Tuesday, 24 November 2009

working class history, hamburg '32 - '33

Libcom have posted up this article on street politics in Hamburg from 1932 - 1933. It's taken from  the excellent online home of dusty pamphlets; class against class.

"The Nazi seizure of power took place at many levels: at the top Hitler (with industry and finance capital in the background) outmanoeuvred the Weimar politicians; lower down, his Brownshirts, under the leadership of the former army captain, Ernst Rohm, and the propagandist Joseph Goebbels (the man who 'won over' 'red' Berlin in the Reichstag elections of September 1930) set about conquering the streets. Long before the night of 20 January 1933, the Nazis had set about working at the grass-roots of the Weimar Republic: the working class strongholds of the towns and cities. The aim was to demoralize and conquer the working class in the very streets which made up their territory."


GENERAL STRIKE NOW!!!

That's what the front page of every issue of certain leftwing newspapers used to demand, well amazingly it looks like the Irish trade unions (like ours only worse!) are pulling one right now, over the water. OK so it's not really a general strike, but it seems to be a deep and wide public sector strike, including for the first time the police!

It will be interesting to see, given the historical weakness, and pro social partnership nature of the Irish union movement how this goes, could we in Britain learn some lessons?

getupstandup - official union website.
Workers Solidarity Movement, including live twitter feed.
Urban75 has discussion here.
libcom is talking about it here.

I'll stick updates into this post as the day progresses.

jerry hicks part II the revenge

Jerry Hicks the former Amicus convenor at Rolls Royce in Bristol and former SWP member now in RESPECT is running for general secretary of Unite next year.
His blog is here.
I've cut n pasted his press release below, he has got some decent policies, and is a genuine socialist trade unionist, if a bit erratic. He'll probably get my vote if no one better stands, especially as he promises only to take the average wage of a skilled worker.
PRESS RELEASE: PRESS RELEASE: PRESS RELEASE: 22nd November 2009

 ONE YEAR TWO ELECTIONS : KEEP MORE THAN AN EYE ON BOTH
 Next year will see two elections. Both are likely to be defining moments. The General Election and the election for General Secretary of the country’s biggest trade union ‘Unite’.
 Jerry Hicks whose successful legal challenge last year forced an election in the Amicus section of Unite has, after being urged by many, decided to stand again.
 He is deeply critical of Unite’s failure to protect its members despite the tens of £millions having been handed over to the Labour Government during what he says are the ‘squandered / wasted years’, meaning the 3 terms of Labour in office.
 He also argues that fundamental change is needed in the union’s relationship with New Labour which he describes as being – too close – too cosy – paying too much – for far too little. £13 million of members’ money has been donated since 2005. While supporting over 100 Labour MPs, not even the basic right to re-instatement when unfairly dismissed has been achieved. ‘The returns have been pitiful’.
 The union opposes PFI hospitals as well as academy schools yet we are ignored. We demand better pensions yet we have the second lowest state pension in Europe. We should support only MPs or councillors, current / prospective, who support our policies.
 Whoever wins the next election, cuts and attacks are staring every workplace, every union member in the face.
 Gordon Brown has said Labour would legislate to halve the deficit. £75bn in cuts and even more Privatisation. Nick Clegg the Liberal leader said they would make savage cuts. George Osborne the Tory shadow chancellor boasted that within 3 months of being in office they would be the most unpopular Government since the 2nd World War.
 Given the size and make up of Unite, it makes the election for the union’s General Secretary the most significant union election for decades.
 Jerry Hicks has been highly critical as to the wages of the General Secretary. He said “Fat cats in the city are rightly despised, just as MPs who are a world away from reality. Why have a ‘Fat cat’ General Secretary in our union with remuneration in excess of £130,000 living a lifestyle nothing like that of our members.” This will end, if elected he would only take the average wage of a skilled worker. This is certain to strike a chord, as none of the other candidates are likely to say the same.
Jerry Hicks said “Our union leadership, many of whom will seek to become the General Secretary have been unable to face up to Labour. Can our members be sure they can stand up to the Tories if they get in?”
 Ends: Notes for Editors: Unite is not only the country’s biggest Trade Union it’s also the biggest single donator to the Labour Party. Jerry Hicks will most likely be the only candidate who is not a senior official of the union. This was also the case last time, however he secured support from every region and sector of the union, coming second, within touching distance of incumbent General Secretary Derek Simpson who will not be standing this time round. Jerry Hicks is thought by many to be a possible winner.

Monday, 23 November 2009

new lefty newsletter for newcastle

A group of non aligned activists in Newcastle have launched a new regular newsletter - complete with a blog The Grey Matter.
It's good to see people doing things like this, and I'm reluctant to criticise; however, it really needs some hook to make it actually relevant to people in my view, it can't just be about issues of interest to the writers otherwise it will be doomed to a tiny and specialised readership scarcely larger than the group that publishes it.

I would suggest to them that they stick in some useful info about worker's rights, debt advice, and dog sh*t pavement stuff, as well as trying to get dirt on corruption among large local employers, the council, and NUFC.

They also really, really need to change the font - it has to be a clear simple serif font like times new roman if they want the maximum number of people to be able to read it.

Still, it's a start and hopefully with support it will grow and improve.

oh the irony!

Thanks to cheors a poster on meanwhileatthebar for posting this here



Originally from www.grist.org

unions, elections, and labour councils in france

This is a subject that has interested me for awhile, largely I'll admit from a union/workplace organising anorak perspective rather than because of a desire to impose some sort of sophisticated and original analysis on the situation, and because I have (until now - see below!) not been able to find a straight forward explanation of how unions, works councils, trade councils, and labour courts work in France.
Well after asking here on Anarchistblackcat Forums, I got some decent attempts at explaining part of the system, and then "Molly" of mollymew's blog fame stepped forward with a link to his blog and an article on a recent election victory for the CNT-F in France, where underneath he attempts to explain the extremely complex and confusing situation over there.

I've quoted the explanation in full, because I can't figure out how to link to a specific article, but I recommend visiting the blog frequently for interesting news and views.





INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-FRANCE:
VICTORY FOR FRENCH CNT IN METALWORKS ELECTIONS:
The CNT of France (CNT Vignoles) is the larger of two French anarchosyndicalist union federations that bear the same name. The basic difference between them and the CNT AITof France is that the latter refuse to participate in any of the union elections (of which there are many- see later) that are periodically held in French workplaces. There is much debate about whether the CNT's participation is a good or bad thing, but only results can determine which it is. As least in one place the CNT has managed to gain considerable popularity amongst a section of workers without compromising its principles. The following is a translation from the French, and it recently appeared as a notice of the CNT Seine-Maritime
@@@@@@@@@@
Workplace elections in metalalurgy in Seine-Maritime:
Communique of the CNT Seine-Maritime 



Elections in the metal business ( John Crane shop) 
An impressive victory of the CNT in colleges 1 and 2, that is the lesson we can draw from these elections where the CNT presented itself for the first time in the company.
College 1


With a high turnout of almost 90% in the first round of elections to the Works Committee, the CNT obtained in the workers college61.70% of votes, in fron of the FO with 34% of the vote and the CGT came in dead last with 4.2%. Only the CNT will be elected in this college. This is not a marginal vote or a protest vote but rather is a vote of union density for which the work was performed beforehand. The turnout speaks volumes about the workers' desire for change . 
College 2 
With a turnout of 83.33% in the first round of workplace elections , the CNT leads with 50% of the votes in the college of professionals, in front of the FO which obtained 36% and CGT at 14%. The CNT received an elected delegate and an alternative delegate. Ditto for the FO.
The CNT and CGT did not present candidates in the third college, the managers. In this college the FO was very much ahead of the GGC and the CFDT.
With the new law of union representation, the CGT and CFDT are not considered representative, not having achieved more than 10% of the votes cast, in contrast to the CNT and the FO. By analyzing these results we find that the union density of the CNT was made among the workers and professionals. FO was especially distinguished in settings where their representativeness was undeniable. (
the managers-Molly )
The big losers of this election were the CGT and CFDT, which no longer have the conclusive presumption of representativity.
Militants of the CNT thank everyone and all those who worked on this success that will , we are convinced, appeal to others.



@@@@@@@@@@
MOLLY NOTES:
A few things are in order if the above is to comprehensible to a North American reader. First of all the pattern of union representation throughout most of Europe, including France, is not the "one workplace, one (or none) union" that we are familiar with here. This has both good and bad points. The good is that, by law, each workplace with over 50 employees must have a 'Works' Council' and any with over 10 employees must have at least one of what is called a 'Workforce Delegate'. The latter are somewhat analogous to a 'shop steward', but not exactly as the delegate need not be a union member. This also means that pretty well all French workplaces have at least some of the protections only afforded by an union shop on this continent. The bad is that bargaining with employers all too often gets mired in simultaneous bargaining amongst the unions themselves as the functions of various bodies are unclear. The competing unions also often make solidarity a difficult thing to achieve, as there is great temptation for one union to try and undercut the other. The final bad is that the complicated system now in place was a response to the radical demand for 'self-management'. It is no such thing, and the fact that it was brought in as if it was tends to taint the very idea of self-management in people's minds. The criticism of people such as the CNT AIT that these bodies function as much for the transmission of management orders and molifying the workforce as they do to protect the workers has at least some validity. The solution of waiting until there is interest in a general assembly of the workers, however, leaves the unionists with very little to do between industrial disputes. It is only at those times that a majority of workers might be interested in scuh things, and when the dispute fades so do the assemblies, whatever the desires of the more militant.
How complicated is the system ? Let's begin with the fact that, at least in France there are not one but three different types of workplace elections (four if you count the haggling with the boss and with other unions when there is actual bargaining involved). The elections for 'Industrial Tribunals' are for bodies whose function is to rule on disputes arising from interpretation of contarcts already made. Think of them as something like permanently sitting Conciliation Boards, with greater scope and more judicial power. They are comprised half and half of representatives of employers and employees. Sounds like a formula for deadlock ? It is strongly supported by the larger, more bureaucratic, unions who take it as test of their national popularity, but draws little attention from the average worker. The elections are not connected with any particular workplace and mail in ballots are considered legitimate. The industrial activity of the country is divided into 5 'electoral colleges', managerial and professional staff, industry, commerce, agriculture and miscellaneous. Seen as something of a porkbarrel for the placement of union loyalists who will be from that point forward without any responsibility to the average worker, the last round of elections in late 2008 had a participation rate of 25.5% !!






The fact that the larger bureaucratic unions favour these elections as the test of "representativeness" (what is referred to in the CNT communique above) may be significant. The new law on "industrial democracy" adopted on August 20, 2008 no longer takes the Industrial Tribunal elections as the test of this. At the present time 5 union confederations are considered as "recognized" in terms of national bargaining. The dinosaurs such as the CGT, CFDT and FO (see below) are gradually losing out in the elections for 'Works Councils' and 'Workforce Delegates' which the new law recognizes as the test for such recognition. Both of these lections take place at workplaces, and those elected to them are much more under the supervision and control of the electors than the those in the Industrial Tribunals. These elections, accordingly, draw a far higher turnout- as can be seen from the figures in the CNT communique above.




The 'Workforce Delegates' mentioned above are tasked with bringing grievances to management, to the government Labour Inspectorate and to the Industrial Tribunals if a request to the employer concerning the infringement of the rights and freedoms of an employee is refused. Sorta like shop stewards, but a bit more complicated and not necessarily connected to any particular union (though the delegate may indeed be elected under a 'Union banner'). All enterprises with more than 10 employees is required to have Workforce Delegates. An admirable system if it works well, which it does not always do.




