Strike!

[chilango]

Who's not taking mediation/representation seriously?

 

[Lo Siento.]

It wasn't just a mis-reading on my part. It appears LM was challenged as to whether the union planned to "disrupt the olympics" and basically responded in the affirmative without properly qualifying it.

Union leaders need to be careful, insofar as it's possible without backing down in any way, to present themselves in a way that is appealing to a wider public. Don't forget rates of union membership are massively down on where they were in the 70s. But I didn't ever say that union leaders should trim their sails to what is convenient to the Labour leadership. I've *never* thought that.

Nah, it's the typical mis-reading that comes from the idea that trade unionists and people in general are better off moderating themselves to appeal to a mythical "public opinion" which is essentially the Westminster echo chamber reframed as if it were a debate and not two sides of the same shit.

The ruling class and their media say he wants to personally shoot the olympic mascots in the head, therefore he must have said it and he should moderate his language.

Rates of union membership are directly linked to their level of aggression and militancy. People don't leave trade unions because the leadership says things they disagree with, their membership lapses or they don't join in the first place those trade unions that don't achieve anything for them. The only person this is embarrassing for is Ed Miliband, because the unions pay his wages and he'd rather they weren't.

 

[Lo Siento.]

OK, OK The damage is less in what he said, than in how it was represented (though he really ought to have been clearer).

Whatever a trade union leader says, unless it's about social partnership or any other collaborationist bollocks that has been the death of trade unionism over and over again, will be represented that way. The representation of trade unions within what is essentially a closed discourse is not going to significantly vary according to interviews the leaders give, ffs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's no such thing as an apolitical strike - but that doesn't mean that an aggregate of strikes is the alpha and omega of politics.

No-one has claimed that it is.

An element of mediation/representation is unavoidable - even if your goal is to avoid that you'll end up with those questions raised further down the line - and often in a more aggressive and atavistic form than if you took them seriously in the first place.

There's a difference - sometimes subtle, often not - between an element of mediation/representation "creeping in" due to individual bias or preference, and the ridiculous depths of mediation and representation some subjects are ...well, subjected to by the media and political classes. All supposedly to facilitate understanding, but generally blatantly to facilitate not information, but propaganda. Your* interpretation, that you wish to spin, for professional and political reasons, against a normative interpretation or interpretations that don't serve your political purposes.

*By which I mean your ilk.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who's not taking mediation/representation seriously?

Hey, we're not taking his version seriously.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Article8, I am shocked to read in an earlier post that you are not opposed to decapitating the Queen.

You New-Labour types go around pretending to be all patriotic and favouring the status quo, being against the criminal classes against strikes and supporting the Establishment, while on the other hand you would stand by and let the Queen be decapitated.

You will almost certainly be thrown out of your London club if your friends find out about your secret 'philosophical' terrorist sympathies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nah, it's the typical mis-reading that comes from the idea that trade unionists and people in general are better off moderating themselves to appeal to a mythical "public opinion" which is essentially the Westminster echo chamber reframed as if it were a debate and not two sides of the same shit.

Yup.

The ruling class and their media say he wants to personally shoot the olympic mascots in the head, therefore he must have said it and he should moderate his language.

And, of course, a8's worry is that enough people will buy that representation to do harm to his cause, which doesn't exactly signal that he's got a handle on what Joe Average thinks and wants.

Rates of union membership are directly linked to their level of aggression and militancy. People don't leave trade unions because the leadership says things they disagree with, their membership lapses or they don't join in the first place those trade unions that don't achieve anything for them.

That's pretty much the only reason I've heard from people when they leave a union.

The only person this is embarrassing for is Ed Miliband, because the unions pay his wages and he'd rather they weren't.

Well, he'd rather that no-one knew that they do.

 

[articul8]

Nah, it's the typical mis-reading that comes from the idea that trade unionists and people in general are better off moderating themselves to appeal to a mythical "public opinion" which is essentially the Westminster echo chamber reframed as if it were a debate and not two sides of the same shit.

I think trade unionists need to be aware of the fact that their motives, practices and goals genuinely aren't really familiar to a pretty wide section of society, including other workers - young people working in McDonalds don't automatically undrestand this, young mums, hell it's been so long since the heydey of trade unions that even people just qualifying as teachers know can't be assumed to just "get it".

The idea that we can't do anything to shape the way the media represents unions is fatalist and self-defeating. There are limits of course - Bob Crow is not going to be invited on the One Show every week for a spot of hero worship. But we really do need to act as though every time we speak to a broad public audience we were talking to people who had never heard of unions before. I don't mean to be remotely patronising about this. The unions in general haven't made themselves relevant to people's lives for so long now there's no earthly reason why they should.

