SWP expulsions and squabbles

[One_Stop_Shop]

I suppose it comes down to what it is you are asking the RMT to do?
Why would they need to hold an investigation when I'm sure no one would deny what happened? It's all there on facebook for anyone to see.

Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but I think you are saying the RMT should take some sort of action against Steve Hedley? The question then becomes what the penalty should be?

If you are saying Steve Hedley should be sacked for inappropriate language in the context of a sweary, abusive row on facebook then I think that is a disproportionate punishment for the offence. I also think (purely anecdotally and based on no empirical evidence what so ever) that most RMT members would be completely bewildered at such a punishment.

If you are saying he should be suspended or sanctioned in some other way I have some sympathy for that but on balance I don't believe it would be the best way of tackling the issue. I think it's important to bear in mind that Steve Hedley is an elected full time official. A decision to suspend him by the General Secretary or the Council of Execs would be over-riding the democratic mandate of the membership, something that should only be done in the most serious of circumstances. I don't believe this is the most serious of circumstances given it occurred in the context of a sweary row on social media.

If I was Bob Crow my preferred option would be to pull him into the office, tell him this kind of public behaviour is unacceptable in a high profile elected official of the union and extract a promise it wouldn't happen again, perhaps followed up by a written warning.
If the behaviour persists then the RMT leaderhsip would be in a stronger position to take action having demonstrated they had exhausted all other avenues to resolve the situation.

Again Steve Hedley isn't someone who is new to trade unionism, he is an experienced trade unionist of many decades. As such I would have a far harsher view. If you take such a position you have to take the responsibility that goes with it, so I don't think there is a comparison with someone using the word cunt in a workplace.

The context of this wasn't even a nasty personal row that got totally out of hand (not that that would be excusable either). His comments were made to a young woman he didn't know on facebook with little provocation other than a few swear words. That he felt perfectly ok about making a tirade of sexist and misogynistic abuse to a young woman would seem to reflect an underlying view on these issues. It's not like he even reflected on what he had done and apologised afterwards, which suggests that even in the cold light of day he thought it was an ok thing to do.

Also I think just saying that it was "inappropriate language" or "a sweary row" totally down plays the seriousness of what he said. I also think it is wrong of you to keep saying that both parties behaved badly as if there was some kind of parity. Swearing at someone is hardly the same as sexism and misogyny.

I don't beleive that if he had made a tirade of racist abuse against someone in the same circumstances that people would say he was still fit to be the deputy general secretary of the RMT. The same should be true for misogyny and sexism.

The investigation should decide what sanction should be taken. Also I think elected officials should be recallable. So if it is possible maybe this could be put to the membership and they could have a vote on whether he should stay in post or not.

 

[leyton96]

Littlechild says it wasn't an investigation at all - more a preliminary hearing

You just can't help yourself can you? You don't know shit about what sort of process went on and until we hear from the RMT anyone with a bit of sense would take what Jump the Gun Littlechild says, or anyone else (including 'Gerald' with a pinch of salt. If I found out a fellow union rep was leaking info about a disciplinary case while it was ongoing I'd have a word or two to say to them I can tell you! Any rep with a bit of sense would do the same.

 

[leyton96]

Again Steve Hedley isn't someone who is new to trade unionism, he is an experienced trade unionist of many decades. As such I would have a far harsher view. If you take such a position you have to take the responsibility that goes with it, so I don't think there is a comparison with someone using the word cunt in a workplace.

I used those examples to show that not everyone would see it as a sackable offence. Steve Hedley certainly should have known better. Disciplinary procedures have to be seen as proportionate by a good majority of the people they apply to otherwise they fall into contempt. That's the point I'm making.

As for your point on recallability I entirely agree. If it did apply in the RMT and someone wanted to run a recall campaign on the basis of what was said on facebook I wouldn't have a problem with that. IF the membership decide to recall him then well and good.
It becomes more of a problem when you have 'administrative measures' applied by a bureaucracy, even if that is a largely elected bureaucracy.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

............