Then there are the elections for the 'Works Councils'. this is what the CNT communique above was talking about. These councils are required in every business with more than 50 employees. The councils consist of the elected representatives of the workers, along with the chief manager of the enterprise who acts as the chair but whose voting capacity is limited. Representatives appointed by the 'representative' trade union also sit in a non-voting capacity. The Council is in charge of the company welfare and cultural programs. It has the responsibility of formal bargaining in the case of profit sharing plans, but its role on other matters is supposed to be purely consultative. Actual bargaining is supposed to be done by the unions, but in practice it is often done by the Councils, and agreements between them and management can have the force of law. Different unions also have different ideas of what the roles of the Councils, the union organizations and actual general assemblies of the workers involved should be. Thus, where anarcho-syndicalist unions such as the CNT or libertarian inclined unions such as the SUD (see below) are popular the process will bend towards a more open involvement of the workers while where dinosaurs such the CGT are involved there will bea lot of backroom deals involved. The actual dividing lines between the powers and responsibilities of the unions and of the Councils varies quite considerably from place to place and from time to time.




If all of this sounds like it is maddeningly complex that is only because it is. With true Gallic rationalism France has created a sort of Rube Goldberg apparatus where the parts whirl madly in all directions and what is actually happening is not always clear. The very complexity, and its tendency to far too often work against rather than for the workers, has led to a certain cynicism about the very concept of 'self-management'. If this is what it is all about then the idea may not be so attractive after all. Perhaps that was an actual intent amongst some of the more clear thinking designers of the system as it was cobbled together from various traditional forms and various laws through the years.




Leaving such questions aside for the moment the fact that libertarian influenced unions such as the SUD and outright anarcho-syndicalist ones such as the CNT are gaining influence in the more democratic and responsive parts of this system can mean nothing but good. But let's conclude this with a little sketchy giude to French unions. I deliberately leave out of the following those "unions" that are undisguised bosses' federations. The (R) after the name of an union indicates that it is presently one of the recognized union federations. And you thought the system of workplace elections was complex ?
1)The CGT. (R)The Confédération générale du travail. Made up of more or less "ex" commies who have broken formal ties with the ever shrinking Communist Party but who have certainly retained every sneaky bureaucratic bad habit that Marxism Leninism ever encouraged...and these are many. Like many other previously communist union federations the functionaries of the CGT managed to survive the collapse of their political party by the sort of masterful cunning that only a lifetime spent in dealing in the shadows gives one.
2)The CFDT. (R)The Confédération française démocratique du travail. Basically a social democratic federation, but with the fissiparousness so characteristic of French politics made up of a number of mutually antagonistic factions.
3)FO.(R). Force ouvrière. Speaking of "factions"...historically a coalition between right wing unionists and (presumably right wing) Trotskyists. Historically held together more by hatred of the Communist Party than anything else. A worthy sentiment for sure, but hardly a "complete program". Having a hard time holding together now that the mutual enemy is in its dotage. Undoubtedly even more faction ridden than the CFDT.
4)CFTC.(R) The Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens. The French Confederation of Christian Workers. God's shop stewards ??? Social Christian in orientation which can mean a great number of different things in different places. Nowhere near as sinister as the so-called "unions" that evangelists have tried to set up on this continent-especially Alberta. Something of a social club for that small proportion of the French population who actually take Catholicism seriously. A constant presence, undoubtedly under the special protection of St. Joseph.
5)The CFE-CGC (R). The Confédération française de l'encadrement-Confédération générale des cadres. Hardly belongs as an "union", but recognized as such. Membership made up of managers and executives. Its existence very dependent upon the desire of the French state to have everything in perfect 'rational' order.
6)The SUD. Solidaires unitaires démocratique. Newer, more radical, union federation with a membership of varying sympathies from left social democrat, to left socialist, to ecologist to anarchist. Works closely with other 'social movements'.
6)The UNSA. The Union nationale des syndicats autonomes. Another right wing union for white collar workers. Basically the same as the CFE-CGC, but perhaps less exclusive.
7)The CNT. The Confédération nationale du travail. What can I say...the good guys

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Latin American Workers Association kicked out of it's office by Unite


This is a press release/statement from LAWA to the labour movement, with an interesting overview of their history and their relations with other groups including the Unite the union.


Latin American Workers in Unite: From heroes to pariahs

In September 2009 Unite the union ordered the Latin American Workers Association (LAWAS) without notice to vacate the office which it had provided the Association with in its southeast region HQ in Manor House, thus ending a five year partnership. This followed an organised campaign by officials againt LAWAS, because of the latter´s support for an unofficial dispute and support for undocumented workers. But what was the background to this breakdown in the relationship, and the closure of this well known point of contact between latino workers and the trade union movement, and what is the future for LAWAS?

Firstly , some history. LAWAS was reformed in 2003 by Ernesto Leal, Julio Mayor and other Latin American workers in London, many of them political exiles and trade unionists in their own countries. It was in fact the second incarnation of the Association as the first version existed in the 1980s, which is a story for another day. The aim was to address directly the exploitation and abuses faced by Latin American workers in London, and to link these workers to the broader working class movement.

The new LAWAS operated out of cafes and park benches and temporarily in a community centre in Dalston, before being offered a more permanent home by various organisations including Unite (then the T&G), whose offer was accepted in mid-2004. Thus began the partnership. LAWAS was supported by Unite with office space and volunteer expenses, but maintained an independent existence and was never part of Unite´s democratic structures.

From its small room in Unite´s Manor House offices LAWAS combined advice and representation by workers for workers with a huge union recruitment drive, of which Unite was the main beneficiary with new members running into four figures, concentrated above all in contract cleaning. Word was spread through a publicity drive in the Latin American community taking in radio, newspapers, churches, embassies, public meetings and festivals like the annual Carnival – all of which are still key points of contact with the community. Email bulletins to the ever growing list of members and supporters became and still are a key tool of communication. Some coverage was achieved in British left media, but in the words of a Unite organizer assigned to working with LAWAS, its work was largely ´under the radar´ of the union. The response of the community was overwhelming, and LAWAS became known colloquially ín the community as the ´sindicato latino´.

At the same time the Justice for Cleaners (J4C) campaign was getting into gear and LAWAS´s efforts fed into that, as a majority of the workers who approached LAWAS worked in this sector. A good working relationship was developed with individual J4C organisers and activists in activities which ranged from English classes to organizing buildings, and in general promoting J4C in the Latin American community. Indeed LAWAS´s first office volunteer, Jose Vallejo, was reruited within a year by J4C. IN 2007 the J4C organisers branch made a sizeable donation to LAWAS in recognition of its support, especially in union recognition fights and organising the first ´papers for all´march. On the surface LAWAS was a success story which the T&G/Unite was happy to sell and did so, both inside and outside the union. 

However, for the many latino cleaners who joined Unite but did not work in the buildings targetted by J4C it was almost impossible to take part in their new union. Lacking a functional branch, LAWAS became their de facto ´branch´, but this put LAWAS under an intolerable strain as it lacked the normal facilities of a branch, and because the union often would not assist when collective issues and organising opportunities presented themselves: the National Physical Laboratory and the BBC being just two examples. Where possible these workers and LAWAS did what they could alone. But without organisational backup this was difficult. It often felt like LAWAS was just there to increase membership numbers and take the strain alone of  new members with all their problems. 

In these circumstances LAWAS made it a priority to educate its new union members. For a long time it was unable to get serious union support despite repeated efforts, so it organised its own English and workplace rights classes, both alone and in conjunction with the College of North East London (CONEL) and the London Coalition Against Poverty - activities which continue to this day. Finally, thanks to pressure from both LAWAS and key J4C organisers, Unite arranged a piot English course. LAWAS made this possible by supplying a professional volunteer teacher and enough students to make the pilot project such a success that a large scale programme of education in basic skills was then laid on for cleaners. This programme is now a major showpiece of Unite´s educational work.

A similar process happened when a pilot immigration law course were arranged by the Migrant Rights Network for Unite activists following immigration raids. LAWAS drew on its pol of Latin American activists to provide half the students and interpreting for the Spanish speakers. Again, the success of the pilot course led to it being invested in and rolled out nationally.

Links were also forged with the hospitality and domestic workers branches of T&G/Unite; with a host of Latin American solidarity and community groups which evolved into the Coordinadora Latinoamericana; and with other unions such as the CWU and RMT, and TUC initiatives such as the Vulnerable Workers Project. Joint Employment Tribunal work was carried out with community law centres in cases where union lawyers or officers had failed to support members, on one well known ocasion because they didn´t grasp the legal issues facing migrant workers This was not just an issue with Unite.

In 2008 LAWAS gave unconditional support to a number of inspiring cleaners´ campaigns both inside and outside J4C. A public meeting in Elephant and Castle at the end of the year organised by LAWAS and other groups brought together a number of these previously isolated campaigns. A grassroots reinstatement campaign for 5 Colombian cleaners sacked for circulating a leaflet at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) was in full swing, and was important as the first recent example of a campaign driven by Latin American workers. Those workers as well as others from Schroders Bank, and SOAS spoke of their experiences in struggle. Some raised criticisms of the ways union officials had handled their disputes. But as the Bolivian UCU activist who chaired the meeting stated at the end “despite the criticisms we are not anti union, because we are the union”.

The issue of immigration checks and raids was a constant theme at the meeting, as a means by which companies and the government itself were intimidating workers who organised. Unite Regional Industrial Organizer (Jose Vallejo) turned up to make the case for supporting the Strangers into Citizens campaign for a limited amnesty, while the majority present advocated a ´papers for all´ position which would not preclude critical support for the upcoming Strangers into Citizens march. Shortly afterwards his boss, regional secretary Steve Hart, in a sign of things to come, warned one of the sacked NPL cleaners that their campaign was being backed by ´extreme groups´. Needless to say, Unite made no effort to support the NPL cleaners campaign beyond the strictly and legally necessary, despite pickets taking place within walking distance of their national headquarters. Was this related to the fact that one of the cleaners main grievances before being sacked had been the use of an immigration raid to break their incipient organisation?  

In 2009 official indifference turned into extreme hostility triggered by two issues:   LAWAS´s support for sacked cleaners at the Willis building in the City of London, and its ongoing committment to a full regularization of undocumented workers.

In January 2009 a series of unofficial weekly protests by a shop steward and three workmates from the J4C campaign began, after they had been sacked by cleaning contractor Mitie at global insurance giant Willis in the City. The sackings were framed as redundancies after the company awarded the Living Wage but counter-attacked as elsewhere by drastically altering shift times, cutting personnel and smashing union organisation in the process. Union leaders argued they had done all they could and it was the workers fault a deal was not sealed. They disowned the protests, afraid of ´damaging the good relations with Mitie´, as one official put it. The workers felt let down and said so publcially after the union withdfrew all support. But from then on they concentrated their fire on the two companies, despite legal threats. Other cleaners flocked to the protests, including other ex Willis workers who had found work elsewhere but supported their colleagues´plight.

After four months LAWAS and the Coordinadora Latinoamericana forced a meeting with the Regional Industrial Organiser, in which the official pledged to try and open up a new space for negotiation with the employer, presumably making the most of the good unon-employer relationship to find four appropiate At the end as people packed up to leave, the official proposed a trade off for the support offered, whereby the Latin American groups supporting the Willis cleaners would support the May 4 march for a limted amnesty. Suspecting there was more to this, the groups present argued this was a separate issue and should be dealt with as such.

The offer of support was then quashed in a letter then sent by Assistant General Secretary Jack Dromey to the cleaners involved, which reiterated that no support would be given and making no mentin of the aforementioned meeting. In response to this a petition with four hundred signatures of trade unionists was raised at union and community events and branch meetings, and publically presented at Unite´s central office in Holborn. Among the signatories were dozens of union cleaners as well as as MPs John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, and film director Ken Loach.

When the petition was presented those present were filmed and photographed by a sidekick of the regional industrial organizer, until he was confronted and stopped from doing so. This was the first sign of a vicious organised public campaign driven from the highest reaches of Unite, initially against the Willis cleaners and ultimately against LAWAS and indeed any critical voices. Leading the attack was the Regional Secretary supported by the likes of Women and Equalities Officer Teresa Mackay (ironic for a dispute involving mainly ethnic minority women) and their internal allies such as the Regional Industrial Organizer.

