
