Rebuilding the Unions - the biggest task for the working class and the left?

[cockneyrebel]

Will start this post with a personal experience I've just had. Just to say I'm part of a council housing department that has just been split into 16 different PFIs, Housing Associations and an ALMO. It's a disastour.

Hi Everyone,

I went to a meeting today that UNISON had called for ALMO staff (the staff that have gone over to the ALMO from Council Housing.).

The turn out was brilliant - about 120 out of about 270 staff.
Considering a lot of staff aren't union members (so couldn't go) and
some union members couldn't make it the turn out was amazing. The full
timers were stunned and said it as the best turn out they'd seen in as
long as they could remember (the branch only gets 40 people to
its AGM out of 7000 staff in terms of the council as a whole).

Despite a fire alarm going off and disrupting in the meeting some
really positive things came out of the meeting.

A couple of proposals were passed without dissent (such as management
selection over interviews - I seemed to be the only person in the room
against this) and some questions which the union should demand answers
from the Chief Executive.

I pointed out that what this mass meeting showed was the need for
stewards in every office and regular members meetings. This was backed
up by another speaker and she got a lot of applause.

I proposed that we ballot for strike action if the ALMO couldn't
guarantee that there wouldn't be any compulsory redundancies (this
shouldn't be hard for them given that there are so many people who
want voluntary redundancy!). The regional officer, Tom Snow, argued
that we weren't strong enough for that but I came back and said that
strength in a union could develop quickly.

Then I gave a quick spiel saying how people should only vote yes to
having a ballot if they were preparted to take action and that that
action might be a lot more than one day. Anyway the vote was won. 49
votes for, 6 against and about 30 abstentions.

Then the week after the union full timers and regional bloke had obviously worked hard together to head this off:

Sadly the latest union meeting after the one below went very badly. A similar turn out to above but the full timers and regional official
(Tom Snow) had obviously put in some preperation to stop any strike
action. They took turns to belittle what I was saying and the whole
idea of strike action and succeeded in demoralising members, so at the
end of a 2 hour meeting they succeeded in postponing a ballot and absolutely nothing came out of the meeting.
.
Unfortunately, given that people are having interviews soon, this will
almost certainly mean that it won't happen. Among choice arguments
were:

* How can anyone in here say that strike action stops redundancies,
look at the history of the british working class. If that was the case
don't you think we'd still have car plants.

* Saying that we should wait to see if the management would be more
reasonable. This is after they've just turned down every request from
the union (even minor ones) and said that they won't rule out
compulsory redundancies (even though there are enough posts, a clear
sign they'll use this to get rid of people they don't like) and have
been bullying staff for months.

* One full timer saying "so come on then, who in here wants to lose
five days pay when it will achieve nothing"

* Why would we strike, look at the London weighting dispute and
pensions dispute and where that got us.

* And when someone brought up the 2% pay rise another full timer said
that we should just take it because all strike action will do is lose
us more pay and that UNISON will just end up giving up like all the
other disputes.

Sadly the above experience is nowhere near unique, especially in unions like UNISON where years of right-wing leadership have led to a situation of a passive membership, total lack of branch structures, hardly any stewards and bureaucratic self-serving full-timers. Even in branches that have a left base, such as in Lambeth, there are still many problems.

It seems to me that there effectively a lot of "yellow branches" in unions like UNISON. I have no doubt that given better leadership staff in the organisation I'm in would have been more than prepared to take strike action to save jobs, as the initial vote showed.

In the 1920s the Communist Party had the tactic of "turn to the unions". I can't think of a more important task for the working class and the left here and now. Unions rank and files have been decimated in the last 20 years and strike figures have been at a historic low.

Now there have been green shoots showing since the bleakness of the 90s but without a re-building of the structures of branches, stewards and corrupt and self-serving leaderships of the unions and a lot of full-timers we will always be fighting with one hand behind our backs.

This doesn't matter whether it's a community campaign, building an alternative to the BNP, trying to stop wars/occupations, fighting attacks of welfare, privatisations and of course day to day union issues.

So far the two main things I've seen are the RMTs launch of an organisation to build a new national stewards network and the SWPs/RESPECTs "Fighting Unions" conferences. To be honest (and I'm really not saying this to be sectarian) the Fighting Union conference was one of the most depressing, top heavy events I've been to, I mean the irony of having a conference to try and build a rank and file and having one table speaker after the other with little input from the floor and little practical suggestions on what to do next can't have been lost on people.

