discussion of this article

Kirstie said…

I think these demands (see below) that have been raised by Keith Gibson from the GMB strike committee at Linsey Oil refinery (LOR) are supportable and attempt to cut against the racism of the slogans from some of the strikers. In particular demanding that all workers in the UK regardless of nationality should have the same conditions and that every effort should be made to unionise immigrant workers so that the struggle against Total and other multinationals is strengthed by the unity of workers.

There needs to be an active campaign against any racist backlash, racists on the picket lines need to be challenged and fascists kicked off in no uncertain terms - discussion lists of strikers suggest this is already being dicussed. It will be disastrous if one set of workers is pitted against another - this would play right into the hands of the bosses and the fascists.

It seems that the unoffical strike committee is raising the importance of this practical solidarity work:

No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.

All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.

Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members.

Government and employer investment in proper training/apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers.

All Immigrant labour to be unionised.

Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers, via interpreters to give right of access to Trade Union advice and to promote active integrated Trade Union members.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 12:28

Mike Macnair said…

Excellent post. But note, the problem with is the "British jobs ..." slogan is *nationalism* not *racism* - unless you are to characterise all nationalism as racist, which would fatuous. Both are, of course, reactionary, but their ideologies and practical dynamics are different.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 12:46

a very public sociologist said…

Fair comment, comrades. I always had you down as the saner side of the split ;)

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 13:41

Chris S said…

Spot on comrades.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 14:08

Richard B said…

Just in case anyone thinks that the BNP will be welcomed in any way shape or form by the strikers - here's a clip from Channel 4 news showing them being told where to go - http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=9823457001

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 14:15

Stu said…

Lindsey Oil Refinery strike Socialist Party report

Update on the spreading strikes by construction engineers in the refinery and power industry

Report by phone from Alistair Tice (Yorkshire Socialist Party) on the mass picket at the Lindsey total refinery North Lincolnshire.

Monday 2 February 2009

“The strike committee accepted the main demands of Keith Gibson and John Mckewan to put to the mass meeting today.

Keith is a Socialist Party member and on the strike committee and John is a Socialist Party supporter and victimised worker from the refinery.

The strike committee added an extra demand, calling for John to be reinstated into his job.

The demands were No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action. All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement. Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available. Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people. All Immigrant labour to be unionised. Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.

Prior to the meeting Keith and John (and their wives who had came to support the strikers) had seen some BNP members in the car park and told them that they were not welcome, with that the BNP cleared off.

Socialist Party members gave out over 700 leaflets putting our position (which was now the position of the strike committee) and the leaflet was welcomed. One worker (before he read the leaflet) thought that were giving out BNP leaflets and protested that he was not a racist and didn’t support the BNP and was relieved when it was explained to him that they were Socialist Party leaflets and supported workers unity.

Keith is part of the negotiating committee that is now in discussions with the management at the refinery. The strike is continuing and looks as if it is spreading throughout the country at the time of writing with Sellafield and Heysham nuclear plants out.

Workers at other plants, according to the BBC, have also decided to stay out, these include Grangemouth and Longannon in Scotland. Warrington and Staythope in Newark are also out as well. The strikes are spreading from fiddlers ferry in Warrington to the Drax power station in Yorkshire.”

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 14:23

Richard B said…

The list of demands Kirstie quoted are now the official negotiating position of the strikers going into negotiations with the bosses, along with one additional one - for the re-instatement of John McKewan, a strike committee member who has been victimised out of LOR.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 14:27

Vicky said…

Excellent statement, comrades!

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 14:54

George B said…

The report from the Socialist Party supporters is encouraging in some ways, though I have yet to see evidence of any attempt to contact the Italian (and Portuguese) workers on the IDEM contract who are currently housed in the floatel. Still, the reports that the BNP is getting short shrift give cause for some optimism.

I have to say, however, that I am less sanguine about the prospects in the short-term for countering the chauvinist and xenophobic elements that have featured prominently in the mainstream coverage.

It is worth checking out the website below, which features links to a number of TU sites, but appears to be an independent initiative responsible for the production of the A4 laminated posters ('Put British Workers First') mentioned at the beginning of the article: http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/

I am not at all suggesting that there is a fascist element assoicated with this 'site, but there is an undeniable appeal to chauvinism.

There is clearly a good deal more to be said about this unanticipated wave of wildcat action and what it really means, but for now I think that this discussion is a useful start, even if the position of the SWP is slightly caricatured.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 14:56

Duncan said…

Good post, a welcome, sane, level-headed assessment of the situation.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 16:36

Tina said…

George,

I've had look at the Bearfacts site. The slogan "British Jobs for British Workers" is off course a reactionary and chauvinist slogan that should be opposed, but I think it has been seen in the context of exposing Gordon Brown's empty rhetoric for what it is (he can't even live up to his chauvinistic proposal to protect British workers). I'm not excusing the use of the slogan, but it explains the context of it and why it was seen as a powerful slogan to send to Brown.

If you read the letters that Bearfacts is asking its members to send to Brown and to MPs you'll see that they refer to the European Posted Workers Directive, how its implementation would guarantee collective agreements, and minimum standards for safety, pay etc for workers in the construction industry. The letters also state that they would never insist on a company only employing UK workers, that this would be discriminatory. I don't get the impression, leaving aside the unfortunate use of this slogan which appears to be undermined by the text of the model letters, that this site proves that the wildcat strikes are unequivocally chauvinist.

The rush to condemn the strikes by sections of the left is far to hasty. They seem to have jumped to their positions without checking the facts, relying too much it seems on the racist tabloids for their info.

The BNP of course has jumped on the bandwagon, but we should have a bit more confidence in unionised workers to give their racism the cold shoulder. Unions around the country should be sending messages of solidarity whilst being highly critical of the slogans raised and the need to kick the BNP physically of their demonstrations and picket lines, as well as sending delegations to their picket lines.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 18:35

Bis said…

An excellent article and discussion - I look forward to regular updates as the rest of the media seem to be following either the zenophobic cheerleading of the tabloids or the condescension of the liberal left.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 21:07

Kirstie said…

This site is an example of the sort of reactionary nationalism that should have no place in the labour movement. Who's behind it is unclear but it is clearly anti-union and reflects a kind of UKIP nationalism and fear of anything 'foreign' and an anti-working class response to the effects of globalisation.

http://www.britishwildcats.com/

It is these sorts of racist arguments that the unions should be countering with workers unity and international solidarity. If you asked the Italian, Portuguese and Polish workers who are currently living on a boat in the Humer Estuary whether they would rather work closer to home, the vast majority would say yes. Workers move to find work when the local work dries out. That is why this is not only a question of ensuring equal rights of pay and conditions across Europe and a fight for jobs so that workers don't have to leave their families in order to support them; it is about tackling the enormous inequalities that capitalism has inflicted on workers around the world.

Not only should the workers at LOR being making every effort to get in contact with the Italian, portuguese and polish workers who live a precarious existence in a Britain that refuses to treat them as equals, they should be building links with their French brothers, who in their millions told the French government - we won't pay for your crisis with our jobs and livelihoods. We need to link up with the labour movements of Europe and take on the governments that have lead us into this crisis. These are the sorts of arguments that the left should be bringing to the picket lines that are growing up and down the country as the wildcat strikes continue to spread.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 21:16

Comrade R said…

I notice that on your web site there is no mention of the victimisation and sacking from his employment and then explusion from UNISON of Yunus Baksh, leading Newcastle socialist trade unionist, which was initiated by BNP supporters and racists.

Has this been overlooked or yourselves not having had a chance to check the facts before you gave support to his campaign for justice or did I and everyone else miss something on your web site.

If it is a genuine error then of course you need to correct it. If it was on your web site please point me in the right direction. If it is a political decision then we need to be told.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 22:16

Dan said…

Not sure how this is relevant to this piece but see:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1241

Also mentioned here:

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2473

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2220

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2105

However we'd be happy to put more things up if there is more detailed or updated information. Probably better to ask rather than sounding defensive for no reason.

And indeed the links to BNP supporters in terms of the victimisation were worrying and shameful for the UNISON leadership. As said if you have more detailed information we can put up please give us links.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 22:21

David Broder said…

The fact that the BNP are being chased off picket lines and the contradictions within the movement are increasingly pushing the movement to the left are two fingers to those who demand that the strike is called off... (for the TUC to call some other action later!)

The picket of the Unite HQ was (deservedly) a joke.

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/unite-picket-trotskyist-snowmens-protests-melt-away/

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 22:23

Duncan said…

Kirstie,

The 'British Wildcats' is the most transparent BNP front group they've ever set up.

It's not clear whether the people who have put the site together have any connection at all to the actual dispute, I imagine if any of them were actually involved in the strike or regularly visited picket lines they'd be shouting to the rafters about it.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 23:01

Tina said…

One of the main problems with this strike is the media bias which is portraying it as a racist, nationalist strike. Earlier on BBC 1 news interviewed a striker who said something along the lines of " these portuguese, Eyeties (sic) you can't work with them". The same interview was just shown on Newsnight where the full sentence was shown,"you can't work with them, we're segregated, they are coming in in full companies....". So the BBC 1 news cut the interview to make him look like he was making a racist comment, when he wasn't (leaving aside the language he was using).

The Lindsey case does take labour flexibility to higher level. Whilst mobility of labour is a good thing, global companies being able to move whole workforces around the world and in doing so undercutting local labour is not.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 23:01

bill j said…

I noticed that guy was also standing next to a black man.

Keith Vaz's assertion seems to centre round the claim that because British firms had had the right to bid for the contract but hadn't then there was no issue with an Italian firm simply employing Italian workers to the exclusion of British.

As if the British workers were represented by and had an identical interest to their British employers and the Italian workers with the Italian bosses.

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 23:27

Richard B said…

glad you noticed that comment as well Tina, I thought I had but had wanted to double check on the online version of News at Ten before mailing the BBC to complain. It's been a long-time since I have seen such a totally blatant distortion as that (or at least seen it exposed as quickly)

Mon 02, February 2009 @ 23:36

Charlie Marks said…

As Paul Mason noted on Newsnight, the banners have changed to "fair access" - the damage that association with the racist BNP has been realised. Sadly, the media catagorisation of the story as "strikes against foreign labour" hasn't changed.

No doubt there'll be criticism of socialist party "infiltration" soon enough in the capitalist press. The difference between the socialist party and the fascists is that socialists are for all workers, not just those with the "right" religion, sexuality, national identity and skin colour.

