SWP expulsions and squabbles

[newbie]

Of course their were good and bad things about the closed shop but since when has management recruiting staff had anything to do with 'equal opps' or not recruiting applicants on either who they know or who they are prepared to salute?

I'm not knocking your own experience, but for myself, some kids I went to school with moved seamlessly into a job because of who their father was, others couldn't; I got a union ticket (and from that good, skilled work) because I met people who were prepared to sign my application, and although I don't know for sure certain that I wouldn't have got it if I'd been other than male, white, British, straight I certainly didn't work alongside people obviously outside those narrow criteria. These days I do.

I can recognise some of what you say in your first parody although I think it was done better in that Peter Sellers film I'm Alright Jack. Differentials and demarcation was part and parcel in most work places where there were trade unions not just the closed shop , pre entry tickets had very little impact on labour mobility in my own experience. I worked in both the building game and in engineering and where we were able to build a strong rank and file all union officials worked on the job but had necessary time to carry out duties.

I don't see what I wrote as a parody, but you can write off what I experienced if you like.

 

[The39thStep]

I'm not knocking your own experience, but for myself, some kids I went to school with moved seamlessly into a job because of who their father was, others couldn't; I got a union ticket (and from that good, skilled work) because I met people who were prepared to sign my application, and although I don't know for sure certain that I wouldn't have got it if I'd been other than male, white, British, straight I certainly didn't work alongside people obviously outside those narrow criteria. These days I do.


I don't see what I wrote as a parody, but you can write off what I experienced if you like.

Are you trying to argue that demographic changes in the work force have taken place due to the abolition of the closed shop?

 

[redcogs]

<bloody bad gateways...lets try that again...in the right thread this time...>

Even the stories of the print are grossly exaggerated. My partners father was a printer at Wapping, having previously been a mechanic who, therefore, knew how machinery worked. He'd worked on various cars - including the Times editor of the time - and it was that that got him a possibility of a job. But even then, he couldn't just walk in and do it, he had to prove he was actually capable of doing so. At a time of relatively full employment that was frequently how people got jobs, its not really much different to any other word of mouth.

The difference with the closed shop was that once he was in, he was staying in.

You earlier 'game of thrones' references were not as interesting as this belboid, however, they were not without value in a thread of almost a million posts. Personally i quite enjoy a bit of random.

When i worked in telecommunications, a long time ago,there was no official 'closed shop', but union density was not far off 100%. i remember looking admiringly at closed shops in engineering and elsewhere, but in practice whenever we had disputes they were well supported with dispute meetings being genuinely well attended and democratic.

One time a (non union) scab had the brass neck to turn up to argue his flimsy case and the 'top table' were tolerant of his presence - until i made an appeal that he should have no part in the proceedings (which drew overwhelming support from the rank and file). The scab wouldn't leave (thick skinned cunt that he was) and there was almost a riot to get him out - the police were eventually summoned, at which point the scumbag fucked off.

Eh, the good old days..

 

[Lo Siento.]

I'm not knocking your own experience, but for myself, some kids I went to school with moved seamlessly into a job because of who their father was, others couldn't; I got a union ticket (and from that good, skilled work) because I met people who were prepared to sign my application, and although I don't know for sure certain that I wouldn't have got it if I'd been other than male, white, British, straight I certainly didn't work alongside people obviously outside those narrow criteria. These days I do.

Not just pre-entry closed shops that had that effect. The whole "getting a union ticket because your Dad was mates with the shop steward" just replaced an even more iniquitous system whereby you got put on because your Dad was mates with the foreman.

(Would also add that trade unionists played a big part in opening up skilled work eventually too, even if they could have done much more)

 

[newbie]

Are you trying to argue that demographic changes in the work force have taken place due to the abolition of the closed shop?

of course I'm not, any more than I guess you're not trying to argue that equal opps has had no effect in reducing patronage and discrimination.

However, I would argue that the closed shop went without much of a fight and there haven't been great signs of demand for its return. I don't know how popular it was amongst the w/c as a whole- how could such a thing be measured?- but I suspect those excluded far outweighed those who benefited from it.

 

[treelover]

This article is a potential counter to the whole "Labour needs to appeal to the centre" argument:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/it-was-working-class-not-middle-class-sunk-labour

It suggests that between 2005 and 2015 Labour's "middle class" (A/B/C1) vote held up, but it lost a quarter of its working class (C2/D/E) vote.