The RMT events have also been top heavy but it does seem to have more potential and should be supported by as many trade unionists as possible in my view.

What do other people think? I can't think of a greater task at the moment. It's all good and well people saying getting stuck into local campaigns and local work (and people should), but until the unions and workers movement is re-built I really can't see us getting anywhere in any fundamental sense.

 

[Zeppo]

I have been to the Fighting Unions conferences and there was always speakers from the floor on the disputes in their area. This was useful.

I am not bothered who is trying to rebuild the shop stewards movement or generally trying to get a rank and file movement created. A strong grassroots in all unions is needed if to only stop sell outs etc..

Industrial activity is low but 200,000 PCS members have been on strike twice this year and CWU may go on strike. TBH it is not only unions but other campaigns anti-global/capitalism, climate change, stop the war etc need to join up and build an alternative to the present picture.

 

[audiotech]

I'm attending a union meeting in a couple of weeks. The first that's been called by UNISON in the last five years of my present employment, to discuss certain issues to do with the voluntary and charitable sector I work in. About fucking time an all.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I have been to the Fighting Unions conferences and there was always speakers from the floor on the disputes in their area. This was useful.

I am not bothered who is trying to rebuild the shop stewards movement or generally trying to get a rank and file movement created. A strong grassroots in all unions is needed if to only stop sell outs etc..

Industrial activity is low but 200,000 PCS members have been on strike twice this year and CWU may go on strike. TBH it is not only unions but other campaigns anti-global/capitalism, climate change, stop the war etc need to join up and build an alternative to the present picture.

In terms of the Fighting Unions conferences I didn't say there were no speakers from the floor but they are really top heavy and nothing practical comes out of them. As said, unfortunately, I found them quite depressing experiences.

I agree with you about not caring where a rank and file comes from but at the moment we are starting from a bare minimum in a lot of unions and the left doesn't seem that effective at the moment in re-building it. Either the task is ignored entirely (in terms of groups like the IWCA), or the solution is put forward by more top heavy conferences.

TBH it is not only unions but other campaigns anti-global/capitalism, climate change, stop the war etc need to join up and build an alternative to the present picture.

Agreed, but I think re-building the unions underpins all this.

I'm attending a union meeting in a couple of weeks. The first that's been called by UNISON in the last five years of my present employment, to discuss certain issues to do with the voluntary and charitable sector I work in. About fucking time an all.

UNISON must be one of the worst unions out the lot.

 

[brasicritique]

Rebuilding the Unions - the biggest task for the working class and the left?

sounds like a book written in the 1980's

Heres a better title of more relevence

Rebuilding the left-when will they listen, when will they learn

 

[becky p]

Rebuilding the Unions - the biggest task for the working class and the left?

sounds like a book written in the 1980's

Heres a better title of more relevence

Rebuilding the left-when will they listen, when will they learn

In my experience most young people and people in general for that matter will not get involved in unions. The main reasons are 1 apathy,not thinking it will do any good. And 2 the kind of people who dominate union meetings. Not wishing to be nasty but sad old men,who have a lack of humility and personal hygiene problems.

 

[cockneyrebel]

In my experience most young people and people in general for that matter will not get involved in unions. The main reasons are 1 apathy,not thinking it will do any good. And 2 the kind of people who dominate union meetings. Not wishing to be nasty but sad old men,who have a lack of humility and personal hygiene problems

To be honest I agree. But the reason so many people are apathetic in my union branch is because the union doesn't do anything and has a leadership that has its head shoved up Blairs and Browns backside and gets paid very well for doing that. The branch organisers are the same. If you have active fighting unions like the RMT then young people do join, there are loads of young workers on the trains and underground who are part of the RMT.

And also agree that the union branches and union branch full timers do need to be more reflective of their membership.

 

[Zeppo]

I have been involved in union activity for years and possibly now am in a key union position to have an impact. All the time remembering that its is the view and work of the members that is the critical point to any success.

I am in PCS but wonder (particularly the youth point earlier) whether for the working class and the left that maybe the big push could be elsewhere and not in the workplace.

A contradiction I am sure because I believe that union activity and industrial action can change a person's thinking but we must realise that it could be other issues that are the spark to move people in a leftward direction.

 

[Soul On Ice]

I'm attending a union meeting in a couple of weeks. The first that's been called by UNISON in the last five years of my present employment, to discuss certain issues to do with the voluntary and charitable sector I work in. About fucking time an all.