 

[cesare]

You just can't help yourself can you? You don't know shit about what sort of process went on and until we hear from the RMT anyone with a bit of sense would take what Jump the Gun Littlechild says, or anyone else (including 'Gerald' with a pinch of salt. If I found out a fellow union rep was leaking info about a disciplinary case while it was ongoing I'd have a word or two to say to them I can tell you! Any rep with a bit of sense would do the same.

Are you "Gerald"?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/documents/88-inaugural-meeting-minutes

Strains showing already as well as the clear divide between the ones who are still marxists vs the identity politics crowd. Won't end well.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Strains showing already as well as the clear divide between the ones who are still marxists vs the identity politics crowd.

Identity politics under the bed?! where?! "The IS Network has a zero tolerance approach to sexism."? As for strains, any honest thinking about socialist organisation will throw up different points of view but that's an existential threat to "democratic" ultra-centralised orgs only.

On the other hand, the ISN makes clear that it isn't attempting to be the one true revolutionary group, so it's an interim structure only.

Very different approach to Counterfire's post-union, Rees and German in charge of the movements evident! Not surprising mind since, having never been integrated into the SWP leadership, a good number of ISNers seem to still be union reps.

 

[leyton96]

Are you "Gerald"?

Nope. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the RMT

You don't have to be an insider in the RMT to to know Littlechild made a mistake going public while the process was ongoing. In a workplace situation going public prematurely when the process is unsatisfactory is the very worst thing to do as it muddies the waters completely. It allows management to turn around and say the union was also interfering with the process if the case is taken higher up the management tree or to an Employment Tribunal.

 

[cesare]

Nope. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the RMT

You don't have to be an insider in the RMT to to know Littlechild made a mistake going public while the process was ongoing. In a workplace situation going public prematurely when the process is unsatisfactory is the very worst thing to do as it muddies the waters completely. It allows management to turn around and say the union was also interfering with the process if the case is taken higher up the management tree or to an Employment Tribunal.

Hedley went public though.

 

[leyton96]

Hedley went public though.

Not about the process he didn't. He went public about the outcome of the investigation.
I wouldn't have had a problem if Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan had said publicly 'We do not accept the result and will be appealing'.

But to reveal specific details while the investigation is ongoing is wrong and unfair as the RMT can't publicly put their side while their own process is ongoing. Bear in mind the persons who conducted the investigation may well be known within the RMT. Their reputations may well be on the line now as well. They also do not have a chance to defend themselves publicly. In the meantime one version of events gets wide circulation.

Do you see what I mean about leaks muddying the waters?

 

[cesare]

Not about the process he didn't. He went public about the outcome of the investigation.
I wouldn't have had a problem if Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan had said publicly 'We do not accept the result and will be appealing'.

But to reveal specific details while the investigation is ongoing is wrong and unfair as the RMT can't publicly put their side while their own process is ongoing. Bear in mind the persons who conducted the investigation may well be known within the RMT. Their reputations may well be on the line now as well. They also do not have a chance to defend themselves publicly. In the meantime one version of events gets wide circulation.

Do you see what I mean about leaks muddying the waters?

You have a very different perception to me about the publicising and content of Hedley's version of events.

And, going back to your last post (#11703) there's nothing in "Gerald's" comment to say that he's an RMT member/boss so you didn't need to say that you weren't. "Gerald" could just as easily be a member of another interested political party, yes?

 

[leyton96]

You have a very different perception to me about the publicising and content of Hedley's version of events.

And, going back to your last post (#11703) there's nothing in "Gerald's" comment to say that he's an RMT member/boss so you didn't need to say that you weren't. "Gerald" could just as easily be a member of another interested political party, yes?

You think so? I've just reread Steve Hedley's statement and I can't see anything that goes into specific details about how the investigation was conducted as there is in the statements of Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan.

As for 'Gerald's identity you are right to say he/she doesn't have to be a member of the RMT, that was an attempt to be a bit light hearted. To be clear I am not 'Gerald'. There's not much I can do to convince you beyond saying that.