Unite officers went into overdrive to convince J4C branch committee members and the wider union, using highly confrontational language to suggest the workers involved were the main enemy: “people need to decide whose side they are on” wrote Hart in a briefing, contrasting the “mass of the cleaners” with “tiny groups seeking to undermine our united campaign”. And yet when Willis shop steward Edwin Pazmino presented himself as a candidate to the cleaners branch committee at its first ever elections, he gained a credible 29 out of 80 votes, despite never being informed of the meeting unlike other candidates, who were able to campaign beforehand. And if one thing characterised the Willis protests, and previous disputes led by Latin American workers, it was the solidarity of cleaners from different companies, as reported in the Morning Star throughout the long course of the dispute.   

A leaflet was produced in the name of Justice for Cleaners and distributed by officers, despite not being approved by the new branch committee and certainly not its Latin American cleaner members, who along with many ordinary members almost unanimously supported the Willis cleaners. The leaflet trumpeted J4C´s successes in organising and education. This was ironic, because it was people like the Willis cleaners, and their supporters in LAWAS and elsewhere who had done so much over the years to create these successes in the first place. Instead fellow official and Regional Industrial Organizer Jose Vallejo was lauded to the point of featuring a colour photo of him on the leaflet, along with members of a youth group hired to wave Justice for Cleaners flags. The ´four cleaners and their handful of supporters´ were described as leading a ´scurrilous campaign´ which did not have the support of the majority of branch members – an allegation contradicted by the support actually received.

In another incident, a Unite branch which tried to speak about the dispute was silenced at a regional meeting of the ´United Left´ faction of Unite, to the disgust of many of those present. At a public meeting later organised by the Labour Representation Committee, fellow trade unionists from Unite, Unison and RMT proposed mediation in  the presence of Unite officials, amnd suported by speakers John McDonnell MP and NUJ president Jeremy Dear. The proposal was ignored. 

Why the ferocity of the attacks? This was not the first time union members had criticized official positions, held unofficial protests or presented a petition. The problem was that Justice for Cleaners was a flagship campaign controlled from the very top since its inception, and image meant everything. While criticisms and unofficial actions were had to be tolerated in sections of the union with a longer history, this new campaign had to be tightly controlled, and if that meant crushing internal dissent by any means necessary, then so be it. They chose to forget the basic point that it is workers who make campaigns, not officials, and sometimes, unfortunately, workers will take their own initiative and also be critical.

The other issue which Unite could not tolerate was LAWAS´s support for papers for all undocumented workers. Only two years previously LAWAS had worked closely with J4C organisers on this basis. Now however the official position had changed and dissenting voices again could not be tolerated. On the May 4 amnesty march organised by the Strangers into Citizens, LAWAS and other groups in the Coordinadora raised the slogans of ´noone is illegal´and ´papers for all´. Incidentally among these other groups were the UK branch of Colombia´s main opposition party (Polo Democratico) and the main Bolivian and Ecuadorian community groups mobilizing diaspora support for left wing governments in their countries - MERU and Bolivia Solidarity Campaign). Hardly extremists!

In May LAWAS representative Miguel Puerto asked to meet the Regional Secretary Steve Hart in order to find a solution to the Willis dispute. Instead he was met in worst company management style by not one but three officials including Hart, who instead of entering into a positive dialogue launched an all out attack on LAWAS for its support for the Willis cleaners and its behaviour on the amnesty march.

Worse was to follow. Around the same time LAWAS and J4C activist Alberto Durango was arrested in a trap sprung by his employer Lancaster, a tactic used on other migrant workers previously. They were unhappy with his recent activism at the bank. But police and UKBA officials also asked him about his employment at Willis – despite the fact he didn´t work there. But Durango and Schroders cleaners´ public support for the Willis dispute made them think he did. This raised the spectre of a blacklist among cleaning companies. Durango was freed without charges and dismissed. And yet when a picket was held outside the appeal against his dismissal, at which he was represented by a Unite lay representative, his union reacted by ordering an ´ínvestigation´ into him and, on Vallejo´s orders, refusing him access to educational courses! Six months later there has been no result of this mysterious investigation, nor a lifting of the ban.

Vallejo then went further by claiming at the cleaners branch committee that those involved in cross-union protests against recent immigration raids at both the Willis building and SOAS (University of London), were being sponsored by the cleaning companies themselves. Apparently other unions (Unison and RMT) were “approaching and dealing with the companies before organising their members” and that

“the so-called Cleaners for Justice called the members to disobey and as a consequence some were arrested facing deportation. We should ten [sic] have every reason to believe that the organisers of this campaign, Cleaners for Justice are paid by the Cleaning Bosses to attack the cleaners.”

It should be noted that Cleaners for Justice has never existed beyond being a slogan used by sacked Unite cleaners to express their desire for a cross-union cleaners campaign, with the workers themselves in the driving seat. This is an ideal which LAWAS has always supported, in place of the foolish competition which led, for example, to Unite not supporting cleaners strikes on the underground in 2008 but then publically claiming the credit for the successes of the strikes while offering no solidarity to those victimised through immigration arrests and the like as as a result.

Unite then moved to force LAWAS out of its office. At the start of the year he had presented a relative of his to LAWAS as a new office volunteer. LAWAS accepted in good faith. But it soon became clear that this relative wanted nothing to do with LAWAS and instead was there to act as Vallejo´s personal secretary. LAWAS then put forward a new volunteer of its own, as had always been the custom, but was prevented from doing so by the Regional Secretary. Instead the family member came to work an increasing number of days in the office. Volunteers were paid ´loss of earnings´ at aorund $65.00 a day once they had completed some basic training, but the monies paid to her were never revealed by the union despite requests by LAWAS. This stood in complete contrast to the rule enforced by Unite officials for five years whereby volunteers had to sign one and the same weekly expenses form for each day of work.

LAWAS held off by making a public statement about all of the above so as not to prejudice Juan Carlos Piedra, a LAWAS and J4C activist who after intense pressure from many quarters had succeeded in getting Unite representation after being sacked for union activity from his job at University College London. Instead LAWAS sought as always to resolve its problems with Unite by requesting another meeting with the Regional Secretary, and was about to do so but was pre-empted. Firstly, Vallejo took control of the volunteer rota on the basis that LAWAS had been advising workers to join other unions. A ridiculous allegation, because workers simply been advised in LAWA´s bulletins to join the union which corresponded to their workplace or occupation – as previously instructed by Unite officials! Still, LAWAS continued publicizing Unite and recruiting into it far more than into any other union. A week later regional secretary Steve Hart, sensing perhaps that a scandal might be on the cards, ordered LAWAS out of its office without notice. Even after that move a meeting was requested to address the situation, but to no avail.  

And so an era has ended. But despite the problems, the last year has been a very positive one for LAWAS. The campaigns it supported breathed new life into the organisation and won it many friends across different unions and in the Latin American community. As a result the annual assembly held in August 2009 was the largest ever and a new committee was elected which for the first time represented almost all the main Latin American nationalities resident in London. With its new temporary premises in the National Union of Journalists, it is up to that committee and all Latin American workers to secure the future. This means fighting inside unions, including Unite, so they are led by the members, and joining with workers of al nationalities and backgrounds in doing so. It means working with those officials who are not corrupt and self-serving, and unmasking those who are.  And it means recognising the achievements of struggles, but also preserving the right to criticize aspects of these and act independently when necessary.

See the Commune's post on this, there are some further links on this subject at the bottom.

Friday, 20 November 2009

notes on the Visteon struggle

I've reproduced this pamphlet published by former members of the Enfield Visteon Support Group in full because I can't actually find any links to it online, if I do I will shorten the post considerably!


Ford Visteon Workers occupation and picket
April - May 2009
The role and activities of the Enfield Support Group

An account, by some of those involved, of the history, activities and effectiveness of the Ford Visteon Workers (Enfield) Support Group


Introduction

This booklet looks at the effectiveness of the Ford Visteon Workers (Enfield) Support Group (SG) that was set up in April 2009. The group was formed solely to give solidarity and support to the Enfield Ford Visteon workers who first occupied, then picketed their factory for six weeks from April 1st to 15th May 2009. There were 3 Ford Visteon car parts plants involved in the joint struggle against closure, including one in Belfast which was occupied by the workers throughout the dispute, and one in Basildon, Essex where the workers effectively picketed their factory around the clock for the whole dispute. 

This pamphlet is intended as a record of the London support group that set up to assist the Enfield workers and as a tool for future workers support groups. We do not discuss the actual dispute here, as that has been looked at in detail already (See references at the end for further reading).

We also accept that our experiences may not be applicable to every situation.

We were able to support the workers in a number of ways. This included helping reinforce their determination and spirit, gaining publicity, overcoming isolation, helping strengthen picket lines, putting pressure on Ford International, and raising much-needed funds. This pamphlet looks honestly at some of these efforts.

There is a long history of support groups being set up, whether for major industrial struggles (as with the ‘84-5 miners’ strike) or for localised workers’ disputes. They have proved to be an invaluable way of generating publicity, solidarity and fundraising. By sharing some our experiences as the Support Group we hope to inspire future support activity and maybe offer some pointers towards effective ways of carrying out such work.

If this booklet can, in any small way, help even one set of workers in struggle against their bosses, it has been worthwhile putting it together.

TIME LINE
1930s
    Ford move to UK
?           Ford acquire Autolite, spark plug manufacturer, Ponders End, Enfield,
2000      Autolite workers transferred to Visteon
2007      Managers pensions safeguarded, transfer to Visteon Engineering Service
2009      January Automotive Products Ltd set up, 50,000 shares transferred
31 March  Ford Visteon announce company going into administration and immediate closure.
31 March  Belfast workers refuse to move off site, and occupy their workplace
1 April   Enfield workers occupy their factory 
             Basildon workers occupy but are forced out 
             Enfield workers’ support leaflet written and approved inside the plant 
2 April   Bailiffs attempt to deliver injunction but fail
3 April   Reporters on site but practically nothing on national news
             Eviction hearing in High Court
4 April   Day of Action. Big crowds surround part of factory. 50 attend first meeting of Support Group outside the factory gate
5 April   Meeting of workers inside factory accepts their national union’s advice to leave factory
             HSG bank account starts to be used for donations
6 April   Shop stewards appear in High Court case. Large solidarity protest outside. Support Group members prepare document questioning pressure to end the occupation.
7 April   Speakers from Belfast and South Wales speak at a workers meeting.
              Donations begin to arrive via the bank account.
8 April   Shop stewards report that Unite says Ford promises money on table, picketing rota drawn up.
9 April    Workers leave the occupation to 300-strong, noisy solidarity rally. Caravan set up at workers’ “office”. Round-the-clock picketing begins immediately
14 April  Ford Visteon’s attempt to move out machinery thwarted by workers and supporters
16 April  Ford Visteon’s derisory redundancy offer rejected by workers.
              Picketing planned for profitable Ford Bridgend factory
24 April  First picket bulletin produced by workers
28 April  Ford Visteon reverse tactics and offer much improved payment but nothing about workers’ pensions agreement
1 May    Workers vote to accept package at Enfield and Basildon
             KPMG office picketed and leafleted by Support Group and workers after May Day march
3 May    Belfast workers vote to accept the offer. Picketing continues
15 May  Dispute formally ended. Picketing and occupation ended at all three plants. Large gathering of workers, family and supporters in victory march from factory gates.
16 May  RAMPart benefit, E1 proves an excellent money raiser
20 May  Last full meeting of Support Group
1 June   Visteon Pensions Action Group formed: action (eg. regular protests at Ford dealerships, lobbies of Union HQ) continues until workers get their proper pension entitlement from the company.


Aims & Principles

The following were the aims and principles of the Support Group agreed at our first meeting:

-  We agree to launch the Ford Visteon Workers Support Group.
-  All monies raised to go directly to the Visteon workers' own treasurer.
-  The weekly open meetings will discuss practical support and solidarity activities, and make decisions. They are open to Visteon workers and families, all groups, and any other supporters.
-  The group will work in collaboration with Visteon workers.
-  Visteon workers, and only Visteon workers, can speak for themselves.
-  It is vital to emphasise the link with Ford.
-  All messages of support to the workers to go directly to the workers’ email address.