I'm an FTO and I think you are quite right to be pissed off that there have been no workplace meetings for 5 years. I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to get branch secretaries, branch officers and local reps to call local workplace meetings, only for such request to lead to exactly zero action.

For you far left activists it is easy to (and I guess good sport) to criticise paid officials but my experience is that a lot of us are not as you stereotype us. I'm no far left activist (I'm a Labour Party member) but there things I (and many of my colleagues have in common with you far left lot, like:

- I want to see high levels of union density
- I want to see lots of active (and even stroppy) reps
- I want to see better terms and conditions for my members
- I want to see a representative and strong lay leadership

I won't comment on the behaviour of the paid official in the example at the start of this thread cos I know that when people describe a situation it has lots of self serving bias in it (and it's not good form to criticise another brethern in the bureaucratic cadre). But I would say if, as a paid offiail I went to a meeting as described and:
- there were loads people attending as suggested
- a large majority were pissed off with something and were prepared to take industrial action
- they had a clear objective as what they wanted to achieve

then I would be a very bureaucrat and would, of course support the members fully in their fight and to be honest I'd be dead happy to be working with members who were so up for it.

The only difference between me and "you far left lot" is, that you lot see strike action the end in itself where I see it as the means to an end. If the employer makes an offer I believe a union is duty bound to put it to its members honestly (i.e. without political spin, either left or right) explaining both the pros and cons. If members want to accept fair enough. If they don't and they want to take or continue strike action fair enough. either way the role of the paid official is to support them.

And I believe most paid officials (though not all) believe that too.

And finally if there have been no workplace meetings for 5 years what have you done to try and change that?

 

[cockneyrebel]

I am in PCS but wonder (particularly the youth point earlier) whether for the working class and the left that maybe the big push could be elsewhere and not in the workplace.

A contradiction I am sure because I believe that union activity and industrial action can change a person's thinking but we must realise that it could be other issues that are the spark to move people in a leftward direction.

Of course other things can push people to the left. But the point is that the workplace is the only place where the working class has the strength to change things. Governments can ignore demonstrations, look at the 2 million demonstration against the war. The fact is that until we get the strength of rank and file trade union action behind us then campaigns will be much harder to win and in some cases impossible to win (such as stopping the war).

I'm an FTO and I think you are quite right to be pissed off that there have been no workplace meetings for 5 years. I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to get branch secretaries, branch officers and local reps to call local workplace meetings, only for such request to lead to exactly zero action.

Indeed I'm a union rep and my local branch officials put the phone down on me when I said we should have members meetings. At every step of the way the full timers have acted to stop the branch getting organised and are now being backed up by the regional full timer. In my experience it is nearly always the full timers who are far more conservative than the reps and after they've been in the job a while don't want things to get to militant in case members vote them out of their job. The higher you go up the bureaucracy the more that is the case in most situations. Look at that wanker Prentis, backing Blair and all the while taking a big wad of members to fund his fat cat salary. And what is the head of the TUC on now days? That tosser John Monks used to live near me in a massive house, god knows where he lives now, a mansion I should think on his salary. And why is that general secretary after general secretary ends up in the Lords and with Sir before their name. Sell out bastards almost to a man, the miner's realised this when they put a noose down behind one their backs while they were speaking on stage.

Until we have a strong rank and file, a national stewards networks and leaders who are recallable and on a workers wage then they will keep selling us out again and again.

- I want to see high levels of union density
- I want to see lots of active (and even stroppy) reps
- I want to see better terms and conditions for my members
- I want to see a representative and strong lay leadership

That might well be true for you but it's certainly not true for the leadership of UNISON or the fat cats general secretaries who run our unions. Fair play to Serwotka at least he gives a fair wedge of his salary back to the union.

I won't comment on the behaviour of the paid official in the example at the start of this thread cos I know that when people describe a situation it has lots of self serving bias in it (and it's not good form to criticise another brethern in the bureaucratic cadre). But I would say if, as a paid offiail I went to a meeting as described and:

- there were loads people attending as suggested
- a large majority were pissed off with something and were prepared to take industrial action
- they had a clear objective as what they wanted to achieve

then I would be a very bureaucrat and would, of course support the members fully in their fight and to be honest I'd be dead happy to be working with members who were so up for it.