 

[cesare]

You think so? I've just reread Steve Hedley's statement and I can't see anything that goes into specific details about how the investigation was conducted as there is in the statements of Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan.

As for 'Gerald's identity you are right to say he/she doesn't have to be a member of the RMT, that was an attempt to be a bit light hearted. To be clear I am not 'Gerald'. There's not much I can do to convince you beyond saying that.

Were you against the making public of the SWP transcript too?

 

[leyton96]

Were you against the making public of the SWP transcript too?

To be honest I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole thing.

On the one hand I think people with in organisations should have the right to a certain amount of privacy when they are having internal discussions such as a national conference. It was certainly a betrayal of trust by the person who leaked it not just of the CC (I couldn't give a flying fuck about them) but also of the other members who spoke in that debate.

On the other hand it was clearly a very serious issue that arose in the context (ubiquitous word!) of a very bad atmosphere of intimidation by the leadership. It would be reasonable to assume that the person leaking would have had absolutely no confidence in the fairness of the disciplinary process of the SWP. They would be absolutely right to think so as numerous posts from ex-members on this very thread have demonstrated.

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but I don't think it's correct to make a direct comparison between the SWP process and the RMT process. I'm not aware that the record of the RMT is in any way as rotten as the SWP's when it comes to dealing with internal complaints. If it was even half as rotten as the SWP's I would have a different attitude to the way Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan have conducted themselves.
However I don't think that is the case. I'm not saying the RMT's procedures are perfect but I think they should be given a much bigger benefit of the doubt than the SWP's.

 

[cesare]

To be honest I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole thing.

On the one hand I think people with in organisations should have the right to a certain amount of privacy when they are having internal discussions such as a national conference. It was certainly a betrayal of trust by the person who leaked it not just of the CC (I couldn't give a flying fuck about them) but also of the other members who spoke in that debate.

On the other hand it was clearly a very serious issue that arose in the context (ubiquitous word!) of a very bad atmosphere of intimidation by the leadership. It would be reasonable to assume that the person leaking would have had absolutely no confidence in the fairness of the disciplinary process of the SWP. They would be absolutely right to think so as numerous posts from ex-members on this very thread have demonstrated.

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but I don't think it's correct to make a direct comparison between the SWP process and the RMT process. I'm not aware that the record of the RMT is in any way as rotten as the SWP's when it comes to dealing with internal complaints. If it was even half as rotten as the SWP's I would have a different attitude to the way Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan have conducted themselves.
However I don't think that is the case. I'm not saying the RMT's procedures are perfect but I think they should be given a much bigger benefit of the doubt than the SWP's.

I'm not in the mood for giving the RMT the benefit of the doubt at the moment. That statement of Hedley's went public before the process was exhausted - it was he (and the people that actively assisted with its publication) that pre-empted the final outcome.

 

[leyton96]

I'm not in the mood for giving the RMT the benefit of the doubt at the moment. That statement of Hedley's went public before the process was exhausted - it was he (and the people that actively assisted with its publication) that pre-empted the final outcome.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear.

I am not objecting to Caroline Leneghan or Andy Littlechild going public as such. What I am objecting to is going public alleging specific details of an internal investigation that damages the reputation of the persons or organisation conducting the process and denies them the opportunity to respond. The RMT can't conduct the process and engage in a public war of words with Caroline Leneghan and Andy Littlechild about that very same process. The whole process would collapse. Surely you must see that?

If at the end of the initial investigation Caroline Leneghan and Andy Littlechild had decided the investigation was flawed and their only course was to withdraw (i.e. not appeal), conduct a public campaign of criticism of that process by taking it to the members then fair enough. The RMT would have an equal opportunity to put it's case as to how it conducted itself to the membership as well. The same would apply if Caroline Leneghan had decided to withdraw when the alleged insensitive questions occurred.
In that way both sides would have a fair shake at presenting their case.

That's not what has happened here.

As for the procedures of the RMT unless you can provide evidence of multiple mishandled disciplinary cases a lá the SWP then I think you going to have to do better than just relying on your mood if you are going to use the SWP as a comparison.