I say "potential" because of the lazy use of statistics - what do these numbers represent? and why only go back to 2005?

There were hundreds of labour posters(and a fair few green ones) in the more leafy and salubrious parts of the city here.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Closed shop racism was a symptom of a racist society not a cause.

 

[treelover]

Lot of truth in what you say. My son is 27 , he has the values of solidarity and equality for all but has never been in a union , attended a left meeting and despite his mother being in TUSC there is nothing in his daily life experience that would connect him to the cobweb left. The pointers and language that framed left politics for a generation of my age have long since faded and are relevant only to those who are stuck in the left bubble.

maybe something will come out of the phenomenon of lots of primarily young people protesting about austerity after being dormant for some time, but I wouldn't underestimate the capacity of the what is left of the left to fuck it up.

 

[newbie]

Closed shop racism was a symptom of a racist society not a cause.

yes that's fair enough, and the same can be said about sexism, homophobia and so on. It's more difficult to say with much certainty whether it was part of the problem or part of the solution.

 

[cesare]

yes that's fair enough, and the same can be said about sexism, homophobia and so on. It's more difficult to say with much certainty whether it was part of the problem or part of the solution.

Equal opportunities legislation was enacted at least 15 years before the final abolition of the closed shop.

 

[The39thStep]

of course I'm not, any more than I guess you're not trying to argue that equal opps has had no effect in reducing patronage and discrimination.

However, I would argue that the closed shop went without much of a fight and there haven't been great signs of demand for its return. I don't know how popular it was amongst the w/c as a whole- how could such a thing be measured?- but I suspect those excluded far outweighed those who benefited from it.

It went without much of a fight simply because with the decline of manufacturing and the onslaught against the unions in the 80s there wasn't much left to fight full stop. The European Courts of Human Rights ruling that dismisal of non union members from closed shops as being against human rights clearly added to anti union legislation.

But back today , what would you say to a workplace where workers wanted an agreement that new staff had to be willing to join the union or a union?

 

[newbie]

Equal opportunities legislation was enacted at least 15 years before the final abolition of the closed shop.

according to wiki legislation dates back to the Papists Act 1778, but that's perhaps not what you meant

 

[cesare]

according to wiki legislation dates back to the Papists Act 1778, but that's perhaps not what you meant

That's just a smart-arse answer, isn't it?

 

[newbie]

But back today , what would you say to a workplace where workers wanted an agreement that new staff had to be willing to join the union or a union?

well now, if I was one of those on the inside I might see it as a good idea, depending on a whole lot of factors. However, I have these odd notions of equality and widespread collective solidarity, so no ta.

 

[newbie]

That's just a smart-arse answer, isn't it?

yes. but I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was supposed to be answering anything, I thought you were just providing some factual information.

 

[cesare]

yes. but I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was supposed to be answering anything, I thought you were just providing some factual information.

My point was that if there was closed shop racism and sexism, despite eo employee-protective legislation in the mid 70s (and earlier), then they were contributing to a racist and sexist society not merely a symptom of it.

 

[newbie]

My point was that if there was closed shop racism and sexism, despite eo employee-protective legislation in the mid 70s (and earlier), then they were contributing to a racist and sexist society not merely a symptom of it.

oic, I didn't pick that up, it's a good point and I probably shouldn't have been so flippant about it.

 

[cesare]

oic, I didn't pick that up, it's a good point and I probably shouldn't have been so flippant about it.

Tbf I could have made the point more clearly from the outset.

 

[The39thStep]

well now, if I was one of those on the inside I might see it as a good idea, depending on a whole lot of factors. However, I have these odd notions of equality and widespread collective solidarity, so no ta.

You may be surprised that you aren't alone in having notions of equality and widespread solidarity. Some of us think it can be built and sustained form the bottom up, others obviously think that bosses and management have to lead the way or legislation passed.

 

[newbie]

You may be surprised that you aren't alone in having notions of equality and widespread solidarity. Some of us think it can be built and sustained form the bottom up, others obviously think that bosses and management have to lead the way or legislation passed.

well I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd suggest that equalities legislation largely came from the bottom up and was resisted by 'bosses and management'. Over the years it's been improved, again from the bottom up, and again those improvements have been resisted. Having been implemented and improved it has enhanced opportunities for the greater part of the population (ie those who aren't all of male, ethnically acceptable, straight, able bodied and within some preferred agegroup), even though there are probably further improvements necessary.