It wasn't just one paid official, but four of them, including the regional representative. How is it self serving bias wanting to save jobs? How can paid union officials stand there and tell union members that strike action can't save jobs? Or that there is no point going on strike to stop a 2% wage increase. It was cynical and demoralising politics at its worse, and to be honest they make me sick. If that's there attitude they should fuck off out of the union, because with those attitudes there is no point in having a union. Those full timers have totally de-railed the action and demoralised the staff and at the end of the meeting nothing was achieved.

and it's not good form to criticise another brethern in the bureaucratic cadre

I know you might be ironic here but there is actually a lot of truth in this. A lot of full timers (such as in this meeting) will stick together no matter what. Like in these meetings when members started criticising the local full timers for not giving a lead and not doing a good enough job for members. And the regional full timer couldn't wait to step in and say how great they were and how hard working they are. So great that in the last 15-20 years (one of them has been in post since the 1970s!!), they have run the union branch into the ground so not only aren't there any members meetings but there are literally only a handful of stewards left (including only two in the whole of the housing department). Yeah, fantastic record that.

I believe a union is duty bound to put it to its members honestly (i.e. without political spin, either left or right) explaining both the pros and cons.

Gotta say I think this doesn't make sense. What is pro and what is a con is totally up to debate, there isn't a neutral stance in any situation.

But either way what have unions like UNISON done recently? Had a totally mis-handled dispute over London weighting, totally lost the pensions dispute, backed Brown in the Labour Party leadership election etc etc And the wankers on the CWU executive who tried to back Alan Johnson for deputy leader. Good on the posties for telling them to stick that.

But what does someone like Prentis care on his fat cat salary?

And at a local level seeing full timers demoralise members like that is heart breaking to be honest, I seriously felt like crying at the end of that meeting.

And finally if there have been no workplace meetings for 5 years what have you done to try and change that?

I'm not sure what MC5 has done. But every step of the way the full timers in my branch have tried to put a stop to organisation and having meeting because they are so paranoid about losing their positions. For instance after putting the phone down on me for suggesting we had members meetings they then went on to phone me back and tell me I had no right as a rep to organise members meeting and it had to be done through the branch committee (which is them!!), and no meetings could be held in UNISONs name. They then went on to try and stop a strike meeting being held before the pensions dispute.

I've complained to the region twice and they haven't even been bothered to send me a reply.

And I believe most paid officials (though not all) believe that too.

And sorry but I think you're dellusional. Even starting from the top are you seriously gonna tell me that most general secretaries haven't been sell outs with their huge salaries and place in the Lords? Sorry but people like Prentis are total scum in my view.

Sorry if this has been a bit of a rant but I'm fuming at what the full timers have done in my workplace and they're ruining peoples lives in terms of people losing their jobs.

 

[Soul On Ice]

Indeed I'm a union rep and my local branch officials put the phone down on me when I said we should have members meetings. At every step of the way the full timers have acted to stop the branch getting organised and are now being backed up by the regional full timer. In my experience it is nearly always the full timers who are far more conservative than the reps and after they've been in the job a while don't want things to get to militant in case members vote them out of their job. The higher you go up the bureaucracy the more that is the case in most situations.

Firstly I suppose I ought to distinguish between what you call "full timers" and paid officials. I take it by "full timers" you are referring to lay reps on full time paid release from their day jobs as opposed to paid officials like myself who are directly employed by a union.

If from what you are saying the lay leadership of your branch are acting to stop the branch getting organised then I can well believe that might be occurring.

As I've said I'm a paid official with (ahem) mainstream political views (or as the far left, unfairly in my view, would say, "right wing") but I totally sympathise with your frustration. We seem to agree on my previous comments about what I want to see in my (and every other) union:

- I want to see high levels of union density
- I want to see lots of active (and even stroppy) reps
- I want to see better terms and conditions for my members
- I want to see a representative and strong lay leadership

One thing every paid official in every union should be doing is helping ordinary members get rid of these gate keepers who do the union movement no good. It is bloody hard work at trying shift these people cos they have become adept at maintaining their position. In my experience these gatekeepers come from all political backgrounds. I've dealt with "right wing" ones, those with no political views apart from keeping themselves cosy and also far left gatekeepers who like the position of being a branch sec and the platform it gives them to spout off but when you look at their branches they have recruited no new members or activists

I know you might be ironic here but there is actually a lot of truth in this. A lot of full timers (such as in this meeting) will stick together no matter what. Like in these meetings when members started criticising the local full timers for not giving a lead and not doing a good enough job for members. And the regional full timer couldn't wait to step in and say how great they were and how hard working they are. So great that in the last 15-20 years (one of them has been in post since the 1970s!!), they have run the union branch into the ground so not only aren't there any members meetings but there are literally only a handful of stewards left (including only two in the whole of the housing department). Yeah, fantastic record that.