I don't think anyone's mentioned the boost that this militant campaign will have to the prospects of Jerry Hicks, the socialist opponent to Derek Simpson in the election for general secretary of Unite-Amicus.

Jerry has the backing of the SPEW, the SWP, Green Left, and other groups who see the significance of his candidacy - he's committed to democratic control of the union by its members and an oppositional approach to New Labour's anti-worker policies.

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 00:10

Paul said…

The strikers demands as approved overwhelmingly at this mornings picket:

* No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.

* All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.

* Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.

* Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people.

* All Immigrant labour to be unionised.

* Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.

* Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

Mandelson says stop moaning you too can go and live on a boat in some dock in another country. Thats Tebbit squared.

The Left must to stand shoulder to shoulder with these workers, its beyond question.

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 00:54

Kirstie said…

I am shocked that some socialists have demanded that the strikers call off their strike and 'go back to work'. Many of them don't have a job to go back to after 17 February - they were issued redundancy notices!

http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=14,1497,0,0,1,0

Of course without being there it is difficult to get a real feel of the situation but it seems as if the strikers are actively seeking to distance themselves from a nationalist and racist response. They claim their beef is not with the Italian and Portuguese workers in Grimsby docks, but with construction bosses who want to ‘blacklist’ union labour. The demands put by Keith Gibson from the Socialist Party, that have now been adopted by the strikers at a mass meeting today show what is possible if socialists put forward working class solutions to a crisis based on the ideas of solidarity rather than division.

If there was more support and implantation from socialist organisations, this strike could take on militant and anti-racist dynamic if it was linked to the struggle of all workers to a job and equal pay regardless of nationality.

For organisations like Workers Power, it seems they have been ‘judge and jury’ without looking at the context - what would they suggest? That the workers accept the redundancies? The demands that the strikers at LOR have adopted are now explicitly about raising class demands - the unity of workers through trade union organisation, the demand that the bosses train and employ workers rather than forcing them to scrabble amongst each other for a few jobs, and the rights of all those working in the UK, which I assume includes immigrant workers too, to the same rates of pay and conditions. The key to the dispute is if they can convince the Italian workers to join the strike...to achieve this they would have to convince the workers on the barge that they will fight for their rights too.

You have all seen the film Matewan: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm

Different times, different industry, different country, but the same issue – when all workers stand in solidarity they can take the bosses on.

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 02:08

Comrade R said…

Comrade Dan, there lots of postings and up to date information on the Campaign to Defend Yunus Baksh. It will not take a lot of effort on your part to get these posted this site.

Basic rule when an individual is been attacked or victimised is go out and defend them. In this case all it will take is a few clicks of the mouse or even a phone call. You know who to ring, unless you are a bit shy! or Unless, of course, all this is too much too difficult to move from the armchair.

This is said in the best of intention and humour to get you moving!

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 07:53

Dan said…

Comrade R point taken but we are a small organisation with no full timers. There are probably lots of things we would like to put up that we haven't for one reason or another.

If you know about the campaign surely it wouldn't have been too hard to put up a web link in your post? What is the latest information? Is it more than we have already put up?

As for moving from the armchair rest assured that everyone in PR is very active.

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 09:51

Richard B said…

various complaints have gone in to the BBC about there bias on last nights' news.

The clips can be compared at - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b10ZpBdaM1g, addresses for complaints are:

newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk

03700 100 222

Helen Boaden, Director of BBC news

Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Peter Horrocks, Head of BBC TV News

Email: peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk

Richard Sambrook, Director of the World Service and Global News

Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk

BBC’s political advisor - Ric Bailey: ric.bailey@bbc.co.uk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 10:09

PR webby said…

I did e-mail the Campaign to Defend Yunus Baksh a while ago but never got a response. I'm sure it was an oversight, but it just goes to show that when people are busy things can be overlooked. Anyway for what its worth - Victory to Yunus!!

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 10:40

Wladek Flakin said…

Wow, your former other half, Students Power, "unreservedly oppose"s the strike.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=173,1823,0,0,1,0

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 12:40

bill j said…

I'm afraid that cuts both ways Gerry. Keith Vaz and Gordon Brown both agree with you as does Ken Clarke of the Tories;

"Kenneth Clarke, business spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, described the phrase today as a “populist” and “inappropriate” slogan that had returned to haunt the prime minister. The Conservatives say the strikers are doing the wrong thing.

Conservative View

“However aggrieved people feel, industrial action at power stations and oil refineries at the present time of national emergency isn’t the way to take things forward,” Clarke told lawmakers in Parliament. “We don’t want to see riots in Italy about British workers employed there.”"

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&refer=energy&sid=aa60DqNgFTwA

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 16:08

bill j said…

Derek Simpson leader of Unite said;

"Unions said the Labour government doesn’t understand the anger its members feel about the worsening economy and companies that avoid dealing with British workers.

“The government is failing to grasp the fundamental issues,” said Derek Simpson, joint leader of Unite, a trade union representing some of the striking workers. “The problem is not workers from other European countries working in the U.K., nor is it about foreign contractors winning contracts in the U.K. The problem is that employers are excluding U.K. workers from even applying for work on these contracts.”

He called on the government to investigate the way contracting companies operate and change laws he said allow the businesses to undercut U.K. wage agreements. "

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 16:09

David Broder said…

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/hundreds-of-polish-workers-join-wildcat-strikes/

600 workers, including hundreds of Polish workers, have walked out from Langage Power Station near Plymouth in solidarity with the wildcat actions sweeping across Britain.

When five hundred site staff had failed to arrive by 10am, the small group of other foreign labourers (mostly Polish) who had been bussed in were sent home by management, deciding it was unsafe for them to work by themselves.

Jerry Pickford, regional officer for Unite South West, said workers had walked out in “general sympathy with what’s happening in the construction industry… all the Polish workers have walked out as well, because this is not an issue against foreign workers.

“This is an issue against foreign employers using foreign workers to stop British workers getting jobs. Once they do that they will try and undermine the terms and conditions of employment in this country.”

It would be illegal for the union to support the strike or even hold a ballot, but workers are taking action off their own backs. Today strike action also spread to the Sellafield nuclear plant, while 400 contractors at Scottish Power’s Longannet power station in Fife (along with 80 workers at an ExxonMobil plant there) and 130 at the Cockenzie Power Station extended their action until Friday.

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 18:26

stuart king said…

There is no doubt that the slogan taken up by the rank and file strikers initially ie "British Jobs for British workers" was a nationalistic one, and one that should have been opposed (just as we denounced Gordon Brown for raising it). It is fairly clear that over the course of the week there has been a change due to the intervention of experienced militants and socialists, not least the Socialist Party militants. This is reflected on the workers "bearfacts" site where they recognise the posters they put up could be "misinterpreted".

As the main post says some of the left has fallen into two opposite errors - those like the SWP, Workers Power and Gerry, who just want to denounce the strikes as reactionary, and those who just endorse a nationalistic and protectionist response – predictably the anti-European, Morning Star/CPB.

The lesson so far has been that the correct course has been to support the strikes while arguing against nationalistic and anti-foreign worker sentiments. This has obviously struck a chord with a workforce with some international connections ie an industry which often involves workers moving around the world. Those who would have just denounced the strikes as "reactionary" and "unsupportable", if they had any influence, would have isolated themselves and probably pushed the strikes in a reactionary direction.

This is not to say the contradictions and problems have gone away. The bearfacts site for example says in its rules: "This site has been created as a non-racist, non pro-political site. We are not against 'skilled' foreign workers being brought to the UK, as long as they are not putting or keeping British people out of work." It also has a clear statement against racist posts.

But every socialist knows that this argument that "they are coming over here, taking our jobs" is a nationalist, and potentially racist argument. The real argument is about how to prevent the capitalists from using the free movement of labour to undermine conditions and wages - the answer is not "protectionism" and "British jobs for British workers" but how to build international solidarity and union organisation to prevent the bosses from using labour from different countries to undermine hard won conditions.

What is clear is that the neo-liberal EU and the various legal judgements in favour of the bosses are aimed at using the "free movement of labour" to attack trade union rights and wages and conditions throughout Europe. These strikes need to be turned into European workers action against the neo-liberal laws that underpin this dispute, if we can turn the strikes in this direction by linking up with European unions it would be a great step forward.

Check out a comment from the Italian CGIL at: www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=278.0

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 19:06

Kirstie said…

An excellent point made below by a brother on the bearfacts website on how to build solidarity. This website is worth following and commenting on:

http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=284.

"...0'ello again! Keep it up!

Seeing as I have raised solidarity support for every major strike since the 1984/85 miners strike, thought I'd ave a go with this one.

Have not yet had a union branch meeting to raise it at - but therefore been discussing it with lots of other local trades unionists to sound out opinions and start the ball rolling.

But what I have found is we need a proper union appeal - outlining the real demands of the strike, especially if we are to spread it beyond skilled construction lads on the big oil and power sites.

My workplace - the biggest employer in our small Lancashire town - is well unionised. We are all p*ssed off with the recession and Brown.

My workmates includes a significant minority born overseas many of whom who have worked here for years. Its a friendly place and we work well together. Its a highly skilled mixed workforce - predominately 'British' but with a significant 'foreign' component. Of course we don't think of each other as foreigners but as workmates!

If there was any attempt to drive out our 'foreign' workmates in favour of 'British Jobs for British Workers' then we would almost certainly be taking industrial action AGAINST this! Will will certainly unite to defend the jobs of our 'foreign' workmates. Thats the opinion.

We would be against any attempts to make any other section of workers scapegoats for the crisis. As one friend said: " What's next - the demand that women workers should be sacked and sent back into the home to make way for unemployed men? - where will it end?".

So I don't think I can raise solidarity around this seemingly 'nationalist' 'BJ4BW' slogan. This slogan will also go down like a lead balloon in any similar workplace. Imagine this slogan at say, your local hospital! it is divisive. It wont mobilise the proper working classes of Britain. It will only mobilise a mob that includes all sorts of anti-union riff raff like businessmen, Tories and Fascists!

Yes, I know that the strike isn't actually summed up by 'BJ4BW'. I know its not really about racism or against all foreign workers! I know its about defending the NAECI agreements, that its a fight to defend decent pay and conditions against the greed of the Total oil and other multinational corporations.

But the public don't know this! The media have portrayed this as an 'anti-foreigner' strike. We have to overcome this negative portrayal if we are to win.