The idea that everyone cuts through the media shit but judging it against their direct experience might be true of some people - but can't be taken for granted.

 

[articul8]

Article8, I am shocked to read in an earlier post that you are not opposed to decapitating the Queen.

You New-Labour types go around pretending to be all patriotic and favouring the status quo, being against the criminal classes against strikes and supporting the Establishment, while on the other hand you would stand by and let the Queen be decapitated.

You will almost certainly be thrown out of your London club if your friends find out about your secret 'philosophical' terrorist sympathies.

My "London club" Only club I ever go near is St Jo's social club, normally home to Irish building workers and Celtic fans - I doubt they'd have much of a problem with it. I am not and have never been a "New Labour" type btw

 

[Lo Siento.]

I think trade unionists need to be aware of the fact that their motives, practices and goals genuinely aren't really familiar to a pretty wide section of society, including other workers - young people working in McDonalds don't automatically undrestand this, young mums, hell it's been so long since the heydey of trade unions that even people just qualifying as teachers know can't be assumed to just "get it".

The idea that we can't do anything to shape the way the media represents unions is fatalist and self-defeating. There are limits of course - Bob Crow is not going to be invited on the One Show every week for a spot of hero worship. But we really do need to act as though every time we speak to a broad public audience we were talking to people who had never heard of unions before. I don't mean to be remotely patronising about this. The unions in general haven't made themselves relevant to people's lives for so long now there's no earthly reason why they should.

The idea that everyone cuts through the media shit but judging it against their direct experience might be true of some people - but can't be taken for granted.

You're spectacularly missing the point. It's not that everyone can cut through the media shit, it's that the discourse is rigged, it IS something we cannot shape. For my entire adult life, there have been two competing visions of trade unionism (a) obstructionist anachronisms (b) glorified insurance salesmen - that's it, there is never going to be a mass media appreciation of militant trade unionism.

And yet! And yet! That framed narrative is something you can disrupt. It's something you can disrupt with actions and statements which make that discourse debate things it doesn't want to debate. You don't disrupt it staying within their margins, but by showing people that their margins don't really exist.

Funny you should mention Bob Crow, as his union has no trouble recruiting or standing up for their members at all. This despite the fact that he gets more negative press than any other union leaders. That's because the negative press is virtually irrelevant to getting and retaining members, virtually irrelevant to their levels of activity. What gets people into trade unions is fighting and winning, and what gets people to change their ideas about trade unionism is being in trade unions, fighting and winning. Simple.

 

[articul8]

Re Crow - to an extent. But look beyond the immediate industrial agenda of wage bargaining etc. and how's he been able to influence the privatisation of the railway, PPP on the tube - hell McNulty shows they are coming after all the rail unions in a big way. Industrial muscle doesn't equate to political success - but's it not a zero-sum game either.

(Some bollocks about this great movement of ours flying with both wings....)

 

[Lo Siento.]

Re Crow - to an extent. But look beyond the immediate industrial agenda of wage bargaining etc. and how's he been able to influence the privatisation of the railway, PPP on the tube - hell McNulty shows they are coming after all the rail unions in a big way. Industrial muscle doesn't equate to political success - but's it not a zero-sum game either.

(Some bollocks about this great movement of ours flying with both wings....)

In what hypothetical situation would Crow have been able to prevent PPP and rail privatisation (which incidentally happened before he was elected General Secretary)?

 

[Nigel]

article about youth workers strike here: http://oxfordaylesburysp.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/report-on-youth-workers-strike-in-oxfordshire/

Excellent and humorous article.

 

[articul8]

In what hypothetical situation would Crow have been able to prevent PPP and rail privatisation (which incidentally happened before he was elected General Secretary)?

What I'm saying is that being an effective wage bargaining unit for his members is one thing - being able to deliver on broader political questions doesn't follow from it.

 

[redsquirrel]

That very much depends on what you mean by political strategy, and what is the goal of said strategy in the first place.

In A8's case to get Labour back into No. 10.

It's amazing how he doesn't get this

Funny you should mention Bob Crow, as his union has no trouble recruiting or standing up for their members at all. This despite the fact that he gets more negative press than any other union leaders. That's because the negative press is virtually irrelevant to getting and retaining members, virtually irrelevant to their levels of activity. What gets people into trade unions is fighting and winning, and what gets people to change their ideas about trade unionism is being in trade unions, fighting and winning. Simple.

The above should be obvious to anybody involved in unions. He's gone so far up Labours arse that he really can't see anything outside his own little clique.

 

[articul8]

How about answering my points a #1121 - even Crow himself recognises this, hence the involvement with TUSC - but that's manifestly inadequate...

 

[Lo Siento.]

What I'm saying is that being an effective wage bargaining unit for his members is one thing - being able to deliver on broader political questions doesn't follow from it.