You are referring to my tongue in cheek comment about not wanting to criticise a fellow bureaucrat. But you make a good point - people with similar views do stick together, in fact that is part of the glue that binds the movement together on a wider scale. But on a more specific level you are right that lazy arse gatekeepers are likely to stick together.

From what you say you are right to be pissed off about your union brnqach and your paid regional staff should be helping to build the branch ad get rid of the gatekeepers rather than hindering the process.

You've attacked the "fat cats" in the unions and had a general side swipe at the bureaucracy and I think it is misguided and unfair. Feel free to criticise about who the leadership support in political parties, or the supposed sell outs in industrial disputes but I think you are totally wrong on the matter of member involvement and dealing with gatekeepers.

Undoubtedly there are some absolutely appalling paid officials who do nothing to tackle the gatekeepers that exist in branches in every union. But what I would say my experience is that for paid officials in nearly every union the number one priority that is drilled into them is recruitment of new members and activists. And most paid officials I've come across realise that you can't recruit new members and activists in branches where there are gatekeepers. I reckon Dave Prentis, Mark Sewotka, Derek Simpson and all of the other TU Gen Secs would agree on this.

Sorry if this has been a bit of a rant but I'm fuming at what the full timers have done in my workplace and they're ruining peoples lives in terms of people losing their jobs.

No need to apologise for the rant - you are right to be annoyed. I only wish I was your regional official cos, despite me being having "mainstream" politics and you having (I suspect) more radical politics, I'd like to work with you to sort this out.

I'll leave you with one last thought. If only your regional officials had the power to remove the troublesome lay reps from office swiftly this would help things along much more quickly.

But then that would be putting too much power in the hands of paid officers!

 

[audiotech]

And finally if there have been no workplace meetings for 5 years what have you done to try and change that?

Not a 'workplace meeting' as such, but a stewards meeting for the sector. I've been writing to full-timers asking why no contact?

 

[nightbreed]

In my experience most young people and people in general for that matter will not get involved in unions. The main reasons are 1 apathy,not thinking it will do any good. And 2 the kind of people who dominate union meetings. Not wishing to be nasty but sad old men,who have a lack of humility and personal hygiene problems.

And therefore young people go from job to job, are exploited, bullied and experience the worst in low pay and working conditions. If they are old and smelly , kick em off and replace em. Simple. All you need is a little bit of organisation.
As a mate of mine said back in the early 90s, if you can organise a rave , you can organise something as simple as taking over a union branch!!

 

[mk12]

The quick turnover of staff at my workplace makes union organising difficult. The ease at which they can get rid of temps makes union organising a good reason to say, "you didn't impress in your probationary period, you're out." So officially, there isn't a union presence. But we're trying to do things collectively (stick up for each other in meetings, try and make sure they don't invite us into disciplinaries individually etc).

 

[KeyboardJockey]

As a mate of mine said back in the early 90s, if you can organise a rave , you can organise something as simple as taking over a union branch!!

Aha but there is motivation to organise a rave, you know you can call on people to help who you trust and there is an accepted product at the end of it. Not the same with union branches, unions are irrelevant to the majority of people I'm afraid if you don't like that fact then tough its what things are like on the ground. For the last three to four weeks I've been badgering my union rep to allow me to organise social events under the pcs banner so that I can get more people involved. I don't want to step on toes by going over his head but the point has been reached when Imight have to.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The quick turnover of staff at my workplace makes union organising difficult. The ease at which they can get rid of temps makes union organising a good reason to say, "you didn't impress in your probationary period, you're out." So officially, there isn't a union presence. But we're trying to do things collectively (stick up for each other in meetings, try and make sure they don't invite us into disciplinaries individually etc).

Yup also a problem. When faced with the choice of keeping your job or joining and organising a union most people including myself would think 'fuck the union I've got bills to pay'. Even more so now there are no protections and plenty of ways for employers to cover up union based dismissals.