Counterposed against that the closed shop may have sprung from skilled and necessary workers but it's hard to see how it improved anything for those it excluded. Unless you're going to argue that if a bunch of working class blokes do something purely in their own interests they should necessarily be supported, which would seem a little odd.

Whether it's travellers wanting a drink (news yesterday) or someone wanting a cake iced (today), people rely on equalities legislation for protection.

Do you think it matters whether discrimination stems from management or workforce?

 

[Trotsky007]

Closed shops were broken by management and the ruling class so they could increase exploitation and increase profits. Whatever criticism you may have of them it is fairly clear that workplaces with strong unions have better health and safety, better conditions and higher pay. If there are groups of workers getting a good deal it tends to act as a benchmark for others to aim for. Workers may not be in the closed shop but the standard of conditions set will help them indirectly.

It is odd to say that it is odd to support 'a bunch of working class blokes' who 'do something purely in their own interest'. (As an aside, would it be ok if it was working class women?) While we would all like to see strikes for others interests such as solidarity strikes most industrial action is exactly about the workers self interest. Read Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet 'The Mass Strike' for a good discussion about this. So yes I would support nearly every bit of industrial action (except if it was racist for example) as it puts the workers into conflict with their ruling class. It then makes them more likely to take political industrial action and eventually puts revolution on the menu. You can't jump straight from inaction to revolution - there are messy intermediates.

 

[redcogs]

Closed shops were broken by management and the ruling class so they could increase exploitation and increase profits. Whatever criticism you may have of them it is fairly clear that workplaces with strong unions have better health and safety, better conditions and higher pay. If there are groups of workers getting a good deal it tends to act as a benchmark for others to aim for. Workers may not be in the closed shop but the standard of conditions set will help them indirectly.

It is odd to say that it is odd to support 'a bunch of working class blokes' who 'do something purely in their own interest'. (As an aside, would it be ok if it was working class women?) While we would all like to see strikes for others interests such as solidarity strikes most industrial action is exactly about the workers self interest. Read Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet 'The Mass Strike' for a good discussion about this. So yes I would support nearly every bit of industrial action (except if it was racist for example) as it puts the workers into conflict with their ruling class. It then makes them more likely to take political industrial action and eventually puts revolution on the menu. You can't jump straight from inaction to revolution - there are messy intermediates.

i'd mostly accept this. But closed shops are not essential for strong workers organisation and effective militant trade unionism.

i believe in the France of 1968 trade union penetration was quite limited, but that did not prevent the general strike.

And are there not political downsides to closed shop situations? - ie, right wing shits who resist joining can readily become martyrs for the employers anti unionism creating unnecessary divisions.

The circumstances we face today really do not warrant major debates about closed shop trade unionism or not - the main issue is building effective trade union consciousness from the fragments of serious defeat and enduring decline. (imho)

 

[redcogs]

Do you think it matters whether discrimination stems from management or workforce?

Employers and their governments (Labour or Conservative) concede progressive legislation when a powerful and effective movement for social change has already developed within society. The rafts of empowering UK parliamentary concessions of the 1960s, and the similar turns towards civil rights in the USA at the same time seem to make this quite obvious?

Just an observation.

 

[newbie]

For various reasons you're not going to get much more from me I'm afraid, I've run out of time, but I'll respond to this before I go.

Closed shops were broken by management and the ruling class so they could increase exploitation and increase profits. Whatever criticism you may have of them it is fairly clear that workplaces with strong unions have better health and safety, better conditions and higher pay. If there are groups of workers getting a good deal it tends to act as a benchmark for others to aim for. Workers may not be in the closed shop but the standard of conditions set will help them indirectly.

Really? I'm not so sure. Obviously I don't dissent from the general point about strong unions. But closed shops institutionalised differentials, ie cemented the hierarchy within the workforce. Leapfrog disputes sprang from that and, let's face it, rewarded those with the strongest grip on the levers of production, the skilled workers with the best jobs. The presence of closed shops did not reward those who would like to have had the opportunity to do the best jobs but were instead stuck doing something more monotonous and less well paid, nor did they reward those without any job at all.