Eight meetings of the SG were held in all. The first was an open meeting outside the occupied factory on 4th April with around 50 activists. Future meetings were held on Wednesdays or Thursdays at the Phoenix Millennium Centre, West Green Road, Tottenham, although one, on 22nd April, took place at the picket line. On average between 10 and 20 people attended, many representing organisations [See list at the end]. These included anarchist groups, socialist parties, union branches and trades councils, campaign groups, and of course reps from the Visteon workers.


Initial Contact

Unlike many previous support groups, we had a supporter inside the plant (Alan, a supporter of Haringey Solidarity Group - HSG). After hearing how Belfast workers had occupied, he had gone to the Enfield plant in solidarity just as the workers were about to occupy their plant. As a result he was in occupation with the workers from the start. This leant credibility to those offering support who knew Alan. Also, as supporters were allowed into the occupation, communication and trust developed quickly between workers and supporters.

Other activists from HSG visited and occasionally stayed inside the occupation, and explained to a number of workers what HSG and other supporters could help with.
This process began to be formalised when HSG took a proposal of things they could help with and passed it around the workers [see Appendix 1], including the factory’s Unite union convenor, who were supportive. This meant that when HSG offered their bank account to put funds through, the idea was cautiously accepted. This initial contact, and the lack of any full-time union officials present at the occupation, allowed trust to develop between the two groups. This was something we had to work on, as none of us were known to any of the workers before the dispute. However, the relationship definitely worked better than in previous support groups, where Union officials had tried to separate workers and supporters probably fearing they (the officials) may not be able to control the dispute.


Points in our favour

“There has been fantastic solidarity and support for us. Lots of people have brought us food. Someone who just saw the occupation on the [TV] news, brought down loads of pasta" - Phil Wilson, Enfield shop steward

At the beginning of the dispute full-time officials from the workers’ union (Unite) were not really involved. In the past when the union hierarchy has been actively involved they have tended to drive to keep a wedge between workers and supporters. Had the union been involved from the start they are likely to have tried to prevent the workers having any direct control over funds raised, or using HSG’s bank account, and would have tried to stop supporters being part of the occupation. This would have meant the workers wouldn’t have had control of their own funds. If we’d had to fight the union hierarchy, some of us feel a number of the active supporters would have dropped away.

Further, with no regular or substantial presence from either the Socialist Workers Party or Socialist Party in the SG (because they each generally did their own thing, despite SG efforts to promote all-round co-operation), we didn’t have to deal with power struggles for control that too often take place in such circumstances. This allowed the support group to get on with practical stuff right from the start. In some previous support groups, these divisions and different political allegiances etc have tended to paralyse any collective support work and initiative, or have resulted in one political party dominating.

With the majority of the workers unused to industrial action, they were open to supporters coming up with ideas to move the dispute forward. So, although we made clear
from the beginning that we would not do anything against the wishes of the workers, it meant the SG had some influence during the whole dispute, rather than it just following the Union or workers' requests. Obvious examples of this were people in the SG, with the workers’ agreement, making banners for the workers; paying for and getting printed the dispute’s leaflets after being approved by the workers; suggesting and helping co-ordinating days of action around targets like car dealerships in addition to the nearest one to the factory (which was the workers’ first target), and a protest outside KPMG (the company administrators). 

The workers were by no means followers of the SG, and they were the ones who discussed and organised most of the disputes activities. Some of these included:

- seizing and occupying the plant
- setting up, running and co-ordinating the 24-hour picketing rotas on four gates into the factory
- they were first to suggest picketing the local car dealership
- as was the idea of going to Bridgend to picket the main Ford production plant - which many felt was the one action that brought Ford to the negotiating table. 

The SG actively backed such initiatives.


Things we could have done better

Liaising with the workers more

Although we held the first meeting of the support group at the factory (and one further meeting), the rest of the SG meetings were in Tottenham some 3 or 4 miles away
from the plant. There were reasons for this: the plant was difficult to get to at night for supporters without their own transport (whereas most, but not all, workers had their own transport); HSG appeared to be the nearest significant community-based group involved and had access to a room the SG could use in Tottenham. 

The meetings at the factory had a number of workers at them, as they were around anyway, but in Tottenham, workers attended only 3 out of the 6 meetings. As most workers had cars of their own, transport was not the problem. It was probably a failure of us as the SG to do more to encourage workers to attend these meetings - and try and make sure they came along. The bigger failure, felt by a number of SG was that we didn’t have the meetings outside the factory.

This meant the SG was often working in relative isolation from the workers. Many of us regularly attended and staffed picket lines and talked to workers, but this is not the same as organised discussions between the SG and workers reps. However, there were difficulties with the one evening meeting that was organised outside the factory. A number of workers wanted to air their annoyance with the factory owners, and also their concerns over a lack of communication with their own shop stewards and elected Union representatives, so the meeting became more of a “sounding-off” event rather than an organising meeting. This was a useful discussion but as a consequence SG practicalities weren’t able to be dealt with. 

We also tried Saturday noon rallies, but these didn’t really take off. There were pros and cons for meetings at either venue, and we feel Support Groups in the future need to think carefully what they want early on.

But, one thing that seemed to come out of the meeting outside the factory gates was that a number of the workers decided to try and improve their own internal communications. As a result a bulletin board was displayed at each gate, and one of the picket reps started preparing and distributing their own regular ‘Enfield Plant News’ bulletins. 

Six such bulletins were produced and were useful for workers not in the “main group” (i.e. those closest to the convenor). They contained a basic supply of information about ongoing events, including the deputation to Ford’s Bridgend factory, the action at car dealers and news of the convenor standing in the Euro elections for No2EU. Number 5, on 6th May, outlined the details of the company offer for those on all three types of contract and the result of the vote. Such info was crucial.

As the workers were not having regular collective meetings of their own, and were split between 5 or 6 shifts at 3 (and at times 4) gates around the factory, it was difficult for us to link in with the workers in any real ongoing co-ordinated fashion. A number of SG people did suggest to workers they should have daily/regular meetings once the picket lines were running, but this never happened. This was a problem for both the workers organisation of their dispute, and for contact between the workers and SG. 

What happened in the end was that certain SG people made individual contacts with certain workers and this is how the campaign/dispute progressed [See details below]. This was far from ideal as it meant not all those actively involved in the dispute had access to all the information and decision-making. A hierarchy started to develop within the workers, which towards the end of the dispute caused some friction within the workforce. With hindsight, we should probably have tried harder to explain why we thought these meetings were important.

We never really managed to properly convey to the majority of the workers what the SG was and what it was doing, or indeed what our take was on the direction, tactics or politics of the dispute. Our guess is if we took a poll after the dispute, most workers would not have known much about the SG apart from we were the people who occasionally turned up to help with picket duty, and raised some money. 

We agreed that those going to the factory take copies of the SG meetings’ minutes to the picket lines to let the workers know what we were doing. This happened late
in the dispute and only really happened regularly because of one person’s determination that it should. With hindsight we should have got more information to a lot more workers about the role of the SG. One suggestion, after the dispute was over, was that we could have prepared a one page summary after every meeting or event, printed it out on different coloured paper and given it out in bulk copies at the picket lines.

Another possible way to improve communications could have been to have an accessible SG space very near the picket line. In the past, strikers have used cafés, community centres, rooms in pubs, etc. For a short period the workers had a caravan parked right outside the workplace as their makeshift office and this seemed extremely useful facility for the workers themselves. Again with hindsight, it may have been useful for us to have something similar. Although the SG did put up it’s own noticeboard, we are not sure how many workers looked at this. 

It seems fair to say that our communication with most of the workers was not perfect.


Getting all supporters to co-ordinate efforts

“Them lot come down here and tell us what to do and try and sell us papers - you lot come down and put your money where your mouth is” - A Ford Visteon worker on the picket line near the end of the dispute talking about the solidarity from the Support Group:

There were many independent support initiatives in London and around the UK (and abroad), but the SG was the only mechanism set up to co-ordinating this effort. We
heard that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party (SP) were each doing separate support work of their own, including taking workers around other workplaces to speak at union meetings and raising money, but they rarely gave us any information about what they were doing. The 2 groups rarely attended SG meetings despite SG efforts to welcome and include all supporters, even changing the SG meeting days to avoid clashes with SWP meetings. 

Individuals within the SG have different views as to whether it was good or bad that these two organisations didn’t get actively involved in the SG. We would probably never get a collective view on this. But, one failing was that we as the SG did not have ongoing, practical contact with these political parties. So, we rarely managed to co-ordinate our actions with them or know what they were doing. They however did know what the SG were doing as there was an email discussion list from day one of the dispute for any supporters, and a number of SWP and SP members were on this, as were some of the workers themselves. 

All SG meetings’ minutes were circulated and regular news updates posted.


Other communication tactics

We tried to set up an “emergency phone tree” in case of urgent support needed at the factory. This didn’t really come together and supporters tended to just call their own
contacts, or send out mass texts and emails when we needed to mobilise a number of people. Maybe as emails are used so widely, this didn’t matter. However, not everybody reads emails regularly and there is definitely a case for a well organised phone tree for mobilising people quickly.


Things we did well

Generally

Within a few days of the occupation, we had printed and paid for at least 5,000 leaflets - we checked text with the workers via our contact inside the factory. This approved leaflet was widely distributed by the workers and was reprinted a number of times (totalling over 20,000) with updated info. We had a bank account for donations ready within a couple of days and on request had produced banners and other publicity for the workers. Due to the networks that members of the SG were already in, we were able to disseminate information very quickly. A website was set up quite quickly (although there were teething problems) as was an SG email list. 

A lot of this (but by no means all) was achievable because of the already established network and contacts of Haringey Solidarity Group (HSG). Having a local independent community-based activist group near the factory meant we were able to encourage, coordinate and sustain support and mobilise existing networks and resources. We say this not to promote any one group over another, but just to point out this key practical fact.

We could go into each of these successes in much greater detail. But, we think it is sufficient to say that any future support group for any group of workers in struggle should implement these elements from as early as practically possible. Having banners and leaflets ready is great for any pickets, demos, publicity and means support work can kick into activity from day one. 

People (especially outside the catchment area of a dispute) want to help, and sending money and messages of solidarity is a way they can do this. Having a bank account not controlled by the union hierarchy means workers have access to their own funds to further the dispute in the way they choose. Ultimately it seems preferable of course that workers in dispute collectively set up and run their own account, for practical reasons as well as for autonomy’s sake, but in this day and age bank accounts are not that easy to set up quickly.


Communication

A website in this day and age is also essential - it means daily information can be spread far and wide, and keep huge numbers of people informed and up to date. The email list allowed us to share information, keep discussions going between meetings and let all supporters know what was going on. Again essential from day one. Notices, updates, minutes or discussion of the activities of SG were circulated by email which went out to over 100 activists around both London and the UK (and which could be forwarded to their own groups’ members), which meant people could participate even if they couldn’t get down to the factory or attend the meetings.

However, for some people there was just too much information - about 20 emails a day - and after a while a second email list was set up for those just wanting regular updates about the strike but who didn’t want loads of emails each day. However this should probably have been set up earlier.

A number of people sent short videos, from phones or cameras to YouTube and this played a big part in publicising the dispute. There were also films made of all stages and at all three Visteon factories and events, which gave a brilliant perspective of the dispute. “Reel News”, a video news project, were also present in the SG and were on site regularly. They put together a 20-minute DVD of the initial occupation which had a number of screenings around the country to publicise the dispute and raise money for it. 

Others set up Facebook sites, or organised solidarity meetings and activities.


International contacts and publicity

Within the wider SG, we were able to translate the first workers leaflet into a number of languages (French, Germany, Spanish, Turkish, and Polish). We also emailed this leaflet to contacts within the UK and throughout Europe and other parts of the world. Within days the dispute was known by hundreds of thousands of people. A special leaflet for Ford workers was also drafted, translated and distributed. A number of solidarity pickets happened at Visteon and Ford factories outside London and also outside the UK - thus showing Visteon, Ford and the media that the campaign was both national and international. This only happened because of the wide network of contacts SG and its supporters had (mainly the anarchists and socialists).