 

[audiotech]

Yup also a problem. When faced with the choice of keeping your job or joining and organising a union most people including myself would think 'fuck the union I've got bills to pay'. Even more so now there are no protections and plenty of ways for employers to cover up union based dismissals.

Considering what was put in the way of tu activists when the government of the day bought in the Combination Act, today's excuses for not doing anything are paltry by comparison.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Considering what was put in the way of tu activists when the government of the day bought in the Combination Act, today's excuses for not doing anything are paltry by comparison.

Agree there. In an insecure labour market its still a problem though. This isn't the 19th C and the left / tus needs to learn that.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Firstly I suppose I ought to distinguish between what you call "full timers" and paid officials. I take it by "full timers" you are referring to lay reps on full time paid release from their day jobs as opposed to paid officials like myself who are directly employed by a union.

You're right about the lay reps on full time paid release. And they've been doing it for a long, long time. The branch secretary since the 1970s. I should think one of the reasons he's so terrified of the branch getting organised is because he'd get booted out and then might find it hard to get a job. Although I'm sure friend in the UNISON bureaucracy would sort him out with something. The regional bloke who always covers for them is a full timer though employed by the union. My experience of other full timers has never been any better.

To be honest I'm sure the regional full timer would say that he wants to build up membership and structures and I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing. After all most people try to justify to themselves what they do. But because of his politics and position in the bureaucracy it means that he ends up holding back union militancy and a real rank and file movement.

I have even less time for the general secretaries, who in quite a few cases I think are out and out selfish scum. People like Prentis. Why should he earn £100,000 a year or whatever it is? And because of his material conditions he is running the union into the ground, losing dispute after dispute and demoralising members. But I'm sure he'll get his place in the Lords and a hefty pension from UNISON.

You may be right about "gatekeepers" but they are there as the direct result of the way unions have been run with a dismantling of the rank and files, which suit the general secretaries, with their luxurious life styles, down to the ground.

and also far left gatekeepers who like the position of being a branch sec and the platform it gives them to spout off but when you look at their branches they have recruited no new members or activists

This isn't true in my experience. Most left union members want to organise action and that is what recruites (look at the PCS and RMT). I'm not saying you don't get useless leftists in trade union branches but they won't be doing things wrong out of the cynical reasons that people on the right are, it would probably be out of incompetence.

I'll leave you with one last thought. If only your regional officials had the power to remove the troublesome lay reps from office swiftly this would help things along much more quickly.

I'd rather a decent rank and file do it instead.

 

[Soul On Ice]

You're right about the lay reps on full time paid release. And they've been doing it for a long, long time. The branch secretary since the 1970s. I should think one of the reasons he's so terrified of the branch getting organised is because he'd get booted out and then might find it hard to get a job. Although I'm sure friend in the UNISON bureaucracy would sort him out with something.

Kinell being in a branch sec position since the 70s is way too long to be in that position - no wonder the branch is stagnant.

You say the regional officer would sort him out with something if he got booted out by the members. I've negotiated with employers to "sort out" long standing branch officials who were leaving their union positions whether it be through choice or them not being elected. I think this is legitimate for many reasons:

1. If they were a good branch officer and either chose to stand down or were booted out then I think it is incumbent upon the union to try to ensure they are not disadvantage - looking after our own is a good thing n'est pas?

2. If the official is a long standing gatekeeper I would rather get them to agree to stand down rather than be subject to a fractious election that could means there are recriminations that cause problems in the branch - gatekeepers who are deposed invariably hang around to cause problems afterwards. I'd rather they left of their own volition. And if I'm going to persuade them to go quietly I probably will have to help them get a job - hence I will talk to their employer. Sometimes it feels wrong helping out someone who is a gatekeeper but I reckon if I get rid of them so new blood can thrive it is worth it.

To be honest I'm sure the regional full timer would say that he wants to build up membership and structures and I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing. After all most people try to justify to themselves what they do. But because of his politics and position in the bureaucracy it means that he ends up holding back union militancy and a real rank and file movement.

You are of course correct that most people do believe their own rhetoric used to justify their position. But as I've said I'm an establishment bureaucrat and I'm pretty much in agreement with you.

You may be right about "gatekeepers" but they are there as the direct result of the way unions have been run with a dismantling of the rank and files, which suit the general secretaries, with their luxurious life styles, down to the ground.