I could never quite understand how it was in the interests of the working class for an entire factory workforce to lose a days pay when a small closed shop fought to maintain their differential advantage, and I don't think I was alone in that.

It is odd to say that it is odd to support 'a bunch of working class blokes' who 'do something purely in their own interest'. (As an aside, would it be ok if it was working class women?)

If it's in their own interests as against those less well off than themselves then I'm not predisposed to automatic support. Each case on its merits though.

 

[Trappist]

Whenever i meet former cadres from my political past i am struck first of all by how old they are...

If only they'd done like you and put a magic portrait in the attic.

 

[The39thStep]

well I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd suggest that equalities legislation largely came from the bottom up and was resisted by 'bosses and management'. Over the years it's been improved, again from the bottom up, and again those improvements have been resisted. Having been implemented and improved it has enhanced opportunities for the greater part of the population (ie those who aren't all of male, ethnically acceptable, straight, able bodied and within some preferred agegroup), even though there are probably further improvements necessary.

Counterposed against that the closed shop may have sprung from skilled and necessary workers but it's hard to see how it improved anything for those it excluded. Unless you're going to argue that if a bunch of working class blokes do something purely in their own interests they should necessarily be supported, which would seem a little odd.

Whether it's travellers wanting a drink (news yesterday) or someone wanting a cake iced (today), people rely on equalities legislation for protection.

Do you think it matters whether discrimination stems from management or workforce?

First of all you counterpose equalities legislation against the closed shop, then you counterpose the closed shop against equality and 'widespread collective solidarity, and finally closed shops against internal recruiment policies and tackling unemployment. We no longer live or work in a society that has the differentials of the 70s or indeed the particular skills and training that were required for production methods at that time nor do we live in an economy that has the huge mass production plants that dominated engineering , steel, the print etc. The closed shop simply means that all workers have to be in a trade union. Members of trade unions are not all white, all male, all straight or all anything. They have members who have all sorts of political views and all sorts of abilities and skills. Its then up to the union and the employers to negotiate working practises within existing legislation.

 

[newbie]

First of all you counterpose equalities legislation against the closed shop, then you counterpose the closed shop against equality and 'widespread collective solidarity, and finally closed shops against internal recruiment policies and tackling unemployment.

that's right, because the posts I initially responded to were about real life examples of how the far-left works in practice, and how that could be applied today, so I said why I don't think the closed shop is an example many would hark back to.

We no longer live or work in a society that has the differentials of the 70s or indeed the particular skills and training that were required for production methods at that time nor do we live in an economy that has the huge mass production plants that dominated engineering , steel, the print etc. The closed shop simply means that all workers have to be in a trade union. Members of trade unions are not all white, all male, all straight or all anything. They have members who have all sorts of political views and all sorts of abilities and skills. Its then up to the union and the employers to negotiate working practises within existing legislation.

Closed shops, pre- or post-entry, are unlawful so the point is moot. I'm not aware that anyone is campaigning for their return, were they to do so I'd need a lot of persuading that they're compatible with my sense of fairness, equality and so on. And, to pick up on something Trotsky007 said, that there's any evidence to support the assertion that they provide a 'benchmark for others to aim for'- which sounds like a variant of trickle-down to me.

 

[The39thStep]

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean when in your first sentence re how far left works in practise. Are you saying the closed shop was an example of how the far left worked in practise ?

 

[redcogs]

If only they'd done like you and put a magic portrait in the attic.

Hmm. i missed this cryptic aside yesterday.

i've pondered upon it, and decided that it is friendly(ish). i havn't quite arrived at that moment of acute regret, when i plunge the knife into my "magical portrait", but i will admit that its been a close call several times..

Ho hum.

 

[newbie]

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean when in your first sentence re how far left works in practise. Are you saying the closed shop was an example of how the far left worked in practise ?

I'm saying that I wrote in response to #18511 at the top of page 618 (!!) which brought up the closed shop in that context. I wouldn't personally want to define what 'far-left' means, but the era when closed shops were high on the agenda was littered with that description of those in them, and those (of us*) who argued for them.

I don't suppose you want to define 'far-left' either...

*yes, in their mid/late 70s heyday I defended them and aspired to, and eventually did, join. Subsequently (and perhaps consequently) I've changed my mind, coming to realise that I don't necessarily have to agree with everything wanted by other enemies of my enemy even if I agree with a lot of what they say.