Is anyone drawing up an appeal leaflet to spread the word to other trades union branches like mine? Shall we have a go?"

Tue 03, February 2009 @ 20:21

Gerry Downing said…

Clarke told lawmakers in Parliament. “We don’t want to see riots in Italy about British workers employed there.”"

Well Bill, that's ok then. Ken Clarke doesen't want to see 'riots in Italy about British workers employed there', he is a lying Tory grandee, Gerry Downing agree with him - bring on the Italian riots against British workers

Wed 04, February 2009 @ 00:19

Dan said…

Just had this back from the CGIL (I emailed them).

Dear comrade,

it's with deep concern that we are following your situation, that is involving workers from our country.

The Italian General Confederation of Labour would be glad to meet you and the workers, to make them understand that any nationalist approach has to be avoided. Please give us all the necessary information about date and venue.

Fraternally yours,

Nicola Nicolosi

Head of CGIL Segretariato Europa

Wed 04, February 2009 @ 15:53

bill j said…

CGIl Italian trade union federation comments on the strike. Note that IREM are a non-union firm.

"UK: Italian contract; CGIL – a dark day for the trade union movement in a globalised world

Rome, 2 February – “What’s going on in Lincolnshire is one of the ugliest pages in the history of the trade union movement in these globalised times: English workers against Italian workers.” That’s the view of the heads of the European office of FIOM-CGIL (CGIL engineering section), Sabrina Petrucci, and of CGIL’s European secretary, Nicola Nicolosi, commenting on the strikes by English workers against the contract given to the Sicilian firm Irem to build a plant in a north England refinery.

“The current economic crisis,” say the two officials, “caused by a capitalist system devoted to financial speculation, lacking rules, and centred on debt, is producing one of the worst social evils: the poor against the poor, workers against workers.” Furthermore, while the economic crisis has led to the loss of thousands of jobs, for Nicolosi and Petrucci, “the solutions put forward at Davos are exactly the same as those which created the crisis. Even in Europe, unemployment is growing and fear is becoming a social phenomenon. There are cases of racial intolerance in Italy too: odious, unacceptable, to be condemned and fought with maximum energy.”

But the two union leaders also say that we should understand the ill-feeling underlying the events at Lindsey Oil. “We have a duty,” they say “to understand the workers’ unhappiness. The consequences of European judgements on the labour market, on the right to free movement of goods and people, are multiplying, opening the door to social dumping.” In this regard they cite the recent Viking Line and Laval judgements from the European Court “on the pre-eminence of employers’ rights over those of trade unions sanctioned by national contracts and laws, which have aroused justified concern from trade unions, lawyers and workers. In these cases ‘salary dumping’ becomes an opportunity for the firms to cut labour costs and creates unfair competition.”

In the case of the Lindsay refinery, in Lincolnshire, Nicolosi and Petrucci add, “the protest is taking on connotations that the nationalist right-wing is turning against the “foreigner”. The English workers claim that this contracted work should use the local labour force, already hit by the loss of 500 jobs in December alone. If it’s true that the contract includes a clause excluding local labour, we say that’s wrong and a source of discrimination. The firm, on these questions, has enormous responsibilities. What’s more, we want to make the point that this is a non-unionised firm. Which says a lot about its approach to industrial relations.”

But, at the same time, “the effects of the crisis in globalisation must not slacken the ties of international solidarity between workers, condemning all those events which could lead to xenophobic and racist forms,” say the two union leaders and, furthermore, argue that “European law should not allow social- and wage-dumping, as has happened in the Viking and Laval cases, and the parts of the ‘Distacco’ directive that can be abused to differentiate between workers from different countries must be modified.” And “that the CES campaign “equal work, equal pay”, against differentials in pay and conditions for the same work in the same country should be developed.

To develop the spirit of a Social Europe we need solidarity, a value to which we can link aspirations and prospects for widespread well-being.” Nicolosi and Petrucci conclude, “the economic and financial crisis can’t be fought within national boundaries, even if these English workers are given a response within their national boundary: we need a European and global trade union initiative to support the unemployed and for new social and industrial policies and perspectives.”

http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=278.0

Wed 04, February 2009 @ 15:59

Gerry Downing said…

Better CGIL comment there, but focussing on the main issue, the strike is against Italian workers and that is how the solution to the problem is being addressed. I notice you have gleaned the support of the Commune and Duncal Chappell for your line. Alan Thornett has a clear line to the left of Duncan here, and has refused all support to these strikes. Seems like our middle of the road men have the worst of both worlds, they couls neither fight national chauvinism consistently or cosy up the the bureaucracy consistently. Check out Joel Heyes attacking the MS line in todays paper and Johann Hari in today's Indy:

Johann Hari: Strike, yes – but not at this target

And so the rage begins. For months we have sat inert as the economic roof collapses in on us. The Greeks and the French rioted, but we – the British – were shocked into silence. Until now. The pervasive insecurity has finally taken physical shape, with thousands of unofficial strikers taking to the streets bearing fury-streaked banners.

So which of the people responsible for knocking out the support beams of the economy are being picketed and pilloried? Is it the market fundamentalist politicians – both Tory and New Labour – who told us endlessly that economies work best when they are regulated least? Is it the bankers, who used this deregulation to spread the dry rot of bad loans throughout the banking system? Is it the bank CEOs who – even now – are using taxpayer money to pay themselves fat bonuses for screwing up? Is it the corporations who are refusing to pay £12bn in taxes every year? Is it the super-rich who are stashing £11.5trn in tax havens – many of them British dependencies – rather than contribute to rebuilding this mess?

No. It is a few immigrant workers, living in hostels. They are the only people who have seen a British protester outside their door in this depression. The wildcat strikes are directed at them – and they are spreading.

Our anger has skipped over the people responsible, to people who are not. Why? The political elite and much of the media have a vested interest in directing our rage away from their own responsibility on to someone – anyone – else. Murdoch's News Corporation – and other lackeys of self-interested billionaires – sold us the deregulation- mania and tax-slashing that contributed to this disaster, and have refused to pay any net taxes in Britain for over a decade.

The political elite was happy to follow their lead and bask in their applause. So now it has reached its predictable end-point, they have failed to tell the story of how this disaster came to pass. They have not named and shamed the bankers and market fundamentalists who brought the economy crashing down – because they would have to point into a mirror.

So the wildcat strikers settle on the people closest to hand: the Poles and Italians. The men protesting outside their factories and plants are – rightly – worried about their jobs and their futures. Because nobody has given a shape to their anger or offered a roadmap out of this insecurity, they have lapsed into zero-sum scrambling for the scraps that seem to remain.

There is a real issue concerning recent immigration – but it is low on the list of the factors threatening these men's livelihoods. Nonetheless, we have to be honest about it. It is true that immigrants make a net contribution to the British economy of £2.5bn a year, but it is also true that this benefit isn't felt equally. When there is a significant increase in the supply of cheap labour – with immigrants arriving in large numbers – the price businesses pay for it falls. This means at the bottom of the income scale, wages are eroded. It is not racist or irrational for people in that position to feel angry.

But is the solution to turn on those immigrants? The protesters in Hull and Lincolnshire are motivated first, second and third by a desire for a secure job. They need to be shown that the route they are pursuing now won't achieve it – but there is an alternative to fight for that will.

What would happen if we ended the freedom to work across the European Union? Yes, one million Europeans based here will have to go home, and you won't be competing with them any more. But the 1.5 million Brits based elsewhere in the EU will also have to return too. You would be competing against them instead, in an economy that would be even more depressed by the unravelling of European trade.

No. The best way to deal with the wage-depressing effect of immigration at the bottom is to demand an increase in the minimum wage. This places the white working class and immigrants on the same side against the CBI-led elite – rather than squabbling among themselves as the bankers stroll away laughing.

But this is only the first step. If we are going to pull out of this depression, we need the Government to embark on a huge programme of job creation, just as the US government did in the 1930s. We urgently need millions of jobs anyway to turn Britain into a low-carbon economy – and the Government can pay for it by closing tax havens and finally getting the rich to pay their fair share. That's real, urgent work.

But so far, the Government's fiscal stimulus has seemed to only concentrate on people at the top: bankers and big business. Gordon Brown is not talking plainly about launching huge programmes to get Britain working through a depression. His response has been filled with jargon and hard to follow.

Compare it to Barack Obama's statement last week, calling Wall Street "shameful" and saying "the American people will not tolerate this behaviour". David Cameron's Conservatives are much worse, renouncing the idea of any fiscal stimulus at all – guaranteeing a much more bitter economic contraction.

But neither party is going to spontaneously propose the New Deal we need. They have to be pressured into it: even FDR had to be spurred by heavy waves of public protest. My friend Nick O'Donovan has launched a British equivalent to the US campaigning group moveon.org to draw together the great latent mass of people in Britain who want to lobby for a progressive way out of the slump. It is called Dosomethingaboutit.org.uk – and it should be the fulcrum for turning anger currently directed at immigrants into demand for a British New Deal.

If we turn on each other like rats in a cage, the depression will only become longer and more bitter. There is a better way. We should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the wildcat strikers and, yes, immigrants too, in protests outside Downing Street demanding a big fiscal stimulus that will get us all back to work. That's the only outlet for our anger that will drag us up and out. Our choice now is between a New Deal – or a national ordeal.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

Wed 04, February 2009 @ 16:57

bill j said…

Johan Hari? Lol.

Wed 04, February 2009 @ 17:47

Chris S said…

It is all over. Hopefully, those who refused to back the strikers and their familes will now apologise and change their minds.

http://hammer-and-sickle.blogspot.com/2009/02/back-to-work-strikers-go-what-happened.html

Thu 05, February 2009 @ 12:45

Gerry Downing said…

The strike is now coming to a conclusion. The British labour movement will emerge from it a great deal worse that when it began. The negotiations are centred around which nationality gets which jobs, with even more reactionary demands emerging from the SP that jobs should be 'local'. The strike began about BJ4BW, some gave whole hearted support and pretended the posters, union jacks and pickets comments were just 'media lies' (Galloway et al), others came to the schizophrenic conclusion that the strike might be on reactionary demands, but ‘really’, dialectically, in a contradictory way it was about a fight to advance the rights of all workers and since it might become that it was ok – a sort of ‘if your aunt had balls’ argument.