I am right about the gatekeepers, believe me but I don't agree that they are as a result of the the bureaucracy dismantling the rank and file. Anyway if we assume us fat cat bureaucrats want to stay in the lap of luxury this is only going to happen if the income of the union stays steady. Over recent years most unions struggle to maintain their existing membership levels and this isn't in the interests of the fat cats cos with fewer members the voice of the union is weaker and people will start to leave and then the fat cats will get hit in the pocket. So even the most serving fat cat would want membership to be high

I suppose all I'm saying CR is don't tar all the regional staff with the same brush. I'm sure there are many things that you and I would disagree on but I know there is more that we would agree on and I reckon I could work with you to help you sort your branch out - and there are other regional officials who will do so also. But if you have a cynical and knee jerk response to regional officials before you've given them a chance then more likely than not they will just ignore you. Personally speaking I will work with any memerb of any political leaning. But there are some far left activists who I've dealt with who just constantly bad mouth and attack regional officials without even giving me a chance to do anything - and to be honest I just ignore then and do as little as possible to help them. If you teat me with respect I will do the same back to you.

That said if you've given someone a chance and they show themselves to be a crap regional official (and I know there's quite a few of them) then slag em off as much as you want. Crap regional officials piss me off as much as gobshite far left activists who snipe from the sidelines.

Good luck in your effort in sorting your branch out.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Kinell being in a branch sec position since the 70s is way too long to be in that position - no wonder the branch is stagnant.

I agree. Personally I think positions like that should be time limited. Someone shouldn't be able to do them for more than about four years.

I think this is legitimate for many reasons

If someone was a good branch secretary fair enough. But not self-serving tossers who have run the branch into the ground. But despite this people will still look after "their own". Unfortunately in quite a lot of cases the bureaucracy sees other bureaucrats as their own rather than members and the wider working class.

It's like the unwritten rule that general secretaties have in not having a go at other general secretaries. Even Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka stick to it. But it's totally wrong, they should be slating people like Prentis for what they are doing.

If the official is a long standing gatekeeper I would rather get them to agree to stand down rather than be subject to a fractious election that could means there are recriminations that cause problems in the branch

I wouldn't care either way. To be honest I'd rather members vote them out because it would probably signal a more active and radical membership being built up.

Anyway if we assume us fat cat bureaucrats want to stay in the lap of luxury this is only going to happen if the income of the union stays steady. Over recent years most unions struggle to maintain their existing membership levels and this isn't in the interests of the fat cats cos with fewer members the voice of the union is weaker and people will start to leave and then the fat cats will get hit in the pocket. So even the most serving fat cat would want membership to be high

I wasn't calling all full timers fat cats by the way, but the general secretaries certainly are as are quite a lot of people at the top of union bureaucracies. I agree that out of self-interest unions don't want membership to dwindle too much, but recruiting is often done on a very passive basis with the promise of credit cards and union diaries rather than on a militant and active basis. Also most union bureaucrats know that memberships won't dwindle so fast that they'll be out of a job anytime soon.

I suppose all I'm saying CR is don't tar all the regional staff with the same brush.

That's fair enough and I'm sure there are good religional staff out there. General secretaries, by and large, are another matter and the vast majority of them are self-serving bastards in my view (and loaded on their salaries to boot). How can it be that our union leaders end up in the House of Lords, it makes me sick.

Thanks for you good luck message. I hope I did give the regional official a chance, I was just really upset and angry at some of the comments him and the branch officials were coming out with.

 

[lights.out.london]

Rebuild the unions? There has to be a better way for workers to unite and defend their rights.

Unions? Mostly redundant since 1979. Stuffed full of careerists, junket joyriders, the middle classes and the hopelessly, hopelessly out of touch.

Unions? Class traitors. Shoot them after the cops and the social workers have theirs.

 

[nightbreed]

Rebuild the unions? There has to be a better way for workers to unite and defend their rights.

I await with glee your suggestion as to what to replace them with.I have known plenty of anarchists over the past thirty years and all they come up with is complete shit.

So, lightsoutlondon, bust a gut, what is your alternative to unions?

(turns over goes back to sleep..........)

 

[lights.out.london]

I await with glee your suggestion as to what to replace them with.I have known plenty of anarchists over the past thirty years and all they come up with is complete shit.

So, lightsoutlondon, bust a gut, what is your alternative to unions?

(turns over goes back to sleep..........)

Y'know, I was about to compliment you on your handle. I'm a huge Clive Barker fan - Hellraiser mostly.