 

[cesare]

I really don't have a problem with Andy Littlechild representing his member in the most effective way possible, actually.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I think the question is whether the process in the RMT is over or not. It's not, is it?

 

[leyton96]

I really don't have a problem with Andy Littlechild representing his member in the most effective way possible, actually.

I'd like Andy Littlechild to do that to, the problem is I don't think he's done her case any favours by leaking stuff even under the best of circumstances. If it turns out he's been selectively quoting Bob Crow and the police on top of that how do you think the Council of Exec's is going to look on that when they present her appeal?
Whatever judgement the Council of Execs now makes, who's to say it was based entirely on the facts of the case? If it's in favour of Caroline Leneghan members might well say it was really under the pressure of the leaks? If it's in favour of Steve Hedley people may well think it was a reaction to Andy Littlechild leaking details, a closing of ranks around a senior official?

Water. Muddied.

Again I'd urge people to put Andy Littlechild's action into the context of a union rep defending a member in an employment disciplinary procedure. Even if the process is rotten (which in the RMT's case I'm not convinced it is) the very last thing you want to do is go public prematurely. At the end of a fishy process you want to come out the other side as the people who'd done things by the book and the employers as the one who'd been acting silly buggers. That strengthens your hand if you decide to escalate thing whether that means going higher up the management tree, to an ET or a general membership meeting to canvass for strike action. What you don't want is a war of words with management about who violated the process the most as THAT becomes the main narrative, not the grievance of the member you are defending.

Really, it's trade union rep 101 stuff.

 

[cesare]

And I'd urge people to put Andy Littlechild's action into the context of a union rep representing a member in an employment *grievance* procedure (unless you're saying that CL is being disciplined?) and also in the context of needing to represent her in the public now too as a result of a prematurely publicised "outcome".

 

[leyton96]

And I'd urge people to put Andy Littlechild's action into the context of a union rep representing a member in an employment *grievance* procedure (unless you're saying that CL is being disciplined?) and also in the context of needing to represent her in the public now too as a result of a prematurely publicised "outcome".

Nice try. Andy Littlechild could have easily done that by saying, 'We reject what Steve Hedley is saying. He is not exonerated in our eyes. We are appealing to the Council of Execs'

Simple, to the point and no messy details that the RMT have no opportunity to reply to until the process is complete.

Edit - I'm not sure where you are coming from when you say 'prematurely publicized outcome'. A judgement has to be announced first before there is an appeal. By your logic all such announcements would be 'premature' until an appeal was launched? Presumably if the RMT had found in favour of Caroline Leneghan and she announced it you wouldn't say it was premature if Steve Hedley appealed?

 

[cesare]

Nice try. Andy Littlechild could have easily done that by saying, 'We reject what Steve Hedley is saying. He is not exonerated in our eyes. We are appealing to the Council of Execs'

Simple, to the point and no messy details that the RMT have no opportunity to reply to until the process is complete.

You are "Gerald" aren't you

Nice to see that the spirit of supporting the workers' struggle is alive and well.

 

[leyton96]

You are "Gerald" aren't you

Nice to see that the spirit of supporting the workers' struggle is alive and well.

One person with a pseudonym accuses another person with a pseudonym of using a different pseudonym.
Clearly we've reached the end of sensible discussion.

 

[cesare]

One person with a pseudonym accuses another person with a pseudonym of using a different pseudonym.
Clearly we've reached the end of sensible discussion.

I'm questioning your motives. We've only known you for a couple of months even though you've been registered since 2010. You tell us you're an SP member and bring us Steve Hedley's published account. You go right off at the deep end when articul8 queried it. And now you bring us "Gerald's" comment and proceed to undermine a very well known and effective union rep.

 

[Das Uberdog]

cesare, pretty bad form casting aspersions around rather than engaging with the issue. do you think the RMT should have a process to deal with these issues at all? if they do, then it should be followed. leaks do muddy the water. if you're calling into question the validity of the entire process then do that but be honest about it.