Now the moment of truth is upon us, turn your head away and pretend not to see but the Eyties’ are to be turfed out, our British, or better still our ‘local’ lads will get first call on 101 out of 198 jobs, is it? And presumably these locals will have to pass some test of ‘localism’ or ‘Britishness’ set by the local union committee. And now we can move on to ensuring ‘fairness’ in every other site and in council house allocations as the Sun and News of the World have advocated for so long.

I worked in the buildings for 20 years, I have know many English Tory brick layers, I know what reactionary craft unionism is and this is what you are seeing here. The founding of the Labour party was a result of the great blows struck by the New Unionism inspired by the Match girls and the London Dockers against the elitist, privileged empire loyalism in these unions. They would troop across Westminster Bridge a century ago in bowler hats to go to work in the building sites, the same reactionary aristocracy of labour represented by the Ulster unionists, which many of us believed was its last redoubt.

The marginalisation (but not elimination) of this reactionary tradition allowed the Labour party to be founded as a bourgeois workers party (in Lenin’s famous characterisation) and this was a great world-historic advance for workers everywhere. The re-emergence of the ascendancy of craft unionism will destroy the Labour party as a workers organisation of any kind unless it is fought, and its influence halted and reversed. The defeat has not yet been inflicted on the working class but unless we fight these reactionary labour lieutenants of capital in our ranks now the future will be bleak. And that would be a world-historic defeat and a reversion to the 1870s, but in far worse circumstances.

Barber applauded Brown’s British jobs for British workers speech, did anyone notice which other TU leaders did so too? We can hope that some trade unions will refuse support to these strikes, but their silence to date speaks volumes. In any case Unite and the GMB have adopted this line, they have allied with reactionary labour aristocratic unionist consciousness against the ‘lower orders’. And that is not just targeting Johnny Foreigner, it will target the unskilled and the unemployed and, ultimately it will rebound on its ‘socialist’ supporters too – apparently the German Social Democratic leaders were pleading with Hitler to be allowed to serve his cause as they were being led to the concentration camps. The BNP are correct to see fertile recruiting ground opening up for them.

So yes, Patrick, Janine and Chris and Stuart, you did get it profoundly wrong and when the moment of truth arrives, when the deal based on the nationality or the locality of the workers is accepted, you will have to turn your heads away and pretend not to see.

Gerry Downing

Thu 05, February 2009 @ 12:46

stuart king said…

Of course Johann Hari knows about wrong targets as he was an ardent supporter of Blair's drive to war against Iraq and spent his time at the Independent denouncing the anti-war movement.

Hari and Gerry have one thing in common, they have ignored what has been happening over the course of the strikes and as a result denounced them as purely anti-immigrant and reactionary. Yet the strike and its outcome has proved those on the left who take this position clearly wrong. The agreement has not required the removal or sacking of any Italian workers but has resulted in oil giant Total agreeing to over a 100 new jobs for workers who have been made redundant.

All socialists should have denounced the initial slogans “British jobs for British workers” and any nationalist and anti-European outbursts, but as the strike developed the demands were concretised, first for equal access to the jobs of the new sub-contracting company on "blue book" conditions, and, as it was resolved, for new jobs to take on workers made redundant.

The right wing anti-European press has done everything to paint up the strikes as anti foreign worker, so has the BBC. Some on the left like Socialist Worker and Workers Power have echoed this despite the clearly progressive demands adopted by the mass strike meetings. The AWL has performed a political u-turn - on Saturday declaring it a reactionary strike, and on Monday saying the strikers are "our people" and praising its militancy!

Even yesterday the WP website was declaring in the face of the facts "The issue remains whether the Italian and Portuguese workers can take up their jobs. IF THE STRIKE CONTINUES TO OPPOSE THIS, it is no good attaching nominally progressive demands to the strike as its overriding aim remains to oppose the employment of workers on the basis of their nationality." Rarely has a distortion of the facts been so blatant or an argument been proved bankrupt so quickly.

Thu 05, February 2009 @ 13:48

John McKee said…

keep digging stuart, the hole will swallow you up.

the 'new' jobs were going to go to Italian workers, now they will go to British workers, and more such disputes are on the way.

some victory.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1842,0,0,1,0

Thu 05, February 2009 @ 22:19

David Walters said…

Let me say from afar (6000 miles) in California that I'm very concerned about this strike and its outcome. I generally approve of the PR position on this strike, and I understand that the SP itself, about the only left group at the refineries, is under a tremendous amount of pressure. They may of caved in here or there, but for the most part they have been the *only* voice against the national-chauvinism whipped up among the membership. I haven't read all their stuff, but it *seems* close to the PR position.

The key issue, it *appears* is the very concretized and reactionary Article 49 of the European code that allows for the bringing in of workers *beneath* prevailing wages and in *violation* of national contracts. Under no circumstances can such *actions by the bosses* be supported.

My view is the strike is justified as it is these "laws" that allow for, essentially, union busting. In the US many of us supported the Teamsters *formal* position on the breaking down of the US/Mexican border that allowed Mexican truckers to bring goods into the US:

1. They have to be paid under US (superior as it happens) prevailing wages

2. They work under US hours of work codes

3. They be open to US unionization...

Or the border remains closed. We will not stand for the importation of Malquidora working conditions IN the U.S. When workers come to the US they are, ipsofacto, *part* of the US working class and all that implies. I should point out that Mexican truck DRIVERS actually didn't want to cross the border as it increases their rate of exploitation terribly. What was commonly referred to as "Mexican Truckers" meant the Mexican bosses who owned trucking fleets...and who eventually want to be bought out by US fleet operators.

I think the demands that the non-British companies work under superior (we call that "prevailing" in the US labor contract language) UK conditions are correct.

I think the demands raised by the SP of mandatory unionization and covered by any and all national refinery and building contracts be fought for tooth and nail.

If Italian companies or other non-British companies want to work under such equalization conditions, by all means.

A fight to overturn Article 49 needs to be organized on a European wide basis immediately.

David Walters

San Francisco, CA

Thu 05, February 2009 @ 23:41

John McKee said…

Dave, article 49 is bad and must be opposed, but these workers are not being paid below the rate paid to the british workers. This strike was about the nationality of the workers hired, and jobs that were going to go to Italians are now going to British. There are more disputes in progress that are also demanding that jobs go to British citizens rather than to foreigners. are we really now supposed to welcome what has happened? If so we would have to follow through and extend it and support the other similar disputes against foreign labour. It's hard but true, this was not a progressive strike and the sp and pr have made a serious mistake. Alongside a fight for equal pay to be included in EU and UK law we need an urgent fight in the UK to defend foriegn workers.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1842,0,0,1,0

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 00:12

Dan said…

"the 'new' jobs were going to go to Italian workers, now they will go to British workers, and more such disputes are on the way."

Not sure this is the case. I've read elsewhere that there are 100 new jobs.

The SP have been too soft on "British Jobs for British Workers" and there is no doubt there was an undercurrent of nationalism with potentially very reactionary consequences. However for all their faults I hate to think what would have happened if there no socialists on the ground. Indeed it shows the pitiful state of the far left that the SP were the only ones to have any links on the ground.

But rather recognise that this is a complicated situation with different information coming form different sources Workers Power have resorted to their usual denunciations. For instance there is still the question the accommodation charges could mean that the company is using labour from abroad to undercut current conditions. By the way this is something that could be done by UK labour as well by the way, the EU stuff is a bit of a red herring in that respect. There is nothing in UK agreements that makes undercutting illegal (they are only voluntary agreements by the companies). So it is not just about fighting the EU laws but the UK ones as well.

There is also the question of whether companies are using labour from abroad to undermine union organisation. Again there is no clear picture on this.

However I think the nationalist aspects are deeply worrying and would have sent a chill down the spine of many immigrant workers around the country and this has to be taken on. It is obviously was a main current of the dispute but I think that this was taken on during the dispute and demands did go leftwards.

However Workers Power calling people "cowards", "traitors" and asking whether groups have passed or failed a test doesn't really get us anywhere. Indeed saying you would slap down your internationalist demands on the table of the strike committee and walk out immediately if they weren't accepted isn't really helpful either and would have been a disaster in my view.

We aren't talking here about whether to accept patriotism in the lead up to WWI, I think you need to get things in perspective a bit. To make sure nationalism doesn't take a hold in our movement will require patient and hard work, engaging with workers and unions around the country. Shrill slogans and denunciations won't get us very far. The Bolsheviks didn't just have the correct politics they also used tactics to implant themselves in the working class over two decades. They had built up the respect and loyalty of workers through hard work.

You end your latest piece by saying "We can hold our heads high and press forward, rallying internationalist workers and youth to us in the period ahead", as if you were the Bolsheviks waiting for workers to come to your rallying cries. Yet you miss the point that you are an organisation of 30 to 40 people (as is PR) and have no implementation in the workers movement (less like PR). You can have all articles you like which you perceive as the perfect way forward but if you have no leverage with workers it won't get you very far and you seem to have no idea of how to translate things on the ground.

Personally I have grave concerns about the nationalist current which underlies the dispute. But I don't think WPs line will change this in any shape or form.

Also I don't any socialist should be ashamed to say that this is a complicated situation and there are different currents to grapple with.

But personally I think PR has got it mainly right in firmly rejecting and arguing against the nationalist sentiments but also engaging with the strike in a constructive way.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 09:18

Dan said…

I also can't work out why WP praise the SWP but denounce PR when the SWPs position seems closer to PRs than WP.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17051

They certainly don't say "No to the nationalist strikes!" they said "Blame the bosses not ‘foreign workers" which is a far better slogan and maybe something we could have headed our article with. And the article is far more nuanced than WPs line.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 09:36

JB said…

As I understand it it's very clear that the firm in question are attempting to undermine union organisation - they are a non-union firm, and the Italian workers in question are therefore also non-union. It is this fact, rather than the nationality of the workers, which gave the strike the potential to become progressive, however it may have started. And if David Walters (welcome to our discussion boards) checks out links on previous posts, he'll see that it is not EU law alone which allows for the undercutting of wage agreements, it's British law too, which counters another of the national chauvinist arguments.

As Dan says, no-one in PR has underestimated the danger of the reactionary slogans raised during this strike, but in evaluating why the class struggle exploded in this way rather than around the hundreds of other sites of redundancies around the UK, the key fact is that alternative jobs were available, but workers couldn't apply for them. If we take away the nationality issue, isn't that an understandable source of frustration?