Publicity

In conjunction with the picketers, the SG produced stickers and T-shirts using the Ford logo but reading “FRAUD”. These were great for publicity and were very effective especially when supporters were handing out leaflets or running stalls. Workers also produced their own T-shirts to a similar design for when they were out leafleting, collecting, or publicising the dispute.

One member of the SG, after discussions with the workers, produced two large professional-looking banners. These were used at the factory during mass pickets and demonstrations but were extensively used when the workers or SG were on other demonstrations, pickets, and leafletting sessions. These banners massively
increased the visibility of our presence at such events.


Links with workers, and picketing

“It’s been the experience of a lifetime. I’ve enjoyed every minute of it - the occupation and the picketing - and, what’s more we won, unlike some of the others” - Rocket, Ford Visteon worker

We made good contacts with some of the workers, some of which are still in place. This was especially true for contacts with the workers’ Treasurer (to get money to them), the workers organising the picket rotas (so we could get SG people to staff picket lines), and the worker organising for pickets to speak at meetings. But, these mainly happened on a one-to-one basis, and we didn’t do very well at doing this in a more co-ordinated fashion. There were probably many reasons for this (partly due to the lack of a workers’ organisational structure to feed in to), but future SGs need to consider the issue.

There were certain shifts for the picket rota that were hard for the workers to fill. During the dispute this was normally the weekend shift from 6am to 10am. We managed to
regularly get 4 to 6 people for these shifts. Again, this had a lot to do with the contacts within HSG as most (but not all) SG people who helped on these early morning shifts were either from HSG or Haringey residents. Other organisations also staffed various shifts without co-ordinating through the SG. Some visited picket lines briefly to show solidarity (or to sell party papers).

In addition the SG urged all supporters to visit the factory as often as possible. It was often said by workers on the picket line that nothing raised the morale as much as plenty of visitors at the factory gates.


Fundraising and messages of support

In order to get publicity and collect funds to keep the dispute going, we distributed a draft model Trade Union resolution written within the first few weeks and this was agreed by the workers. We managed to circulate this extremely widely through the variety of networks SG members were involved in. This included every branch of the NUT and every Trades Council branch which SG members had access to. As we had limited contact with either the SWP or the SP we cannot be sure whether they circulated it, or used their own - they may well have been giving finances separately to the workers. If the dispute had carried on longer we would have contacted a number of other Trade Union branches, as SG members were starting to get branch lists from their own trade unions - outside of the official channels.

With hindsight, it would have been good to move a lot quicker on this aspect as it brought in a lot of money and messages of solidarity - both much needed by the workers.
Perhaps for future disputes we should have a database of union branches which we can send model resolutions to. Between £3,000 and £4,000 was donated to the SG bank account - all of which reached the workers within days of the SG receiving it. Other donations were given directly to the picketers’ treasurer. The SG organised a major leafleting/collection at a local Tottenham vs West Ham football match, and many supporters also held benefits, public meetings and workplace and street collections.

This was really important, as the workers own union (Unite) gave hardly any money to the dispute. Most of the costs for travel, food, and all basic things needed by the workers on the picket lines came from donations. There is an argument that without these independent funds, the dispute may not have been able to continue for as long as it did and result in the victory for the workers. The Union’s lack of financial and other support to members who have been paying their subs for years angered many of the workers and supporters - although the majority of the SG were not surprised in the light of experiences in some past disputes.


The struggle continues

“I feel like I’ve gone through life with blinkers on …… but now the blinkers have gone. The kindness that we’ve been shown.. hits you in the heart. Whenever I
see someone with a banner or leafleting in the streets now, I’ll go and investigate, I won’t walk past.”
 - Linda, Ford Visteon worker, 

Following the workers vote to accept the redundancy terms and end the picketing, some of the workers launched a Visteon Pensions Action Group to fight for full Ford pension rights on top of the redundancy payments. They continue to picket Ford car dealerships and organise protests and publicity.


Some Conclusions

The SG, we feel, was very useful to the workers. On a general level it gave them solidarity and we know it made them feel more positive about the dispute and kept their spirits up. On a more practical level we brought some useful organisational skills and resources that many of the workers had lost over the years of political and Union inactivity. We don’t mean this as criticism or arrogance, but as there had been very little industrial action for many years at the plant and in workplaces generally, some key campaigning skills need to be re-kindled.

Without a group like HSG nearby, the SG may not have been so effective. A number of SG members were not in HSG or Haringey and a lot of the work of the SG was done
by these supporters. But, keeping the SG going, taking on finances, trying to fill picketing rotas, arranging SG meetings etc was done to a great extent by members of HSG (and people they had close ties with). 

This shows that a group with an established structure, resources and contacts makes organising easier. In some Support Groups for previous disputes the local Trades Council has carried out this role. 

Many organisations did send reps to the SG meetings [see list at end], and this added credibility, effectiveness and success to the group.

That said, it was the workers’ anger and determination to get justice that was the heart and soul of the dispute hour by hour, day by day. The workers taught us a huge amount. The speed at which they set the picket lines up, organised a rota and worked out finances, and food and fuel runs put many a political group or campaign to shame. Some of us would have to have endless meetings before we could agree who was to do what. 

Having a link into the workers helped the SG develop more than we can imagine. This could either be a supporter in the occupation as we had, or direct contacts within the workforce. This meant from the start we were able to build trust with the workers and could set up direct communication with them. Eventually we established excellent working relationships with a number of the Visteon picket-line reps and workers. With this happening we were able to move forward quickly with tasks needed. 

It can only be a huge advantage for future disputes if local grassroots community organisations and workplace links could be established wherever we are both active.

Looking back, we would say the SG was often slow to react in the first few weeks, only getting properly organised after the initial occupation was over. Apart from the need to develop good communications between supporters and workers, there was the early uncertainty about how long the dispute might last. 

A key additional reason for delay could have been that we have forgotten how to start up and run a support group. It felt like we were re-inventing the wheel at times. For example we set up a number of sub-groups of the SG, but this took us a few weeks to put into place. In future we would suggest these need to be up and running within days. It is not rocket science. We know what things needed to be done, and some we did, but others took longer. Things like: website sub group to put website into place; email list from day one; media and publicity group, probably split into local/national/international; finance group; fundraising group; industrial solidarity group; co-ordination group to deal with things like speakers, meetings etc. Different disputes will require some tweaking.

Finally though, we would say the SG did a solid job with few resources (money and people). It was a learning experience both for the workers and the supporters and a huge amount was achieved in a small space of time.

But, as these disputes start to happen more regularly, SGs will have to be set up more regularly too. Hopefully, they will not have to reinvent the wheel every time and can kick into action a lot quicker in the future to help build solidarity for workplace disputes. 

This is perfectly illustrated by the Vestas wind-turbine workers who, almost immediately after the Visteon pickets ended, occupied their own plant on the Isle of Wight to try to prevent closure. This followed organised and systematic support work in the area (including by London people, some of who’d taken part in the Visteon SG activities). Vestas supporters encouraged the workers to ‘do a Visteon’, and arranged visits from Visteon workers to meet Vestas workers. The 18-day Vestas occupation led to a red/green solidarity camp outside the plant, a nearby 11-day rooftop occupation of a Vestas research facility by climate activists, national days of action all over the UK, massive publicity and public debate about the need for ‘green jobs’ and renewable energy sources. Bearing in mind the current economic and environmental crises, we can expect and look forward to an upsurge in resistance in workplaces and local communities.


The Credits

This pamphlet was written in line with what was agreed at a final open meeting on 2nd July of Support Group members including 2 Visteon workers. It contains contributions
from Tony, Nico, Alan and Dave of Haringey Solidarity Group. Whilst expressing our own views and experiences we have tried to be accurate and fair to all, but do not claim to speak for the whole Support Group, Haringey Solidarity Group or for the Visteon workers themselves.

Representatives and members of the following organisations attended one or more of the Support Group meetings (in order as minuted): 
Imperial College UNITE; Action East End; Haringey Socialist Workers Party; N & E London Solidarity Federation; London Coalition Against Poverty; Camden Anarchists; Haringey Solidarity Group; Islington Health UNISON; Visteon workers / UNITE; Haringey UNISON; London Climate Camp; Haringey TUC; National Shop Stewards Network; Barnet TUC; No Sweat; Workers Liberty; Workers Climate Action; Haringey Respect; Socialist Resistance; Camden UNISON; Camden TUC; Haringey Green Party; Barnet Socialist Party; University College Union; Ramparts Social Centre; Reel News; Hackney UNISON; Hackney Solidarity Network.

We also acknowledge all the support and solidarity work carried out by a wide range of other individuals and organisations across the UK.

But most importantly we pay tribute to the inspirational action and efforts of the Visteon workers themselves, and their fight for justice.

This pamphlet has been published by Haringey Solidarity Group: www.haringey.org.uk 


Further information about the dispute available from:

Film/DVD: 
www.reelnews.co.uk 
Webpages & articles: http://libcom.org/tags/visteon-occupation 
Pamphlet: Ford Visteon Enfield Workers Occupation - an eyewitness account. Read it or download it online: 
http://libcom.org/history/ford-visteon-enfield-workers-occupation-alan-woodward 
Pamphlet: Past Tense: Report and reflections on the 2009 UK Ford Visteon dispute. Useful account of all the factories involved.
Pamphlet: Visteon - How workers occupied and won. SWP. [No mention of the Support Group]
Pamphlet: Lindsey, Visteon, Linamar. Socialist Party. [No mention of the Support Group]
Solidarity - the trade union magazine (Issue 25): Phil Wilson: We knew we had nothing to lose. ex-Ford Visteon shop steward tells the story.

APPENDIX 1

This is the original suggestion from HSG offering support to the workers inside the occupied factory…

AN OFFER OF SUPPORT

A few of us were on the solidarity picket today of your factory. After talking to some of the workers about what you needed and thought useful, we would like to offer some
practical support. We will not be offended if you don’t want any, or all, of these offers of support. Basically we are just trying to think of ways to help the ideas some of you have come up with.

1   Some workers were saying there was a need for financial support. You are getting loads locally but we could help by opening this up throughout the country. We have
no idea what the level of support will be but are happy to try for you.

2   If financial support does come in, you will need somewhere people and groups can send money, and this will probably be by cheque. So, you will need a bank account
and address for money to be sent to. We are happy for you to use one of our bank accounts (as it takes months to set up an account from scratch) and our postal address.
We would then be happy to collect and bank the money and get it to you in cash. As you don’t know anything about us, I have enclosed a few bits showing what we do and who we are. Alan Woodward who is in occupation with you is part of our group, so could tell you more.

3   We thought it might be good to email around the country asking for people to leaflet outside their nearest Ford dealership. We did this today, as one of the workers
suggested it. We had a placard saying “support the Visteon Workers”. Loads of cars were bibbing their horns in support., and anybody passing was really interested in what you were doing and why. The managers (5 of them) came out and were not happy with us even when we explained why we were doing it. They thought their trade would go down, and said they would be emailing or calling Ford head office on Monday asking what the hell was going on. We can email a copy of the leaflet you wrote and we designed and got printed for today.

4   We would be happy to set up an email address for you, and we can email around the country asking people to send messages of support to this email address. You, the workers, would be in control of this email address and can look at the messages of support via the computer you have in the factory.

If anybody is uneasy about a group you know little about holding the money, although hopefully Alan will argue our case, as a second solution you could use the Haringey
Trades Council’s bank account. The only slight problem with this is that Alan is a cheque signatory and he is in the factory with you all the time. Just let Alan know what you think, and he can contact us.

All the best from us at Haringey Solidarity Group

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

radical left participation in centre left coalitions

They're currently talking about this on the ever 'interesting' Socialist Unity blog, with this article.