How about answering my points a #1121 - even Crow himself recognises this, hence the involvement with TUSC - but that's manifestly inadequate...

You're not asking the right questions though articul8. No one is saying that aggressive collective bargaining is, in itself, a panacea for all our ills and guaranteed to destroy neoliberal hegemony.

The question is whether the kind of moderation you're asking for will achieve anything, either for the union, or its wider political aims, and you've made no convincing argument that it would.

(and say what you like about aggressive collective bargaining, but it's a hell of a lot better to have it than not)

 

[Santino]

Went past a picket line this morning on the bus but I couldn't see who it was. Looked like some sort of construction/electrician sort of thing. Who's striking today?

 

[butchersapron]

In Tottenham by any chance?

 

[Santino]

Ealing

 

[butchersapron]

Ah, not what i was thinking of then (attempt to stop IDS talking at a workfare meeting). Parking attendants on strike in Ealing...

 

[articul8]

You're not asking the right questions though articul8. No one is saying that aggressive collective bargaining is, in itself, a panacea for all our ills and guaranteed to destroy neoliberal hegemony.

The question is whether the kind of moderation you're asking for will achieve anything, either for the union, or its wider political aims, and you've made no convincing argument that it would.

(and say what you like about aggressive collective bargaining, but it's a hell of a lot better to have it than not)

I'm not arguing for moderation of political demands - I'm arguing for a bit more tactical nous and understanding of the importance of presentating the unions' case in its most apparently reasonable and irrefutable terms - Serwotka is really good at this without being anyone's pushover.

What's more impressive to my mind is less the kind of wage settlement Crow gets for tube drivers (though good luck to them), but the RMTs successes in getting victories for previously unionised low paid workers like outsourced cleaners.

 

[chilango]

Ah, not what i was thinking of then (attempt to stop IDS talking at a workfare meeting). Parking attendants on strike in Ealing...

Is there any simple online list of strike actions etc. (a little bit like what Collective Action Notes, Echanges et Mouvement etc.used to print)?

It'd be good to see a list, with minimum of clutter.

 

[chilango]

I'm not arguing for moderation of political demands - I'm arguing for a bit more tactical nous and understanding of the importance of presentating the unions' case in its most apparently reasonable and irrefutable terms - Serwotka is really good at this without being anyone's pushover.

What's more impressive to my mind is less the kind of wage settlement Crow gets for tube drivers (though good luck to them), but the RMTs successes in getting victories for previously unionised low paid workers like outsourced cleaners.

Why would anyone need to "present the union's case"?

Who would you be presenting to?

 

[butchersapron]

Is there any simple online list of strike actions etc. (a little bit like what Collective Action Notes, Echanges et Mouvement etc.used to print)?

It'd be good to see a list, with minimum of clutter.

Union news seems to be the best at the minute. I might have some news regarding at attempt to do a hard copy version of something along the lines of echanges quite soon...(also something along the lines of the old cienguegos press review as well)

 

[chilango]

Cool. I've seen Union News before. It's not bad for what it is. But a timeline of action would be useful as well as news articles...

Look forward to hearing more about the the other project too...

 

[articul8]

Why would anyone need to "present the union's case"?

Who would you be presenting to?

Both to the lay members beyond the activists (who did trade union members vote for at the last election? What newspapers do they read?) and to the wider sections of the w/c beyond those who are involved with or related to union activists. And yes to the media - to the extent that it's possible to cut across its ingrained ideological filter.

 

[chilango]

Both to the lay members beyond the activists (who did trade union members vote for at the last election? What newspapers do they read?) and to the wider sections of the w/c beyond those who are involved with or related to union activists. And yes to the media - to the extent that it's possible to cut across its ingrained ideological filter.

Don't get me wrong, you're right that it is a good thing if this can be done, but these aims should not become concerns that dictate strategy.

 

[articul8]

I wasn't talking about strategy (it might well be the case that we ought to organise significant protests to coincide with the Olympics) as much as tactics for dealing with hostile interviewers. What he was actually saying was much more reasonable than was represented - was this unavoidable? Maybe - but I think in retrospect he might have been expressed himself a bit differently.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I'm not arguing for moderation of political demands - I'm arguing for a bit more tactical nous and understanding of the importance of presentating the unions' case in its most apparently reasonable and irrefutable terms - Serwotka is really good at this without being anyone's pushover.

That kind of "tactical nous" and "understanding" has served the unions really well over the last 3 decades

What's more impressive to my mind is less the kind of wage settlement Crow gets for tube drivers (though good luck to them), but the RMTs successes in getting victories for previously unionised low paid workers like outsourced cleaners.

The latter, of course, would be almost impossible if it weren't for the former.