I've always argued within PR not to unnecessarily widen the gap with our former comrades and to recognise that WP still has its strengths. However it was no coincidence that the split found the vast majority of trade unionists with PR and the inexperienced students with WP. We have consistently argued that the parlous state of the labour movement must be recognised, and that much hard and patient work will be needed to rebuild it The Lindsey strike demonstrates that fact all too clearly - it is a microcosm of the problems we now face in converting a disorientated, divided and casualised working class to socialist views. Even in a formerly highly politicised area such at the Merthyr valley, the recent closure of Hoover's production lines found many workers blaming the redundancies on the fact that the owners were Italian.

We cannot win workers to socialism, a la SP, without directly and uncompromisingly confronting national chauvinist ideas, but nor can we by absenting ourselves from struggles which have the potential to politically educate workers, no matter their starting-point.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 10:02

Luke said…

Dan,

No. Sorry but it's plain PR and the SWP do not have the same position.

The SWP do not support the strike. They are quite clear 'the strikes are around the wrong slogans and target the wrong people' and say 'those who urge on the strikes are playing with fire'.

They could have been more bullish in their conclusions, as Workers Power are, but they adopted an essentially internationalist line. So too, by the way, does the International Socialist Group, if you see their statement.

The point that we are making about the PR and SP line. (The point Gerry Downing makes about these lines above too.) Is that you are trying to say the strikes are about something they are not. That they are about sub-contracting (no they're not). That they are about workers on poorer pay and conditions undercutting an established workforce (no they are not). These strikes were about British jobs for British workers.

No such excuses can be found in SW, in the ISG statement, nor in Socialist Fight's. They are found in PR articles, in the AWL's second statement, in the SP's statement. Indeed, Stuart above admits this. He clearly identifies with the SP position, not with the SWP position. Indeed it is odd you are now saying you have the same position as the SWP given the initial article said they were wrong for condemning the strikes.

The goals of the strike. The goals that have been achieved now in Lindsey is British jobs for British workers. They precedent is set. Now in disputes across the country the stage is set for quotas for 'indigenous' and 'foreign labour'. That's why the strikes did not deserve our support.

To be frank Dan, the rest of your arguments aren't very serious. You obviously don't like our pros style, our excited tone, our appeal to international workers and youth to join us and fight this thing. Fine. But given we are facing an historic crisis of capitalism. Given this is a very serious and divisive turn in resistance to the coming attacks. I think there is a strong case for mobilising a vocabulary that expresses this seriousness.

Though you intended it as a slur the comparison with the Bolsheviks is a badge of honour in my book.

Cheers,

Luke

From Socialist Worker

“And far too many in the trade union leadership have gone meekly along with this treatment – or even, shamefully, encouraged the “British jobs for British workers” slogan.”

“The chorus of “British jobs for British workers” pulls the rug from under the feet of those who’ve fought to create such unity.”

“Any demand framed in terms of “putting British workers first” inevitably paints another set of workers – “foreign workers” – as the problem.”

“We need a fightback, with strikes and protests, and the unions have been scandalously slow to offer any sort of resistance to the jobs massacre.

But these strikes are based around the wrong slogans and target the wrong people.”

“It’s right to demand that everyone is paid the proper rate for the job and that there’s no undercutting of national agreements. And we need militant action, including unofficial action, to win these demands. But these strikes are not doing that – whatever some of those involved believe.”

“Those who urge on these strikes are playing with fire. Once the argument is raised it can open the door to racism against individuals. Already in some supermarket warehouses the racists are calling for action against workers from abroad.”

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 14:07

Dan said…

Luke at no point did the SWP say they want the strike called off. If they have said that can you show me the quote. They say the slogans are wrong but so do PR, as the above article shows.

This is very different from WPs position. Even saying that people shouldn’t urge on the strikes suggest they are being critical of the strikes slogans rather than what WP are saying, again closer to PR in my view.

I also think it is extremely disingenuous of you to associate PRs line with the SP when we think that the SP have been far too soft on the nationalist aspect of the strike.

What PR have said is that there is conflicting information and without people on the ground it’s hard to see what exactly what is going on.

PR have never denied that BJFBW is a big part of the strike but we do say there are conflicting forces and there have been fluctuations in the strike and we have to relate to that.

I still find it unbelievable that you think that best way to have intervene into the strike was to “slap down” your “demands” on the table of the strike committee and walk out if they weren’t taken up.

I think the SWP article has some good stuff in it and some of the things in the article can be taken on board. However I think WPs statements have been grand standing.

I actually don’t agree with the article above saying the SWP condemned the strike, they neither say whether they support it or don’t support it. Given the fluctuations involved and conflicting information I think this is understandable.

By the way you can say that how you put messages across isn’t a serious issue but I think it’s important. If you frame your ideas in a way which just alienates people then that’s going to be a big bar to getting workers to listen to your ideas. Because you’re used to that “pros” you are probably oblivious that to most people it comes across as slightly unhinged. Just like Newsline sounds a bit off the wall when you read it. I’m not saying that as a slur, I just think you do your ideas a disservice.

And I didn’t compare you to the Bolsheviks, so no badge of honour there I’m afraid. Indeed I think what WP is doing is anything but what the Bolsheviks did. As said the Bolsheviks didn’t just have the politics, they also knew how to implement them on the ground and over years of hard work built up networks and links in the workers movement, something WP is totally failing to do.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 14:47

Luke said…

So the SWP are closer to the PR position.

Hmm.

Quote: 'some like the Socialist Workers Party, have condemned the strikers warning that to support them means “playing with fire”, in effect leaving the ground open to the fascist BNP.'

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 15:44

Dan said…

I've already commented on that in the post. I disagree with the bit in the PR article above that says the SWP condemned the strikes. I can't find anywhere where they did this? Can you?

The closest you can say they come to this is:

"Those who urge on these strikes are playing with fire. Once the argument is raised it can open the door to racism against individuals."

But this is not the same as the WP line and is not saying the strikes should be called off. The SWP are saying that the slogans of the strike should be changed and that if they aren't then it would be good for the forces of reaction and would be playing with fire. That is PRs line, we have said the same thing however personally I think we could have incorporated some of what the SWP said and I think the title to their article was good. I also think, as said, that you totally wrong to equate the SPs line with PRs.

As it happens UNITE haven't taken up the six demands of the SP and this is a set back.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 17:24

bill j said…

The WP "position" in as much as it can be said to be a position amounted to doing nothing about the racism or nationalism of the dispute. Rather they stood on the sidelines and condemned it. Who took any notice of that condemnation? Perhaps only those contributing to this thread.

Instead PR proposed to combat nationalism through critically engaging with the dispute. We were not soft on nationalism and we didn't get "burnt". Playing with fire is necessary if you are going to really fight reactionary consciousness of the working class. Of course if you have no intention of doing that then no problem. Do what Workers Power do.

The disputes were not simply around nationalism but around the whole system of sub-contracting. Unsurprisingly this took a nationalist form to a degree given that the contracts were awarded on national lines and national contractors employed national work forces. If you cannot see that a work force kept in a prison boat, separate from the community in which they work, non union, segregated from the indigenous workforce are more vulnerable to exploitation and on worse terms and conditions than those of the union workers they are replacing then you need to get out more.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 17:50

Wladek Flakin said…

It's telling that the groups opposing the strike, like SWP, AWL and SP have their social base at British universities. Racism is a major concern to left-wing students (and a latent hostility to the "uneducated" working class is widespread), whereas subcontracting in order to undermine union rights is not. It's much easier to score points at the campus with a purely abstentionist positions. But of course that makes any kind of intervention into the workers' movement more or less impossible.

WP's "tin soldier Bolshevik" language is pretty clearly directed at their own members, who must realize what a childish mistake they made (after Polish workers came out on these "racist strikes") but aren't allowed to say it.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 18:04

Wladek Flakin said…

Now I remember where Lenin and the Bolsheviks used WP'-speak! You can read it yourself in the Lenin Internet Archive:

"The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate, its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution."

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 18:23

Duncan said…

"SP have their social base at British universities."

The Socialist Party definitely doesn't have it's social base at British universities (says a Socialist Party member who is a university student!).

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 21:49

David Walters said…

All, thanks for reply to my particular points. Some things need to be cleared up.

I'm curious if in fact the imported sub-contract workers make the same wages. Is this true?

Secondly, if one doesn't have some sort of campaign against Article 49 it will disorient the workers in both 'camps' as they have no choice then but to be pitted against each other and the dangers of nationalism running rampant and expanding.

I don't believe that this firm would of imported it's own work force under it's own working conditions if wages and benefits were the same. What would be the point? Why even use the Italian subcontractor in the first place?? No, there is an economic and politcal advantage.

The most obvious is that the workers are non-union and secondly, it breaks any sort of power over the national refinery contract.

Despite British law, clearly it's the whole European lash up that has caused this conflict between the two groups of workers.

Absolute opposition to the British Jobs for British Workers thing. This is simply reactionary and has to be opposed. But it can't be opposed without an alternative and striking at the heart of globalizing imperialism.

David

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 21:52

Dan said…

Duncan I'm pretty sure that was a typo and was meant to say WP not SP.

Fri 06, February 2009 @ 22:38

andys said…

Some comrades have related to this struggle by saying things like, those who play with fire, will get burnt. True. But not the point. If you come across a fire in your home the key task is to put it out not play with it. Even more useless is the approach of those comrades - WP being the worst - who, faced with a fire, shout: "Disaster! Run for your lives!"

Sat 07, February 2009 @ 11:44

bill j said…

Basically what it boils down to is that Workers Power absented themselves from the class struggle at a key moment. As Dan has pointed out the SWP were much vaguer and the latest pronouncements in their paper vaguer still. While the AWL did a complete volte face.

If we were to follow the WP line then we would not be able to intervene into any dispute around European sub-contracting as all these disputes inevitably have a national component. This process is designed to force firms and their work forces to compete on national lines. Nationalism is inherent to the whole thing.

We would be unable to demonstrate to workers in practice why the chauvinist appeal of BJ4BW is a dead end. Workers Powers tactics are about as useful as their demand on the trade unions for a united front against the Labour Party. They are simply for show. Designed to fool the gullible. Their commentary completely ignores the issue of trade union rights, asserts the dispute was simply about nationalism and in disgust walks away condemning the participants. Fortunately their line had no purchase and was ignored.

This was a complex dispute which highlighted many serious problems, but through their intervention into the dispute the Left were able to make progress and win workers away from nationalist conclusions, even if, again as Dan points out this was not a complete victory by a long way.