I wrote this;


Personally I’m not that bothered whether the left contest elections or not - there are pragmatic reasons for both abstentionism and electoralism depending on the situation at the time.

However at the moment, when the social democratic mainstream centre left is on the verge collapse, and widely discredited among the working class, and where many of those who do vote for them expect very little - it would be organisational suicide to form coalitions with them. It will do nothing for the credibility of the NPA if they joined or supported even critically a PS/Verde government that was implementing attacks on the working class as it must do.
Far better to invest any influence they get from decent election results to build a militant, progressive working class movement on the streets and in the workplaces and estates, which of course they could if they really wanted to then use to actually win more seats in the national assembly next time round and so on. It is the only possible method - supporting the PS and it’s allies in return for getting one or two of it’s less controversial proposals adopted and then watered down would lead to disillusionment and decay among it’s activist base and periphery.
I wouldn’t say it would never ever make sense for a radical left party to critically support a social democratic government, but not when social democracy is dead or dying.
Maybe I should expand slightly. I was spurred into posting by several comments, and the article itself, written presumably mainly by people active on the left in some way, whether in the Greens, or Respect, or some socialist organisation. Many of them seemed to take it as read that participating in a centre left coalition with the mainstream neo-liberal parties like Parti Socialiste or the German SPD would automatically contribute to the electoral credibility of radical left parties like the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) in France or the nominally radical Die Linke. This is an illogical position - you simply have to look at the mass disillusionment in mainstream politics among thousands of former voters, right across Europe, a feeling that is boosting the far left in those areas where they are well organised, and the far right in even more areas.
The fact is that the mainstream parties cannot meet the needs and desires of working people any more, in even the partial way they were once able to - and twenty or thirty radical left MPs (or even ninety MPs like in Germany who at least tack left when they have to) are going to be able to do precious little about that state of affairs if they are forced by back room deals to implement cuts in services and attacks on workers, as they must inevitably do.
If they really must contest parliamentary elections it makes far more sense to sit as principled opposition now, at a time when so many would agree with them (albeit not for the same reasons) that the major parties are politically and "morally" bankrupt. As long as they were attempting to help working people articulate their demands at a parliamentary level, while explicitly supporting the growth of militant community and workplace based politics they may actually see their strength and support grow, they would actually find themselves in a position to advance real class power - while maintaining their position in comfy parliamentary politics.
Of course if they were going to be oppositional about issues most people find irrelevant such as the Palestine conflict, and sweat shops in Indonesia then of course they are not going to make any headway. They need to strike a balance and be militant, and pragmatic - pragmatic in that they actually listen to what the people who vote for them want and assist them in actually trying to get it.
Even that is not going to guarantee anything of course, as we saw with Liverpool where Militant did get a lot right and still lost, but that was a highpoint for radical left electoralism in recent times in the UK, and they were islated nationally, it doesn't have to happen that way again.
Then again, maybe Besancourt (the leader of the NPA) and his comrades aren't really interested in that, maybe they do just want to get nice ministerial jobs, or do silly stunts for cheap publicity, only time will tell.


Wednesday, 21 October 2009

while i'm here

And while I'm in a position to post to blogs, here's a really decent article on the upcoming postal strike(s), courtesy of 'the commune'.

some things just demand a response...

I've been remiss in updating this blog for a while mainly due to work and looking for work taking up pretty much all my time, and then having to do some political activity, but I am forced to respond to an article that has been published in the latest Black Flag (an anarchist magazine) and has also appeared on the Manchester No Borders website here.

There's several problems with this article, including it's dishonest conflation of mine and some other anarchists support for the promotion of English and or British working class and rebel history, with our criticism of some of No Border's demands - notably the call for the total abolition of border controls.

I'm not sure why they feel the need to bring the question of English militant history into the separate issue, unless it's a crude attempt to smear us as racists, or at least to push people into thinking that we might be - either way it's pretty cackhanded, but if I'm right it's a pretty daming indictment of Manchester No Borders' lack of actual politics.

Here's part of the attack...

"The 'English' anarchists – of that identity they seem to be proud – write on blogs and discussion forums that they will stand in defence of the working class when the “liberals” of No Borders abolish immigration controls in favour of capitalist exploitation. There is Matt D., member of the IWW and Liberty & Solidarity who blogs at ‘workers self organisation’. He draws a distinction that could have come straight from a primitivist or gated-communities pamphlet: “no borders… or community control of resources”. The No Borders position for him is “un-anarchist” as it “can only be realised if some large international body enforces it”. Or take 9/11 Cultwatch writer Paul Stott who finds it hard to believe that anarchists would “travel to another country” in solidarity with migrants rather than staying here in solidarity with workers facing recession. Even Class War founder Ian Bone on his blog defines class struggle in national terms: “it’s our England we will fight for”. Paul Stott again adds to this a typical expression of labour movement nationalism: “Is there anything more likely to drive down existing wages than mass immigration?”

This is where they are careful to paint us as primitivists and nationalists.

Afterwards they claim to welcome criticism and discussion, despite not allowing comments underneath the article.

They then attempt to take our points on one at a time... So lets do the same.

1. No borders would benefit capitalism

You will have probably observed that, today, movement is increasingly free - just so long as it is profitable. To say that capitalism would benefit from no borders is to overlook the role border control has served and continues to serve in the maintenance of an exploitative status quo. It is one of the primary means through which labour-power is disciplined and global divisions of labour, privilege and power are enforced. At the border the abstract logic of profit confronts the lived reality of our lives. Hence the border, like the factory, is both a site of suffering and a vector of antagonism.

I'm not sure I understand all this to be honest, it's language more suited to the poetry and literature department at Cambridge University or somewhere. I will respond to what I think they are saying. They are saying that border controls are used to persecute workers who attempt to improve their circumstances by moving to another country. This is true, of course, we live under capitalism, they are bound to exploit what ever mechanisms they can to increase their power over us. Abolishing border controls while capitalism still existed if it was even possible, would simply lead to them changing their tactics, and taking advantage of new ways to exploit us.

In other words it is a pointless demand, that would do nothing to increase the power we have over our own lives, even if it could be met.

2. No borders is utopian

Yes, but only if you think like a state. ‘But how can you make this work, its unmanageable, its not practical,’ the anxious statesman will cry. From the perspective of the state, no borders is indeed utopian – a place that could not be. For us, no borders is an axiom of political action, a principle of equality from which concrete, practical consequences must be drawn. It means recognising, on the basis of our equality, solidarity in struggle irrespective of origins. There is nothing less utopian and nothing more immediately practical than this.

This one is easy - if it's not a utopian demand, surely the No Borders network that is several years old now will have a detailed strategy for first convincing the required number of people of it's desirability and then actually organising to realise it?

3. An anarchist society would have community borders

The border traces a threshold of inside and outside. What is outside is perceived as dangerous and a threat to the inside, hence the ‘need’ for a border. The security that the border offers is essentially imposed externally and with reference to this threat. But there is another kind of security, one created internally through cooperation and mutual support. There is nothing in this kind of security which necessitates the exclusionary and violent practices of bordering. It is this latter kind of cooperative security which we are hoping to create.

This all sounds very nice, but in practice I cannot see how it would lead to anything too different to what I propose. What I was setting out in my post "no borders... or community control of resources" was a vision of how we might organise in a hypothetical free society, based on how it has happened in the past, and where we are now.

I do not advocate autonomous communities building walls and setting up checkpoints and customs controls.

But I do advocate communities having the right to exercise self management as much as practically possible, and that must necessarily include the right to decide who actually gets to be a part of that community - it is the principal of free association, one of the building blocks of anarchism. I shouldn't have to make it clear, that I would always argue for any community I was a part of to organise in a way that meant that the maximum number of people possible could play a role within it, and that it would be able to integrate newcomers at will - but that would always require discussion and debate - not simply saying "aha but you have to let her live here, you can't stop it!" How would that actually work in practice? Would there be a Global Migration Agency empowered to force communities to accept each and every applicant? Would this principal be extended to enterprise and industry? Would they be forced to accept everyone who wanted to work? No Borders are a bit sketchy on that.

4. National culture should be reclaimed

The nation state is a modern/recent form of sovereignty based (not solely) on forms of cultural nationalism which in turn are achieved through the glorification of typically 'English' traditions and stereotypes. We do not aim to undermine or ignore the history and traditions of struggle in the UK. Rather our aim is to undermine static conceptions of culture or community that create imagined divisions between 'us' and 'them'; divisions that have very real consequences for those who find they cannot, or do not want, to fit into these rigidly defined identities.

For us it seems that rather than attempting to transcend notions of class (domination), this new 'English' anarchism appeals to an affirmative cultural identity of class. We feel that we need to abandon such sociological concepts of class for revolutionary perspectives of social struggle. Not everyone sees the distinction between class struggle and migrant solidarity. Let's conclude with a comment by 'Alessio', who defends the no borders position in a reply to Paul Stott: “As the 'English' anarchists ponder on their next move, it seems like every other anarchist movement across Europe strides confidently forward. I see a pattern emerging here, maybe we should be more confident in anarchist politics and how we express them rather than continuously feel that we should pander or apologise to certain sections of the class in the UK.”

I'm not sure where to start with this one, it's so full of shit quite frankly, it almost seems like they are deliberately misunderstanding our position (such as it is - there is no common "English Anarchist" movement, and I do not speak for Paul or Ian although I do consider them comrades).

My position on this is that England (and Britain) has a rich culture of resistance from the oppressed and working classes throughout history towards the ruling class and symbols of its' authority. This is something which the increasing celebration of a shared national culture conveniently ignores in favour of saints, kings, war, and conversely agrarian pastoralism. However the promotion of Englishness or Britishness in this way has created a space through which we can offer up examples of rebelliousness and revolution from Watt Tyler to the suffragettes.

It's about not abandoning our history to propaganda from the ruling class, that is currently being used to cement their position.

I'd like to end on the comment about "every other anarchist movement in Europe striding confidently forward." Oh yes? Where is that then?



"

Thursday, 30 July 2009

new bread & roses out now!

The latest issue of the bulletin of the IWW in Britain has just been published, and can be downloaded from here - http://iww.org.uk/files/BnRbulletin1.pdf

Including the following;

-Vestas Workers Occupy!
- IWW Construction Workers on the Olympic Construction Site
- Round up of news from IWW branches in the UK
- Know your right at work info

Tuesday, 28 July 2009

carphone warehouse workers need support

I've linked to their blog already...

Support CWU members, sacked for organising and speaking out at work!

Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009
Time: 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Location: Carphone Warehouse, 4 Oxford St, London
Nearest tube: Tottenham Court Road
Contact: Pat, 07913 701042

Come along for a couple of hours and support trade unionists organising in Carphone Warehouse's Wednesbury Logistics Centre. Local management think they can sack CWU members for speaking out against injustice, and get away with it. We're going to show them that there are consequences as we spread the word to shoppers in central London this Saturday... this will be the final event in a week of action taking place up and down the country!

Facebook event - click Attend! http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119818912227Can't make it?
Send a message of protest, click here: http://carphoneworker.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/carphone-union-busting-at-wednesbury-protest-now/ --07894 461713
Field Organiser Communication Workers Unionhttp://carphoneworker.co.uk/

newsletter here

Monday, 27 July 2009

20,000 people march against johnnie walker plant closure

As reported in the Daily Telegraph, and by the BBC. Maybe if a senior Diageo manager took a tumble down a staircase the jobs might be saved.



;-)

chinese workers show us the way forward

According to this story , describing steel workers rioting against massive job cuts in a privatised company... Today we read here that the company is going to cut the jobs anyway.

While recent international headlines about China have concentrated on ethnic disturbances in the north west, this has been a much bigger upheaval and is clearly class based.

The Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said 30,000 people were involved in the latest incident, although some internet postings put the figure at closer to 10,000.
China is the world's largest consumer and producer of steel, but its industry is regarded as inefficient.
The workers are thought to have been fearful of further large-scale redundancies at a company that reportedly axed many jobs only a few years ago. Reports suggest Tonghua has between 20,000 and 50,000 employees.