Bust a gut? Whilst you've gone back to sleep? Nah.

btw - can one await with glee whilst one is also asleep?

 

[durruti02]

I'm attending a union meeting in a couple of weeks. The first that's been called by UNISON in the last five years of my present employment, to discuss certain issues to do with the voluntary and charitable sector I work in. About fucking time an all.

why didn't you call one before???

 

[durruti02]

Sadly the above experience is nowhere near unique, especially in unions like UNISON where years of right-wing leadership have led to a situation of a passive membership, total lack of branch structures, hardly any stewards and bureaucratic self-serving full-timers. Even in branches that have a left base, such as in Lambeth, there are still many problems.

It seems to me that there effectively a lot of "yellow branches" in unions like UNISON. I have no doubt that given better leadership staff in the organisation I'm in would have been more than prepared to take strike action to save jobs, as the initial vote showed.

In the 1920s the Communist Party had the tactic of "turn to the unions". I can't think of a more important task for the working class and the left here and now. Unions rank and files have been decimated in the last 20 years and strike figures have been at a historic low.

Now there have been green shoots showing since the bleakness of the 90s but without a re-building of the structures of branches, stewards and corrupt and self-serving leaderships of the unions and a lot of full-timers we will always be fighting with one hand behind our backs.

This doesn't matter whether it's a community campaign, building an alternative to the BNP, trying to stop wars/occupations, fighting attacks of welfare, privatisations and of course day to day union issues.

So far the two main things I've seen are the RMTs launch of an organisation to build a new national stewards network and the SWPs/RESPECTs "Fighting Unions" conferences. To be honest (and I'm really not saying this to be sectarian) the Fighting Union conference was one of the most depressing, top heavy events I've been to, I mean the irony of having a conference to try and build a rank and file and having one table speaker after the other with little input from the floor and little practical suggestions on what to do next can't have been lost on people.

The RMT events have also been top heavy but it does seem to have more potential and should be supported by as many trade unionists as possible in my view.

What do other people think? I can't think of a greater task at the moment. It's all good and well people saying getting stuck into local campaigns and local work (and people should), but until the unions and workers movement is re-built I really can't see us getting anywhere in any fundamental sense.

i agree to a large extent CR .. there is a fear of militancy that i do not see reflecting what a see at the base .. i do have two issues though

1) i think the major thing that holds us back is confidence and confidence that it is worthwhile taking action even being active even being IN a union .. that means small actions / small victories .. building up .. it is a lot of work

2) I think it is a mistake to concentrate on unions at the expense of communities .. i think the left ( particularly the SW) make a major mistake ( and misunderstanding on marxism) when the ignore communities as they do .. indeed i think any forward motion will come from the two things going hand in hand

 

[nightbreed]

btw - can one await with glee whilst one is also asleep?

I'll give it a go

 

[cockneyrebel]

1) i think the major thing that holds us back is confidence and confidence that it is worthwhile taking action even being active even being IN a union .. that means small actions / small victories .. building up .. it is a lot of work

2) I think it is a mistake to concentrate on unions at the expense of communities .. i think the left ( particularly the SW) make a major mistake ( and misunderstanding on marxism) when the ignore communities as they do .. indeed i think any forward motion will come from the two things going hand in hand

I have no problems with either of these two statements.

But you get the other side of the coin as well where groups ignore the trade unions and just do community work. Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism with their "third worldist" stance are one example but another example is the IWCA.

I agree that the two things should go hand in hand but ultimately the power of the working class rests in the workplace. Until we sort out the workers movement in trade unions then we will also be fighting a losing battle or only get extremely limited gains.

 

[nightbreed]

2) I think it is a mistake to concentrate on unions at the expense of communities .. i think the left ( particularly the SW) make a major mistake ( and misunderstanding on marxism) when the ignore communities as they do .. indeed i think any forward motion will come from the two things going hand in hand

Im sorry but thats not happening at the moment.

Both things should go hand in hand but organisations such as SW are placing more commitment with communities ie standing in elections and getting miniscule votes (they sell out working class unity in favour of collaboration with religious groups!!)

SW effort in the unions is largely ineffective , at best, a means to an end; which can be explained as getting workers support for their RESPECT adventure.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'm absolutely hammered. Just got back from a club with my sister and friends. All I can say is that regional officials or otherwise, if you're on our side good luck to you. There's a big task ahead, but one way or another we're gonna do it.....

Now I'm off to listen to Betty Davies Eyes.......