Sat 07, February 2009 @ 15:00

stuart king said…

It is the case that the Italian workers are being paid less - one interviewed on ITV said that they were being paid a 1000 euros a week less than the British workers. This should be no surprise as IREM is an un-unionised firm.

There is little doubt that the 100 new jobs, linked to progress of the IREM contract, would have gone to Italian workers if the IREM bosses had had their way. But what is Luke and WP saying, that it is a bad thing that over a 100 unionised workers from Britain will now be working alongside the Italian workforce? That this is somehow a reactionary settlement?

This inverted logic will end with you siding with the IREM bosses and their discriminatory and union busting tactics. Surely it is a good thing to get unionised British workers working alongside the Italian ones - to break down the bosses attempt to seal off the workforce by nationality?

The fact is this dispute could have gone in a much more chauvinist and nationalist direction. The intervention of experienced militants pulled it back in the first 48 hours. Given the fact that the bosses are using the EU rules to move labour across Europe to undermine wages and conditions we are going to get many more of these disputes - throughout Europe. Far from denouncing the Lindsey struggle as reactionary, we should learn from it and develop internationalist tactics and cross union links to try and prevent disputes going in nationalist directions.

Sat 07, February 2009 @ 16:55

Arthur Bough said…

Wladek said above,

"It's telling that the groups opposing the strike, like SWP, AWL and SP have their social base at British universities. Racism is a major concern to left-wing students (and a latent hostility to the "uneducated" working class is widespread), whereas subcontracting in order to undermine union rights is not. It's much easier to score points at the campus with a purely abstentionist positions. But of course that makes any kind of intervention into the workers' movement more or less impossible."

I'm taking it he emant WP not SP, as the SP, along with PR, the Commune and the CPGB are the only ones I can see who have anyhting like a correct position on these strikes, as I said in my blog - http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/sanity-and-sectarianism.html.

But, as I also said there it brings out something different too. The SP WERE the only ones with members on the ground there, and its difficult under those condiitons to hold your ground, rather than the groups who have commented from the sidelines either way. That the SP, which has always tended to have a larger proprtion of worker members than other groups did so I don't think is any more a coincidence than Wladek's spot on comment about the studentist organisations. In essence we have organisations that still fall into the "Build the party" category, and have chosen different routes to it. This explains the SWP posiiton too. Essentially, having given up on the real working class they have looked to other milieu in which to Party Build - that is why they broke with the SA and set up Respect with assorted Stalinists, petit-bourgeois politicians and communalists. Even having left Respect, that anti-racism, and "anti-imperialist" milieu remains the pond in which they have chosen to fish, just as the AWL fish in a generally petit-bouregois, studentist pond with their front organisations. As Trotsky said, look to the social groups on which political forces base themselves and you will understand the basis of their politics.

Sun 08, February 2009 @ 13:39

Luke said…

Jobs for All

Workers Power leaflet for the construction workers' strike

This leaflet will be distributed at the Unite and GMB construction workers national shop stewards meeting in Manchester on Monday 9th February.

http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,1843,0,0,1,0

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 11:53

bill j said…

Workers Powers new leaflet seems to have dropped its condemnation of the dispute?

How odd.

It appears that PRs position - now adopted by pretty much the entire left - has now been taken up by WP as well.

Oh well. Better late than never.

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 12:16

Luke said…

That's not serious.

The leaflet is quite clear we are opposed to the dispute. A few quotes:

"No to campaigns against foreign labour: no to campaigns to drive out or enforce quotas against foreign labour"

"More of this and we'll be fighting among ourselves for every new set of jobs, and fighting on nationalist lines. Instead of fighting together against casualisation and for the levelling up of wages, we could get sucked into a series of strikes over the nationality of workers rather than over jobs, pay, conditions and union rights."

"Unite's campaign targeting foreign contractors divides the working class along national lines rather than uniting workers of all countries against the bosses. It doesn't make it easier to unionise foreign workers if the union doesn't defend their right to work as well as British workers' rights."

"It is right to demand that all workers on the site should be in the union; but it is wrong to demand that they have to be British."

"Our unions should demand inspection of hiring and make sure that where new jobs are on offer there is no discrimination of any type on national lines: but the demand for British Jobs for British Workers will divide workers along lines of citizenship and make it harder to win working class unity."

"It's not a recipe for a united fightback against multi-national bosses; it’s a recipe for in-fighting and disaster."

"No wonder the slogan British Jobs for British Workers originates with the fascist BNP and was taken up by Gordon Brown. They want to weaken and divide us."

"The call for 'local jobs for local people' is another dead end. Of course there should be no discrimination against people based on where they live. But if we start saying no-one from outside the area should be hired until all local workers have jobs we'll have wrangling between workers from different towns and cities instead of a united fightback."

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 12:25

Dan said…

Luke actually I think you're wrong. All those points are against certain characteristics of the strike. PR, SWP etc came out strongly against the slogan BJFBW and warned against nationalism and reactionary slogans.

However there is nothing in anything you have quoted that said you were explicitly against the whole strike (as oppossed to the BJFBW slogan), nothing saying you think the workers should have gone back to work, nothing saying you would have walked out of strike committees unless these workers accepted your internationlist demands.

You had the title "Energy workers: No to the nationalist strikes!" which pretty clearly says that you wanted the strike called off. But there is nothing remotely this strident in the leaflet. Is this because now you're leafletting workers you realise that such an approach would get you nowhere?

Why haven't you said in the leaflet that you "unreservedly opposed it"?

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 13:08

Luke said…

Comrades,

This is silly. You can't one minute accuse us of being a group of students with no idea how to relate to workers who hold backward ideas, then attack us when we do relate to those workers.

Where is the PR leaflet to this shop stewards meeting? Do you intend to leaflet any of the construction workers meetings or pickets? If so will you run with a leaflet titled "Lindsey strike divides the left"? (why would these workers care about the left's division?) I put it to you that you're only article on the dispute lacks any orientation to the working class; it is in effect a commentary-come-comment piece orientated to the left.

There is no change of position in our leaflet at all. We were against the strikes, indeed, we were unreservedly opposed to them. Full stop. That's our position. This is a leaflet to a shop stewards meeting discussing "where next for the movement" so we naturally outline a strategy for a resistance based on internationalism not nationalism, rejecting the Bj4Bw slogan and all its variants, and defending the rights of migrants to work in Britain.

Dan you once again try to equate the PR position with the SWP's. But it's not the same. In the one article - repeat, one article - PR have written on the strike you say:

"There is a very real danger that the slogans used could be allowed to translate into explicit racism. If the left crudely condemns the strike (as the SWP article does), or if it simply acts as a cheerleader for it (as the CPB does) then there is no chance that we could influence the strike in an anti-racist manner. It is essential that every effort is made to get the IREM workers and the LOR strike committee reps to meet up and break through the barrier that the employers have set up."

The point we have consistently made in response to this is that it's no good trying to establish unity with the IREM workers if you are not fighting from the outset for their right to work too. The fact none of them lost their jobs is good. But it doesn't change the fact the strikes never once upheld their right to work; but instead demanded their jobs should go to British workers.

This is exactly the point we make in our latest leaflet when we say:

"Unite's campaign targeting foreign contractors divides the working class along national lines rather than uniting workers of all countries against the bosses. It doesn't make it easier to unionise foreign workers if the union doesn't defend their right to work as well as British workers' rights."

The other point we have consistently made is that it's no good supporting a strike so long as its fighting for fixed quotas for British citizens. This is again a point we make in the leaflet:

"The danger with this is clear enough. More of this and we'll be fighting among ourselves for every new set of jobs, and fighting on nationalist lines. Instead of fighting together against casualisation and for the levelling up of wages, we could get sucked into a series of strikes over the nationality of workers rather than over jobs, pay, conditions and union rights."

But neither are we going to write off every worker in the construction industry as a backward reactionary. It's precisely because we have faith in the working class to come to internationalist - indeed, revolutionary - conclusions that we are arguing for a progressive, internationalist movement to be built at today's shop stewards meeting. In short, for a 360 degree turn.

Cheers,

Luke

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 13:43

Dan said…

Luke I think you’re missing the point, even if you do “put it to us” (I’m sure you don’t speak in real life like you write, it just seems a bizarre pros, but anyway I’ll leave that to one side but as said above I don’t think it does you or WP any favours). I think the reason people are mentioning about WP being mainly students is because as a social base it can infringe on your ability to relate to workers.

PR have a number of leaflets on different topics that aren’t on the web. As for the stewards meeting I’m sure Manchester will try and send people. However we don’t have any full timers and hardly any students meaning we don’t have as much free time as WP. As you know PR is in the middle of trying to get a CGIL speaker to the RESPECT/SP meeting on Friday. We have also raised the issues in our union branches and with the NSSN. Sorry if this isn’t good enough for you.

And no our leaflets won’t have the same title as the opening piece. I’ve already said that I think the SWP headline article “Foreign Workers are not to blame” is a good one.

As for your leaflet we’ll have to agree to disagree. There is no way anyone would read that and think WP was “unreservedly opposed to them” and I think that’s important given that’s the base you want to develop a strategy from. As for all the things about internationalism, rejecting the BJFBWs slogan, defending migrant workers etc then I don’t think you’d find many on the left who would disagree.

In terms of the strikes not upholding the Italians right to work it was a far more complex picture than that and many workers (including the strike committee) did say this.

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 14:23

bill j said…

The joke is when the strikes were on Workers Power condemned the strikers and the socialists intervening into those strikes to fight racism and nationalism, now the strikes are over....they support them.

In fact they even say the struggle has moved on to Staythorpe. While neglecting to point out that they condemn that struggle!!!

As if that's something you can miss off a leaflet? Laugh ha ha.

Luke is so incapable of an honest answer that he can't even admit they've done a 180 degree U turn.

Welcome to the world of Workers Power.

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 15:29

bill j said…

It also reveals a certain disdain for the shop stewards, if indeed Workers Power do continue to condemn the strikes but had "forgotten" to say so. Do Workers Power think stewards are unaware what the left say?

Imagine the conversation;

Shop steward 1; "There was these students standing outside giving out this leaflet - I think its not bad."

Shop steward 2: "Did it mention they condemned the strikes and the agreement and the stewards, and that they think we're all nationalists and soft on racism?"

Shop steward 1: "Funnily enough they forgot to put that in."