Some interesting background info can be found here, and here.

Friday, 24 July 2009

away again...

I'm going to be away from the computer again this weekend, so I won't be posting anything until Monday I would have thought.

Until then I see a well known anarchist writer has a new site - Anarchist Writers

I've also just discovered the Nestor Makhno Archive, and just been reminded of the Anarchist FAQ (now available from AK Press in book form).

A little light reading for the weekend?

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

more vestas updates

To get the latest news on the Vestas occupation I mentioned below then bookmark this site http://savevestas.wordpress.com/

They're saying that riot police, many of whom are in the building are arresting people who are bringing in food, as part of an attempt to starve the workers out.

croyden rises!

Well not yet, but the first steps are being taken, Croyden Solidarity Group has been launched, here is their website. It's not finished yet, though it's more finished than TSG's!


Nice 404 error message as well.



Tuesday, 21 July 2009

eco friendly is not always worker friendly...


Readers may have read about the recent trevails of the Vestas workers on the Isle of Wight... Well it seems they have decided to take action and occupy the company's offices, Libcom has the story here.

One worker said: "It is our last-ditch attempt to save the jobs. This is a green industry and the government keep harping on about how much they want to get all these hundreds of thousands of green jobs going. But then they go and close the only wind turbine plant in England. The government offered to give Vestas money to keep it going, but apparently Vestas turned this down. What we would like to see is the government actually taking it over and possibly nationalising it."


The Times has more here.

It was revealed last week that the factory was closing down its production line within hours of a Government pledge to build 10,000 wind turbines — a fivefold increase on the present number — by 2020. More than 600 people are due to be made redundant on July 30 — 525 in Newport and 100 at a related facility in Southampton.

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

posties on strike

According to this report on libcom, 12,000 CWU members at the Royal Mail will be going on strike on Friday, over pay conditions, and job cuts - the old ones are always the best!

"Workers based in London, Edinburgh, Bristol, Darlington, Stoke-on-Trent,
Plymouth, Norfolk and Essex will be taking part in the strike. Protest letters
will be delivered to the Royal Mail's chief executive, Adam Crosier, and
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson."

More here...


Tuesday, 14 July 2009

ecoterrorists get upset...

joining the iww


One of the things I did at Durham Miner's Gala is take the opportunity to join the Industrial Workers of the World, specifically the Tyne and Wear branch of the British Isles Regional Organising Committee (BIROC) of the IWW. The IWW currently claims under 2000 members worldwide, of whom around 600 or so are in the UK.

The union's current small and seemingly irrevelant size belies it's noble and influential past in the early twentieth century in the US when it was responsible for organising hundreds of thousands of workers across dozens of industries in an often violently hostile environment; this very brief history was written a few years ago...

So why did I join a union that saw it's best nearly a hundred years ago? Well the aims and principles of the IWW are still relevent in my view, to form a militant and democratic voice for workers, that unites us along industrial lines, and across national borders. It may be small, but so what? It doesn't mean it can't grow and become an effective organising body.

At the moment (at least in the UK) the union is dominated by the 'General Membership Branch' (confusing refferred to as the GMB!) which brings together all members in a certain locality. This means that it is at risk of being dominated by the ideas of a fairly diffuse group of political activists, rather than being rooted in actual workplaces through the 'Job Branch' and Industrial Union structure it aims for. There's no inherent reason why it has to remain that way, and certainly my aim will be to encourage the growth of Job Branches and Industrial Unions where I can. Some already exist, there is a Health Worker IU, an Education Worker IU, and a Construction Worker IU in the UK, and the US there are the Starbucks Workers Union, and a Cinema Workers Union as far as I know.

I'm not sure how active I'm going to be (what with job hunting, and Tyneside Solidarity Group) but I'm intending to be as involved as I can be.

Of course with the union currently being so small, I will be 'dual carding' that is a member of the IWW, and a bigger more mainstream trade union, that has the financial and organisational power to at least provide me with some basic services that the IWW probably can't at the moment. Being a member of a bigger union also provides me with a larger audience for my ideas than the IWW, most of whom probably aren't far off in terms of politics anyway.

Sunday, 12 July 2009

durham miner's gala


Tyneside Solidarity Group had a day trip to the big meeting in Durham yesterday, along with (at my guess) 35,000 or so other trade unionists, formers miners, locals, politicos and professional northerners.

The brass bands and banners of the NUM branches were an impressive sight, as was the sheer river of people attending what is in theory a political event, you'd be hard pressed to see a tenth of the number at the London Mayday March or Tolpuddle.

Dave Douglas, anarchist, former miner, and trade union activist; however compares it to the 'Ghostdance Religion' of the native americans at the turn of the twentieth century, a last hurrah from a marginalised, defeated, and assimilated culture, someone always has to put a dampener on things, but I think he's probably got a point.

Friday, 10 July 2009

statement on multiculturalism from class crisis

Class Crisis a fairly new group based in Lichfield in the West Midlands has published this statement on the current crisis of multiculturalism.

"Political multiculturalism is based on the idea that it is not our shared experience of daily life; dealing with exploitative employers, rip-off landlords, deceitful politicians, debt etc that defines our interests but rather which God we’ve been brought up to believe or disbelieve in, what ethnic background we come from and our skin colour. This is nonsense Richard Branson doesn't share the same interests as a white English man working in a call centre anymore than Lakshmi Mittal has a common cause with a Hindu who works in one of his steel plants. The sense of frustration felt by Asian youth in Alum Rock is the same as that felt by white youth in Falcon Lodge or Kingstanding. Race doesn't determine our material well-being, our class does. It could even be said that race is nothing more than a political invention that has been entrenched in society through the policies of identity politics and affirmative action. But when we're encouraged to see every issue and incident through the prism of race then it isn't surprising that people see their problems in terms of ethnicity. The effects of Multiculturalist policies have been devastating to working class people."

The article also points us towards Keenan Malik's essay 'How to Make a Riot' which contains this revealing paragraph quoting a local black "community leader";

To a degree they were right. The biradari system had allowed Asians to influence the political machine far more successfully than the more individuated African-Caribbean communities. ‘We have a South African situation here,’ claimed Maxi Hayles, chair of the council funded Birmingham Racial Attack Monitoring Unit and one of the city’s most respected African-Caribbean leaders. ‘White on top, coloured Asian in the middle and African at the bottom. If you want a taxi – Asian. If you want petrol – Asian. Off-licence – Asian. Access to banks – Asian. Even Afro-Caribbean food – Asian. Our community feels trapped.’

It's interesting stuff, and adds more to the leftwing debate on multiculturalism started a few years ago by Red Action (founders of the IWCA).

Thursday, 9 July 2009

tyneside solidarity group @ durham miner's gala

As mentioned in a post below, I've been involved with others in setting up Tyneside Solidarity Group in Newcastle that aims to encourage working class self organisation against debt, bailiffs, and dodgy money lenders.

We're going to be at the venerable Durham Miner's Gala this Saturday, distributing our introductory leaflet, and talking to people, and probably having a few drinks as well.

If you're interested in meeting up with us, send an email to tynesideagainstdebt(at)gmail.com with your mobile number...

workers organising at carphone warehouse

Thanks to Paul Stott for this link to Carphone Worker. It looks like it's pretty decent and indepth blog by a CWU activist at Carphone Warehouse. Nice one!

Friday, 3 July 2009

a warning...



Listen to Glenn Beck, he has a sane and rational call - everyone read the book he is "reviewing", despite not having read it...

You can buy it on Amazon here Or download it for free.

More infomation can be found here. This lot have been acused of being involved in the publication of the book, but mostly deny it as far as I know.

This post is not an endorsement of the book's politics; here is further discussion of the publication.

Thursday, 2 July 2009

construction workers condemn 2012 olympics development

IWW construction workers on the Olympic construction site have produced a damning report on the state of the worksite. The report argues for greater worker control of unions and a militant rank-and-file approach.

Excerpt from the summary of the report:

This report documents and critically analyses the working conditions of construction workers on the Stratford City development site of the 2012 Olympic Games. We base our findings entirely on the accounts of anonymous IWW and non-IWW construction workers employed there. The report documents widespread mismanagement and a lack of resources devoted to ensuring that health and safety standards are maintained. Police intimidation of workers and harassment of union activists is also documented.

Full report here.

IWW Construction Workers Union

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

no borders... or community control of resources

The recent No Borders Camp in Calais has garned media attention which as usual does not exactly show anarchism in a beneficial or even sensible light. Some apposite comments have been posted here, and here.

Rather than repeat the criticism others have made (and which I mostly agree with), I'd concentrate on the serious problems I see with a demand such as 'No Borders'. It seems to me to be problematic on many levels.

First of all, it is being made in isolation to further demands for a radical restructuring of society, it is being made in a world in which millions upon millions of people are forced to move around the globe in the interests of capital, or because of war and starvation (caused by capital), or to for sexual exploitation. It is a world where employers love to be able to import cheap labour to undermine established pay and conditions, as much as they love to export factories and call centres for the same reason. Borders do not matter to international capital - abolishing borders in a capitalist society would be a recipe for massive immigration of what would basically be seen as scab labour by indigenous workers, it would undoubtedly trigger racial rather than social unrest and lead to an increase in the use by capital of immigrants as scapegoats.

Secondly; even in a free society, would we really have absolutely no restrictions on the ability of people to travel and settle wherever they want irrespective of local social and eclogical needs? I doubt it very much. Sure "the left" are probably right when they say that in a socialist or free world far fewer people would want or need to travel, and they certainly wouldn't be forced to (with the obvious exception of natural disasters etc). However on top of that, it's hard to imagine that communities and federations, wouldn't choose to excercise somesort of control over land distribution and use within their territory - these would simply be border controls, although no doubt of a different type, based on the needs of the community and incomers and an open dialogue between the two.

How does this translate into the here and now? How do we empower people to take control while supporting those workers forced to move?

We have a duty to act in solidarity with all our fellow workers - to organise them into our unions, to assist them in integrating with their host community, to organise them into our political and campaigning organisations - irrespective of where they were born.

We should support campaigns of solidarity with victimised migrants, we should be involved with anti deportation campaigns - and encourage practical solidarity with migrants in our communities.

A few years ago in Haringey, North London, several resident's associations were mobilised in support of a local woman who the government wished to deport, there was a substantial campaign involving people of various political backgrounds and none. This was an example of a community defending someone who had become a member, because it wanted to - not because of some abstract top down notion of "no borders". This example has been repeated thousands of times across the UK - people don't support No Borders on the whole, but when they can see the damage done to individuals and families close up, their opinions seem to change.

Self organisation in practice.

glasgow primary school reoccupied

Parents of Wyndford Primary School have re-occupied the canteen and gym in protest against Glasgow City Council's blatant disregard for the parent's wishes to not have to send their children to a school over a mile away from their homes. Although school is now officially released for summer holidays, the parents wish to keep the space for their local and surrounding communities as well as to protect the building from vandals which the parents believe GCC will use as an excuse to pull down the building citing dereliction and unsafe premises.

Messages of support can be sent to 07894123721 (nikki) and 07770806270 (Wyndford Mobile)




Monday, 22 June 2009

after just two weeks the posting rate slows... :(

Is this destined to be another blog that whithers away so rapidly?

No. But I am going to be away from computers most of the time until next Tuesday, so will probably not have much time to blog...

I will catch up though!

Saturday, 20 June 2009

I'm just chucking this in unedited - this campaigns being going on for awhile and is direct action based, as well as using more legalistic methods...