 

[cesare]

cesare, pretty bad form casting aspersions around rather than engaging with the issue. do you think the RMT should have a process to deal with these issues at all? if they do, then it should be followed. leaks do muddy the water. if you're calling into question the validity of the entire process then do that but be honest about it.

I'm being completely fucking honest. I don't think Andy's done anything out of order and I think he's being actively and deliberately discredited.

 

[Das Uberdog]

honest wasn't the word i was looking for, i meant that leaking and questioning the validity of the whole process can't be unentwined - apologies

 

[leyton96]

I'm questioning your motives. We've only known you for a couple of months even though you've been registered since 2010. You tell us you're an SP member and bring us Steve Hedley's published account. You go right off at the deep end when articul8 queried it. And now you bring us "Gerald's" comment and proceed to undermine a very well known and effective union rep.

See, that's the difference between you and me. We have a disagreement. For me that's because we are coming from different experiences and political perspectives. These things happen. I'm prepared to take your disagreement at face value.

You don't seem to be able to accept that I simply have an honest difference of opinion with you without ascribing all sorts of ulterior motives to me. You are spinning perfectly normal internet behavior into something that says I'm not being straight.

Are you saying Urban 75 never gets 'lurkers' who decide at different stages to participate?
Are you saying posters don't occasionally have strong reactions to other posters?
So what if I posted links about the Steve Hedley issue, it's one of the theme's of the thread, no?

Some of the discussion we've had has been useful in clarifying our respective positions but I've noticed you have a tendency to avoid substantive points by introducing red herrings into the debate. For example at no point have you really tried to address my point that it is fundamentally unfair for one party to a dispute to level allegations when they know another party (in this case the RMT) cannot put their side of the story until some future date. Instead you've attempted to wriggle out of this point through various means, the most ludicrous of which is this accusation that I am using a sock puppet. You know perfectly well I have no way of providing you satisfactory evidence that I am not. To me these diversionary tactics speak of someone not really confident in their own ideas to engage with the substantive points of the discussion.

I don't like sock-puppeting in debates as it's fundamentally dishonest. Since there's no definitive way of proving I'm not I'm prepared to put it to a vote. If the majority of the next 20 or so people who post (I'll let you decide the number) say I'm sock puppeting then I'll close my account and not trouble Urban 75 again.

 

[cesare]

See, that's the difference between you and me. We have a disagreement. For me that's because we are coming from different experiences and political perspectives. These things happen. I'm prepared to take your disagreement at face value.

You don't seem to be able to accept that I simply have an honest difference of opinion with you without ascribing all sorts of ulterior motives to me. You are spinning perfectly normal internet behavior into something that says I'm not being straight.

Are you saying Urban 75 never gets 'lurkers' who decide at different stages to participate?
Are you saying posters don't occasionally have strong reactions to other posters?
So what if I posted links about the Steve Hedley issue, it's one of the theme's of the thread, no?

Some of the discussion we've had has been useful in clarifying our respective positions but I've noticed you have a tendency to avoid substantive points by introducing red herrings into the debate. For example at no point have you really tried to address my point that it is fundamentally unfair for one party to a dispute to level allegations when they know another party (in this case the RMT) cannot put their side of the story until some future date. Instead you've attempted to wriggle out of this point through various means, the most ludicrous of which is this accusation that I am using a sock puppet. You know perfectly well I have no way of providing you satisfactory evidence that I am not. To me these diversionary tactics speak of someone not really confident in their own ideas to engage with the substantive points of the discussion.

I don't like sock-puppeting in debates as it's fundamentally dishonest. Since there's no definitive way of proving I'm not I'm prepared to put it to a vote. If the majority of the next 20 or so people who post (I'll let you decide the number) say I'm sock puppeting then I'll close my account and not trouble Urban 75 again.

I've got no interest in supporting the upper echelons of the RMT bosses. Andy Littlechild is being actively discredited and you are contributing to it.

 

[cesare]

Oh. And if he has actually broken any of the employer's rules on how to be a union rep - he'll be subject to a disciplinary process where he'd have the right to be represented by another rep etc.