Laughter.

Mon 09, February 2009 @ 16:16

Gerry Downing said…

I returned to my job as a London busdriver last Tuesday after a five week illness and enquired how the drivers felt about Bj4Bw? The replies were unprintable and the anger against Unite for promoting this slogan was very strong. Of course none of the drivers were 'British' (there are only about a half dozen British drivers out of 250 drivers in our garage). So they were just victims of media propaganda, didn't understand the building trade etc? And the Poles, some quite pro-management ones I spoke to, were among the angriest. Maybe some SP members should take the British working class in its diversity and the need to conduct the class struggle in unity.

And is it not hilarious no to see John Haylett's and the Morning Star unceremoniously dumping the SP because it is backing Gerry Hicks whose crime was to criticise the 'leadership; whilst supporting the strike (see Monday’s MS). The MS are now giving their unalloyed backing to Simpson against Hicks as the wait for it.....the 'left-progressive candidate!!! A few weeks ago he was an absolute right wing traitor but in the meantime he backed the Bj4Bw strike and SPONSORED THE MORNING STAR AS THE DAILY PAPER OF THE LEFT. Poor old Bill Mullins, after quoting the MS line so religiously during the affair to be stabbed in the back line this - never trust a Stalinist, particularly if you call yourself a Trotskyist, however spuriously. And where does it all leave the prospects for the new united Unite Broad Left which was conceived as led by Woodley, the left winger against Simpson, the right winger with the support of the SP AND the SWP? The world really has changed after these strikes.

Thu 12, February 2009 @ 09:37

bill j said…

From your comments it would appear it really hasn't changed!

Thu 12, February 2009 @ 12:54

bill j said…

Luke Cooper of Workers Power has written a polemic against PR, where he seeks to defend WPs original position of complete opposition to the strike. Of course WP trimmed this position in their leaflet to Unite stewards so that it implied they did support the strike. But I've had a brief run through Lukes original arguments assuming that the old rather than the new is indeed the actual position of WP. Clear?

Luke argument 1;

"Permanent Revolution, for example, write “Were Total to be the sole employer, and not sub-contracting the work out to IREM, those workers of theirs who lost their jobs when the contract was awarded to the Italian company would have had to be offered the jobs before anyone else.”

According to Luke this is inaccurate or wrong because;

"Permanent Revolution would do well to check their facts. First off, Total actually sub-contracted to the Californian based engineering firm Jacobs who then sub-contracted the work on to IREM."

In fact confirming the point that PR made - Total sub-contracted the work to IREM albeit through another firm called Jacobs. Our point was that if the workers had been directly employed - which they weren't as they were sub contracted - then they would have been entitled to different employment rights, than if they were sub-contracted.

Luke argument 2;

"That Total should have on-site construction and maintenance workers is clear, but to make a £100 million development they are likely to need specialist labour."

Luke agrees with the bosses justification for sub-contracting - that there is a need for "specialist labour" and implies this was the reason for using the Italian sub-contractor. But it wasn't it. IREM won the contract because they are cheaper, they are a non union firm and pay their workers lower salaries on worse terms and conditions than the British labour they replaced.

Luke argument 3

"While sub-contracting is an issue, the point is not that Total should employ the labour for this project directly."

But this is absolutely the point - socialists and trade unionists are against the system of sub-contracting for exactly the disastrous reasons that have been manifest at Lindsey - it erodes terms and conditions, makes sacking easier and allows the bosses to play one group of workers off against another - yet Luke supports the system of sub-contracting, he says that direct employment is "not the point".

Luke argument 4;

"Of course this is a factor behind the dispute. The Lindsey workers were employed for Shaws, the construction company, they were laid off with a 90-day redundancy notice in November. But this has nothing to do with whether IREM won a different contract at the Total plant. Opposing the job losses at Shaws means taking the fight to the Shaws bosses."

So sub-contracting was a factor behind the dispute but had nothing to do with the fact that the contract was sub-contracted? Erm. Yeah...

But of course it has everything to do with it. If the workers had not been sub-contracted then they would not have been laid off when the contract was sub-contracted. But as Luke is in favour of the system of sub-contracting or at least accepts it as a fait accompli, or at least he's not against it, certainly not in favour of direct employment, then he is forced then to blame the Shaws workers for the fact they object to being sacked!

Luke argument 5;

"It is plain then that the strike demands do not oppose the system of sub-contracting. They oppose the awarding of one contract to a foreign firm. The Unite union are now raising their central demand that British workers should be allowed to apply for the jobs at IREM. So instead of taking the fight to the enemy – the bosses at Shaws who made the lay-offs – they demand IREM breaks the agreement it has with its Italian workforce: where is the justice or internationalism in that?"

But Luke does not oppose the system of sub-contracting!! Remember he says "While sub-contracting is an issue, the point is not that Total should employ the labour for this project directly."

Unless the workers are employed directly by Total they must necessarily be sub-contracted. Luke accepts the system of sub-contracting but objects to Shaws employees in a unionised firm fighting their redundancy because the contract had been won by a non-union Italian firm.

Luke's refusal to take on the whole issue of sub-contracting means he has to side with one employer - the non-union IREM - against the unionised Shaws. His internationalism is interverted nationalism - not internationalism or even trade unionism.

Thu 12, February 2009 @ 18:31

Billy Ralston said…

I've replied to Bill already here and repost without the context of that discussion: http://hammer-and-sickle.blogspot.com/2009/02/back-to-work-strikers-go-what-happened.html

Bill, thanks for your comments, but really try relaxing your anti-WP attitude.

Your entire argument revolves around a badly worded sentence by LC, while any child ought to be able to see that IN CONTEXT the comrade is passing comment on the fact that the strikers' demands have nothing to do with ending the system of subcontracting. Obviously this would have been clearer were it written like so:

"While sub-contracting is an issue, the point OF THE STRIKE is not that Total should employ the labour for this project directly. The problem of sub-contracting is found in the construction companies they call on for projects such as this. In construction sub-contracting is used from top to bottom to create a casualised workforce of supposedly self-employed labour. According to Socialist Worker as many as 40% of the 2.2 million building workers employed in Britain are defined as self-employed to deny them basic labour rights."

Luke might also have done better to explain more explicitly how the pickets will be made up of hundreds of petty contractors and their 'employees' as anyone who has ever worked in construction will tell you.

This is precisely the reason why the necessary task of attempting to turn these strikes into strikes for 'free and open recruitment' is doubly difficult in this scenario.

Nor are all the workers likely to be 'locals', but rather mostly migrants from across the country. The towns surrounding these power stations cannot sustain work on a permanent basis for all the skilled workers on the picket lines.

The 'local jobs' and union register thing is at worst a precendent in employment law for a new racist protectionism, at best the closed shop, with all the faith that entails in the union bureaucracy's objectivity in recruitment.

This is why the CP opposed it traditionally - leave recruitment to the employers and that way they can be held accountable for their prejudices. Give it to the bureaucrats and they will use it against their enemies within the union. The genesis of workers control is in the occupation, not in the closed shop.

Gerry Downing has endeavoured to show how this was applied through official union channels as a means of precluding Catholics from employment. (WP, it has to be said, have offered us no such critique)

Michael Rosen of the SWP has pointed out on the Socialist Unity blog the possibility that IREM is undermining Shaws by virtue of a tax dodge. If so, even more reason to support the Italian workers against those who would have them fired, and aim to change the current tendency towards nationalistic strikes into European strikes against the whole practice of sub-contracting.

In turn, insofar as Unite continue to neglect to diclose details of their negotiations with the Italians, we cannot even reach any sound conclusions on the 'undercutting' charge.

Nor am I yet clear on the 'new jobs' assumption... although I see even Luke C appears to have granted this. Can someone provide some evidence please? Because at the moment it seems as though these 'new jobs' have come at the expense of Italian workers who were due to start work, and who may well now have been laid off themselves!

I think the 'workerists' amongst us would all do well to remember that a British worker is not worth a penny more than than Italian, whether in Rotterdam or anywhere, Liverpool or Rome...

In short there is just NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to be able to offer any kind of 'critical support' to these strikes. They are manifestly NOT strikes against the whole system of subcontracting, and a victory against subcontracting itself is the only objective victory here for the working class!

In fact, the way these actions are going currently is necessarily short-termist... Have you read on 'Bearfacts' about the LOR workers who are now refusing to walkout in solidarity with Staythorpe, on the grounds that they 'might never work again'? Without strikes against the entire system of subcontracting, jobs for workers in construction who happen to reside in Britain will in any case continue to be undercut one way or another until the collapse of sterling.

Taking this position has of course not stopped the likes of the SWP from going on the picket lines and attempting to influence this state of affairs... without giving the strikers an inch of 'support'. WP's leaflet too is good in this regard.

Of course it is understandable for the anarchists, syndicalists, councillists, Kautskyists and third-campists that PR have aligned themselves with here to get confused about questions of internationalism.

But for the ortho-Trots of PR this looks more than a little like opportunism. Could it be that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater while attempting to distinguish your aging 'new' org from the tendency you created? A chip on the shoulder indeed.

"The sect sees the justification for its existence and its point of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguished it from the movement." Marx, in a letter to Engels.

Thu 12, February 2009 @ 22:57

Billy Ralston said…

"As Trotsky said, look to the social groups on which political forces base themselves and you will understand the basis of their politics."

Well this and Wladek's are interesting arguments, but a bit rich when we consider that the SP have what, two or three members involved in the strikes and the Anarchist Federation have one. Then while an org like WP may have only a few stewards and PR may have a good deal more, PR have what, an org of mostly teachers with two or three members under the age of 25?

This is post-Thatcher Britain ffs, what org is there that colonises its 'petty-bourgeois cadres' in factories and isolates them from their milieu as Trotsky suggested. I know the Communist League has a meat packing factory in Edinburgh if anyone on this board wants proled up LOL

Thu 12, February 2009 @ 23:21

bill j said…

Well fair points, but what's it got to do with it?

Fri 13, February 2009 @ 07:32

Dan said…

Hi Billy,

I think the strike was a complicated one for socialists. Whatever your differences with PR I think it’s a bit of a lazy critique to throw out the word “opportunist” when actually this is about small organisations grappling with a strike that had a flux of ideas, forces and where facts are still not totally clear. PR have been clear that the slogan BJFBW is reactionary so can’t see how you can think we have been opportunistic about this, and we are clearly not taking the same line as the SP.