"GLASGOW SAVE OUR SCHOOLS CAMPAIGN NEWS
From Richie Venton,
Campaign Organiser richieventon at hotmail.com
19th June 2009
Dear friends,A lot of important things have been happening over the past couple of weeks, but it has been a hard task finding a time that many people could make to meet and discuss them.So for now, a couple of updates and appeals for you to take action; forgive the amount of information here, but it’s the quickest way I can keep you all informed.
(1) After a delay of nearly 6 weeks, the parliament has now posted my petition demanding a public inquiry into the impact of the closures on the Scottish parliament website. It won't be considered by the MSPs who make up the petitions Committee until September at the earliest (after the summer recess) - which I objected to, but to no avail.But the key thing is that it now gives us a concrete focus to fight around, trying to get vast numbers of people to sign it, and by doing that pressurise the MSPs who make up the Public Petitions Committee to invite us through to address them and hopefully gain further public awareness of the issues we are raising – particularly class sizes.
SO PLEASE ACT ON THIS URGENTLY.
There are two simple steps I would ask you to take:
(a) add your own name (and comments if you wish), and
(b) get everyone else you know to do the same (and if they don't have an email address, help them do it).It is fairly straight forward. The quickest way to get to the list of petitions is to click on this address:http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.u ... itions.aspor the long route!:visit http://www.scottishparliament.ukthen go to committeesthen petitionsthen epetitions sitethen current epetitionsthen see the petitionAfter you have added your own name (and comments if you wish), forward the details above on how and what to do to everyone you have an email address for – as well as speaking to others and helping them do it, in the same way we did with the consultation submissions and petitions. [Anyone, anywhere, can add their name to it – and their address will never be published, just the country they live in].And when you are doing this, also sign up to epetitions lodged by SOS members Catherine Mitchell on asbestos in schools, and Billy Stevenson on closures and kids with additional learning needs.
(2) Listen to BBC Radio 4 on this Sunday 21st June at 1pm. They are doing an item on the N East Glasgow by-election and interviewed a few of us on the schools issue – so hopefully we’re not edited out!
(3) I am attaching the letter I wrote to Fiona Hyslop the morning after we met with her on 11th June. The 12 of us there put a powerful case on all the key issues, and asked for a clear statement from the govt. Nothing was forthcoming on the day - which is the added reason I wrote to her. I have had a receipt for the letter but no reply.When The Education Minister spoke on the funding for future school new-builds on 17th, she certainly did not even refer to the Glasgow closures (as we had suggested in writing to her last Friday 12th), nor whether money was coming to Glasgow - nor the key issue of class sizes. Disappointing - but we should persist in pursuing the government for an answer. They cannot be neutral on such a key issue, surely?And of course we should condemn with contempt the rank hypocrisy of Steven Purcell, bleating about Glasgow not getting its share of money off the government, when he did sweet FA to join up with communities to fight for extra funding to save our schools, as we challenged him to do through the Glasgow SOS Campaign from day one – and in fact he cancelled 3 meetings with Fiona Hyslop recently, which is hardly the actions of a man who genuinely wants to fight for Glasgow to have more funds.
(4) On the MSPs' Declaration in Defence of Education in Communities - alarming news!As you will remember we met with 8 of the 17 Glasgow MSPs on 14th May at the lobby of parliament, got 5 of them to sign it on the spot (Robert Brown, Bob Doris, Bill Kidd, Sandra White and Anne McLaughlin) – and got them to promise to pursue other MSPs in their own respective parties to sign it too.Labour MSPs Paul Martin, Patricia Ferguson and Frank McAveety also met us. Paul said he’d think about and get back to me (a month later he has not); Patricia told a few parents it was a waste of time (does that mean she was wasting everybody’s time by turning up to public meetings in her own constituency saying she supported the schools campaigners??) and Frank said nothing.As again you will recall I wrote to every one of the 129 MSPs on the evening of 14th May. Not one of them even acknowledged the letter, let alone signed it.So I wrote to the 5 who were decent enough to sign it and asked them again to chase up MSPs in the SNP and Lib Dems. Bob and Anne promised to do that, saying MSPs get a lot of emails. Robert said there was no chance of any others signing it because it’s not a national issue!So I wrote to all 129 MSPs again on 22nd May. Still to this day, not a single receipt, nor acknowledgment, nor additional signature.Those who were at the Briefing of MSPs we held in the parliament on 14 May will recall how every one of the 5 praised the wording of the Declaration – “for maximum sign-up” as Robert Brown put it. So why the hell has not a single MSP of any party since signed the Declaration??We should try to pursue them with phone calls, emails, and where practical at their surgeries in the case of the other 12 Glasgow MSPs yet to sign it or grace us with a reply.
These are vital issues for Glasgow – but also for the whole of Scotland, where class sizes, closures, children’s safety, teachers’ jobs etc are vitally important issues.[I am attaching the Declaration to this email so that every one of you still has a copy to chase up MSPs with]
Finally, get back to me to say if you could make a meeting some time during the week beginning 29th June – we have a lot to discuss, a lot we could do over the next month or so to keep the pot boiling on really important issues that we have fought around for the past 6 months.Meantime, take care, and take action on the things mentioned above.
Yours in struggle and unity,
Richie Venton – Glasgow Save Our Schools Campaign organiser"

Friday, 19 June 2009

postie strike in london and edinburgh

9000 postal workers struck today in London and Edinburgh against the Royal Mails' latest round of agreement smashing cutbacks.

Reports from both union and other sources in London have suggested the strike is pretty much solid, which is good news.

Let's hope this is not just a gesture by the union leaders and that they support their members on this one.

900 LOR workers sacked

Above is a leaked memo from the employer's organisation... Courtesy of Socialist Unity.
Things are heating up at Lindsey Oil Refinery in North East Lincolnshire, Total the owners have sacked 900 of the workers who took unofficial strike action over redundancies.

According to the BBC report in the link above the unions Unite and the GMB are urging all sides to get back round the negotiating table. That is not enough, the workers need to start aggressively picketing the site now, and they and their supporters need to start encouraging other sites to walk out in solidarity around the country. The only way to force Total to listen to their demands will be if they use force - now is not the time to panic.

Solidarity action has already occured across Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, and South Wales, and this has no doubt scared the employers into going further, they think that if they make an example of the Lindsey workers the others will learn their place and back down quickly. Hopefully that won't happen, if they do back down they can expect to be next.

Messages of support, including from union branches are sought;

"We urgently need trade union branch etc solidarity messages of support sent to geminis(at)geminis.karoo.co.uk or texts sent to 07706 710 041.

Below are a list of those that came out yesterday, there will be more today:Fiddlers Ferry, Drax, Eggborough, BP Saltend, South Hook, Aberthaw, Ratcliffe, Scunthorpe BOC, West Burton, Didcott, Staythorpe."
More discussion here, and here
*******UPDATED*******
"It is clear now that the LOR bosses are using this dispute (caused by their own mis-management and their reneging on agreements made in February) to seek revenge for their forced climbdown by the strike earlier this year.Taken with the leaked ECIA advice to employers on subverting the official union strike ballot, the bosses have declared war against the trade unions, shop stewards and the NAECI agreement.That is why we appeal for your support. Unity is strength. Together we will win. AGAIN.
* WITHDRAW THE 51 REDUNDANCIES
* SHARE OUT THE WORK
* PROPER CONSULTATION & NEGOTIATION
YESTERDAY'S MASS MEETING (Weds 17th) VOTED TO:
* Continue the Strike at LOR until 51 redundancies withdrawn
* Place pickets at all LOR gates and appeal to tanker drivers not to cross
* Call for solidarity strike action across all NAECI sites
WHICH SITES ARE SUPPORTING STRIKE ALREADY:Fiddlers Ferry (since Monday), Aberthaw (300 walked out yesterday), Conoco (2-300 walked yesterday and joined LOR pickets), Dragon, BOC Scunthorpe & Hartlepool Power Station
SITES BEING DIRECTLY APPEALED TO BY LOR PICKETS THIS MORNING:Ferrybridge, Stanlow, BP Saltend, Eggborough, West Burton, Cottam, Ratcliffe, Staythorpe, Wilton and maybe more."

Thursday, 18 June 2009

energy sector strikes spread

According to the news wires the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike is spreading once again... The fact is that when the LOR workers won their previous dispute at the begining of the year, they realised the power we can have if we take collective action in order to defend our positions and improve our lot.

This follows the refusal of the Lindsey bosses to negotiate, as reported here.

This is one to watch, if the workers stand their ground and don't let management bully them, or the union tame them they can win...

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

a bit of english history to be proud of


Of course there's loads of English history we can be proud of - as discussed on Ian Bone's blog here.


'The Southern Daily Echo' reports here that tribute is finally being paid to a true English hero.


For more infomation on the Captain Swing Riots, go here.

voting and elections?

There is a popular misconception that anarchists are against voting, and it's one we're not great at correcting. First of all - we often use voting in our own organisations, to appoint people to particular positions, or to decide on what the priorities for the group are. Most anarchists are perfectly happy to vote for union reps, and residents or tenents association boards if they're involved. Anarchism is or should be about extending democracy across every sphere where people could potentially have power over others, in Liberty and Solidarity for example we recognise that the best way to decide on whether a workplace should walk out over an issue or not is by discussing it, and then voting on it, and going with the majority decision.

The confusion has arisen for two reasons, the first is that all but a tiny percentage of anarchists do not believe in participating in elections for public office, whether the local council, or parliament, we don't stand in the elections, and we generally don't vote, or advocate a vote (though quite a few in my experience do actually vote, they just keep it quiet). Some anarchists een run 'don't vote it changes nothing campaigns' during elections, I'm not convinced there's a point to that, if voting doesn't change anything why bother intervening at all?

However; I think there's a valid argument to be made for standing candidates on limited local issues with the express purpose of making an incumbant office holder (either councillor or MP) lose their seat, without having to back an opposition candidate who could be just as bad, or worse. It should only be as part of a real relevent and rooted local campaign however, and we as anarchists should make it clear that it is not a solution, and that if our candidate wins it will make very little difference compared to building a strong and militant community.

Parish (or community in Scotland) and Town councils (in the UK) are different, though they normally have very little power, and councillors are generally unpaid, I don't see any harm in anarchists participating on a principled basis as a parish or town councillor can act like a union rep for the community. I wouldn't say it was a particularly important strategy, but given that it is incredibly easy to get elected to most parish councils and many seats are uncontested, it takes very little effort and no cost, and you can make a slight difference for the better.

Something anarchists and some socialists have done in the past is stand in elections on the basis that they won't take their seat if elected, I think it is acceptable to stand with the promise of not taking your seat, as a tactic depending on the nature of the campaign - for instance if you were standing on the basis that all MPs are corrupt scumbags - people do "get it", but to me it generally makes less sense than taking the seat (especially in a parliament) and taking all that money that you're offered and redistributing it to various working class struggles and campaigns, a bit like Militant did in the eighties.

None of this is me saying that participation in elections to various state bodies is especially useful or an answer to anything - I still think that mass direct action is ultimately the only way to effectively express working class power, but I just wouldn't rule it out as a matter of principle.

decision making in anarchist meetings

The second reason that anarchists often appear to be against voting (and even democracy) is the insistance of many on consensus decision making. Now consensus - or at least aiming for complete agreement is not only desirable but often essential in small and tightly knit political or action groups, I would certainly hope that individual L&S branches for example aim for maximum agreement on most decisions. Unfortunately consensus within some sections of the anarchist "movement" has been raised to a lofty principle complete with it's own extremely complex set of behaviours, which people new to political activism can find alienating and bewildering and which can be used by experts to intimidate and silence opposition especially from people who haven't used it before. It's also open to abuse by small, and unrepresentative, but determined minorities and even individuals who can insist on blocking decisions even though every single other person in the meeting agrees! The most ludicrous side effect of consensus in my experience is the Abilene paradox in which, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.

Now no decision making structure is perfect, and it is a group or community's internal dynamics and culture that really determines whether the decisions taken are the most representative of the maximum number of people present.

In L&S we use majority voting when unanimous agreement cannot be reached, and we ask for vote even before then to ensure there are no concerns from people who may not have wanted to speak up before then. We think that when it is combined with plenty of space for full, friendly, and inclusive discussion and debate on every issue, and a culture where people are encouraged to speak their mind, and submit amendments or alternatives for consideration, and where everyone's views are equally valid then a simple vote is the most efficient way to choose a course of action that we can all then unite behind.