As for PRs make up I don’t know where you got the figure that we are “mostly teachers”. Both WP and PR are organisations of about 30 odd people. PR has about four or five members who are teachers, hardly “mostly teachers”. However nearly all our members (actually virtually all of our members) are union stewards, and yes we don’t have many young members (not sure of the relevance of this). On the other hand over half of WPs members are students and they probably have about five or six stewards. For tiny organisations I don’t think this kind of thing is such a big deal but you can see where an organisation is dominated by a social base of students it could influence their politics. But moving on.

In terms of the WP leaflet I think it’s quite good in terms of the politics (never like WPs style, I think it’s quite alienating and often pompous). But the point is the leaflet says nothing about the fact that WP “unreservedly” opposed the strike. It says nothing about Luke saying WP would have “slapped down” their demands at the strike committee and then walked out if they weren’t taken up. I don’t’ think this approach would have worked and would have just alienated people. However the leaflet seems an improvement.

You say the SWP opposed the strike (rather than just saying they opposed the slogan BJFBW and the slogan). Can you find me a quote anywhere where they say they opposed the strike? Actually I think their approach in their articles was more nuanced and better than WPs.

I tried to get the NSSN to get a CGIL speaker to a national meeting (with the help of WP in that case) but couldn’t get anywhere. I also tried to get a CGIL speaker to tonights SP/RESPECT meeting (the CGIL were keen). I left it in the hands of Nick Wrack but he doesn’t seem to have followed it through (haven’t heard anything back). The SP don’t seem keen on getting CGIL and other Italian TU speakers on to platforms.

Lastly I’d agree with many of the political points you’ve made (leaving aside the digs about PR) and I’m sure PR does as well.

Fri 13, February 2009 @ 11:15

bill j said…

Sorry I missed your earlier posts. Obviously you can re-write WPs polemic against us if you like. Personally I think its better to argue about what they actually say, rather than what you would have liked them to say.

What they actually say is that the strikers had the wrong target, as they were not striking against their employer, but IREM. Luke Cooper writes;

"The Lindsey workers were employed for Shaws, the construction company, they were laid off with a 90-day redundancy notice in November. But this has nothing to do with whether IREM won a different contract at the Total plant. Opposing the job losses at Shaws means taking the fight to the Shaws bosses."

Given that the workers were made redundant by their employer Shaws, it was clearly impossible for them to strike against anyone else other than IREM. And therefore according to Workers Power, as this was the wrong target, it was impossible for them to strike. That's why they were against the strike.

For Workers Power, or at least Luke Cooper writing on behalf of Workers Power, because of the system of sub-contracting - something which he explictly made the point he did not oppose in this instance - any strike would have been nationalist as the contracts were awarded on a national basis. Workers Power end up defending the "right" of IREM to be awarded the contract and employ "their" workforce. They side with the Italian bosses and "their" Italian workers, against the British workers.

As I said, this amounts to inverted nationalism - Italian Jobs for Italian workers. It is not internationalism or even trade unionism.

Fri 13, February 2009 @ 11:48

bill j said…

Finally I notice that you inadvertently perhaps confirm the correctness of PRs line;

 "This is precisely the reason why the necessary task of attempting to turn these strikes into strikes for 'free and open recruitment' is doubly difficult in this scenario."

Certainly it was a difficult task but it was a necessary one to attempt to turn the strikes away from nationalism. WP opposed the strikes flat. Hence they couldn't turn them into anything, accept acceptance of the IREM contract. This is also in contradiction to your point where you then go onto say you oppose the strikes. Please make up your mind.

Fri 13, February 2009 @ 11:53

Billy Ralston said…

Bill - forgive me but it has become a little difficult for me to check whether I have 'inadavertently confirmed the correctness of PR's line' as PR's 'correct line' appears to have disappeared from this site. Would it be possible to see it again?

Dan - cheers for your long reply, just a brief one from me for now. When Socialist Worker #2137 went to press the SWP clearly had agitation on the picket lines in mind. Hence their 'nuanced' line on the strikes. When WP #332 went to press, WP clearly did not, although WP did subsequently produce a flier which you agree is politically 'good', presumably because it has some agitational worth.

However, Socialist Worker has consistently taken a line which the workerist Commune and friends would doubtless decry (and probably have decried) as 'finger-wagging' at the strikers (lest they hurt the little workers, bless their grimy faces), and nowhere have the SWP expressed their SUPPORT for the strikes, and have nowhere offered anything more than a bit of sympathy to the strikers who are worried for their livelihoods.

PR effectively sided with the Commune and their ilk, while the other ortho-Trots and left-centrists took the other line, remembering, as Gerry has pointed out, that the British working class is not as British as all that. PR did so at a time when the question of what was to happen to the Italian workers was still way up in the air, and most info was coming from the notoriously trustworthy SP. Now it would be unfair to call PR clumsy workerists or plain chauvinists - hence the charge of opportunism.

Fri 13, February 2009 @ 22:18

Dan said…

What has happened to this article?! The initial post and lots of comments have disappeared?

Agree about the SWP and WP and the nuances involved and I think PR had an appreciation of this as well.

I agree the SWP have taken a line of neither support nor condemn. As a PR member I have far more time for their position than WPs.

I think the PR line was more nuanced than you make out. I also don't think we were opportunistic but were struggling with a complicated situation on the ground. Indeed I'm still unclear about many of the details.

I have to say on a personal level when I first saw the strikes on the TV and the slogans it filled me with a certain sense of dread about the reactionary consequences. However when I got more information although I still have massive concerns I also saw that the strike was more complicated that the media and the BNP would like us to believe. The only way we can head of nationalism is by putting forward an internationalist and progressive alternative. Given the tiny size of the far left and our dismal links with the organised working class and given the dire state of the rank and file in the trade unions this will be no easy task. Personally I think the far left needs to take far more seriously the task of rebuilding a rank and file in the unions and have plans of actions that go beyond slogans or top heavy non starters like "Fighting Unions". The best attempt so far has been the National Shop Stewards Network, but even that has so far been extremely limited in its successes and seems held back by its ties to bureaucratic structures.

Fri 13, February 2009 @ 23:40

PR webby said…

Sorry guys inadvertently deleted the article!!

Sat 14, February 2009 @ 10:09

Sigmund Freud said…

hmmm

Sun 22, February 2009 @ 20:25

bill j said…

The GMB has issued the following press release, citing evidence that sub-contracted workforces "posted" into the UK for engineering constructed are being paid below union rates.

EMPLOYERS MUST AGREE TO PROPER AUDITING TO AVERT A NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL ACTION BALLOT ACROSS THE UK ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, SAYS GMB

Document shows that Polish sub-contractor at Isle of Grain is paying £4 per hour below the nationally agreed rate as evidence also mounts of undercutting at the Lindsay Oil Refinery

The trade unions at the Isle of Grain engineering construction site, where Alstom are building a gas fired power station, are in possession of a copy of a contract for a Polish worker employed by sub-contractor Remak which pays this worker £4 per hour below the UK nationally agreed rate of pay. Under the UK Engineering Construction Industry National Agreement the national rate of pay for an advanced craftsmen is £14.00 an hour. The contract states that this Polish worker, on the same grade, will receive £10.01 an hour working for Remak at the Isle of Grain site.

New power stations are being built at the two sites, for EON at the Isle of Grain in Kent and for RWE at Staythorpe in Nottinghamshire. Both sites are being managed by main contractor Alstom. Alstom is using sub-contractors Remak and Zre Katowice at the Isle of Grain and sub-contractors FNN and Mon Presior at Staythorpe. This evidence regarding Remak is backed up by statements for Zre Katowice that they too are paying lower rates of pay than the national agreement.

Paul Kenny, GMB General Secretary said, “As well as this evidence from Isle of Grain that sub-contractors are paying below the nationally agreed rates GMB Organisers also have documentary evidence of the same thing at the Lindsay Oil Refinery site.

It is shameful that nowhere in the ACAS report on the Lindsay dispute did you find that ACAS actually established what rate of pay the Italian contractor was paying those workers brought in. The very nub of the dispute was ignored, or maybe conveniently forgotten about, by ACAS.

GMB members have had enough of being lied to by contractors, sub contractors and their apologists at ACAS and in Parliament on this issue. This lying will have to stop. Yesterday at the NJC the trades unions submitted a claim to the employers for proper auditing before contacts are awarded to satisfy our members that subcontractors bidding for the work can afford and plan to pay agreed rates before they can even be considered for the work.

GMB expect the employers to agree to this auditing on Grain and Staythorpe which ACAS indicated is a way forward (See Note 1). If they do not GMB’s CEC will have no hesitation is sanctioning a national ballot for official industrial action across the engineering construction industry.”

Notes:

1 Para 26 of the ACAS report says as follows:

“An enhanced role for the NAECI independent auditor in both the tendering and project monitoring processes, if this could be agreed, would, we believe, play an important part in helping to overcome some of the difficulties that this dispute has raised.”

2 The workforce is engineering construction workers which include steel workers, platers and welders.

3 Staythorpe power station will be a compact industrial facility located on a brownfield site that housed the two previous coal stations. The power station will comprise four generating units, each around 400MW, with the combined ability to generate power for almost two million homes.

E.ON is building a 1,275MW gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) station on the Isle of Grain in Kent, UK. The £500m station will have three combined-cycle units that will burn natural gas, and will supply waste heat in the form of hot water to the nearby liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. That will make Grain one of the world's largest CHP plants, and will take its overall efficiency to an expected 72%. The Grain plant will be at the same site as the existing oil-fired station. This 30-year-old oil-fired plant develops 1,355MW and is used infrequently, but must close for environmental reasons by late 2015.

4 The aim of the 1996 EU Posted Workers Directive is to protect the rights of workers sent abroad to work in another European Union country. In regard to the construction industry, it aims to further protect posted workers from exploitation. Conversely, in particular regard to the construction, contracting and building sectors, it protects domestic construction workers and contractors in the host country from unregulated wage competition or social dumping (this was dealt with under Article 3). The Directive addressed the need to create a basic framework of equal treatment for workers within the territory where (building and construction) work is undertaken. Under article 3(8) to apply the directive properly, in the current environment, the United Kingdom has simply to decide which collective agreements to apply.

5 In 2004, the Labour Party gave the following commitment “Assurance that Posting of Workers Directive will not lead to under-cutting “.

Tue 17, March 2009 @ 11:55