Cuts and the CSR

Been busy this week; trying to find work, not getting work and protesting . Feel a mix of anxiety, anger and general depression . But hey, gotta a blog to attend to .

Tomorrow I plan to do a round up of posts , and my thoughts on the CSR. I'll have a potter round the blogs and papers , but if anyone wants to highlight anything they have seen, let me know in the comments box.

Holiday Reading 1: Paul Mason - Meltdown

You know that capitalism lurches into crises, you know this one is something to do with bankers making risky loans, you are familiar with terms like subprime, credit crunch, and you've heard of Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae - or was it Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? But you would really like to understand it all a bit better.

My recommendation? Read this book.

Paul Mason's 'Meltdown' was published in February 2009, and provides a highly readable, indepth-yet-easy-to-understand account of the current economic crisis. His account is very much helped by lively descriptions of people and places, cultural references, and the personal touch of his own presence at press conferences and lurking in various places waiting for developments.

It is also helped by straightforward explanations and by regular mentions of the poor and working-class victims of the bankers' behaviour. Its style is much more journalistic than theoretical, but it feeds your theoretical understanding nonetheless.

Now a year-and-a-half old, the book can not provide up-to-date accounts of governments' slash-and-burn response to the crisis. These extraordinary-scale cuts, and the accompanying pathetic-scale curbs on the bankers, perhaps cast doubt on Paul's central argument: that this economic crisis has killed neo-liberalism. He contends that the 'age of greed' is at an end; capitalism has no choice but to reign in and regulate its financial mega-gamblers.

Even if the ConDems' savage attacks suggest otherwise, though, they do not prove that Paul is wrong, and I still find his argument very convincing. Obviously, it's an argument that I'd very much like to be convinced by, especially as he also argues that the organised labour movement will have a much bigger role from here on in.

That last bit is something that we do not have to wait on and observe, but that we can assist with our own efforts.

The ConDem Debt Repayment Con

Economics is never going to be my specialist subject, but even I can see that the line of argument from Cleggeron is a con.

They keep repeating that the nation's debt must be paid off as soon as possible or else catastrophe will ensue. (Not that the LibDems believed that during the election campaign when they wanted progressive-minded supporters of public services to vote for them, but hey.)

Many millions of us are in debt. It's called a mortgage, and it was positively encouraged by the Tories the last time they were in power. But how many of us feel an overwhelming sense of urgency to pay off their mortgage RIGHT NOW? Hardly anyone. The arrangement with the lender is to pay it off over 25 years or so.

Similarly, you'd think, the nation's debt. Especially as, as I understand it, most of the debt is in a form equivalent to bonds, so the lenders are not beating at the door to get it repaid.

Would you pay off your mortgage this year if you could? Maybe. Would you starve your family to enable you to do so? Of course not. But Cleggeron are not starving their own families, are they? They are starving ours - of the services, wages and pensions we need.

Clegg's speech yesterday was particularly loathsome, with not a sniff of liberalism or democracy in the air: it was a straightforward Tory speech. Public sector workers' pensions are, apparently, 'gold-plated' and unfair to private-sector workers (not that private-sector workers will benefit from attacks on public-sector workers' pensions, but hey). And it's a shame to cut public-sector workers' wages, but we really have to, except the very very badly-paid ones (why there are very very badly-paid workers in the public sector to start with is glossed over). Taxing the super-rich, stopping the massive tax avoidance/evasion, or nationalising the banks? Nah.

It seems to me that if the ConDem coalition does not need to slash public services and attack public-sector workers in order to pay off the debt immediately, then it must be doing so because it wants to. And why does it want to? Because this lash-up of ruling-class parties wants to break the consensus that grew after the Second World War that the state should provide for people's welfare, and replace it with one that we should fend for ourselves.

It's an economic, political and ideological offensive that we must respond to with an industrial, political and ideological counter-offensive - including by spreading the word that people should not believe the crap about having to pay off the debt right now.

[PS. All of this, of course, skims over the argument that Labour could have avoided building up such a big debt by taking the money from the big financial institutions rather than borrowing it from them. But that's for another time.]

We've Been Here Before ...

There is an economic crisis. There is a Tory-Liberal coalition government. Big spending cuts are coming, and local government is going to feel the squeeze. Labour councils will have to choose between resisting the cuts and passing them on to local people. In one working-class area at least, the labour movement and the community are ready to fight back - and win.

It's a true story from 1921, which needs re-telling in the similar times of 2010.
And the spooky similarities mean that it is high time to plug my book again, and to remind you that I am available to give talks on this subject, together with a slide slow featuring contemporary photographs....

'GUILTY AND PROUD OF IT! POPLAR'S REBEL COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS 1919-25
By Janine Booth
With foreword by John McDonnell MP

"The book is especially good at bringing to light many of the lesser known characters in the struggle. It also reflects critically on the lessons of Poplar, which still resonate today." Labour Research

"This book is not only an incisive study of past events, it is a handbook for present struggles." John McDonnell MP

Buy the book here.

Does the Economic Crisis Mean that Employers "Have To" Cut Jobs?

I just wrote this for my blog on the RMT London Calling website, and since Stroppyblog regularly(ish) discusses matters concerning workers and the economic crisis, I thought I would share it with Stroppyreaders too.

Both London Underground and Tube Lines - and, no doubt, many other companies - will tell us that they "have to" cut jobs because of the economic crisis. But a look at London Underground's history shows that this is not just untrue - it is the opposite of the truth.

London Underground began in 1863, when private companies starting opening lines. By the 1920s, the Underground had expanded into a web of lines beneath London, run by several different private companies.

There was a recession during the 1920s, and the government gave a public subsidy to the private owners, explicitly both to improve the Tube and to create jobs at a time of high unemployment.

London Underground came into public ownership in 1933, under the new London Transport Passenger Board (LPTB).

The economy was again in recession, but public ownership led to investment, improvements and extensions on a large scale, with the added bonus of again creating jobs during another period of high unemployment. With the LPTB's New Works Programme announced in 1934, the Underground saw extensions to the Central, Northern, Piccadilly and Bakerloo Lines, electrification of the Metropolitan line north of Rickmansworth, and new tunnels, stations and escalators. Despite improvements slowing during the war, by 1947 the average speed of the train service had increased by 18% since 1933.

Cutting jobs during recession simply increases unemployment and worsens public services: it does not help economic recovery, and certainly does not help workers or service users. Instead, the government should give extra funding to London Underground to improve its services, increase its staffing levels, bring forward its upgrades, make its stations more accessible, and build extensions and new lines. And it should bring the engineering functions back into an integrated, publicly owned London Underground, without compensating the private owners who have sucked so much out of the system.

London Underground and Tube Lines may be using the recession as a pretext for attacking jobs and conditions - but they are actually doing the opposite of what needs to be done. The government can pay people benefits to be out of work; or it can pay them wages to carry out socially-useful work. It's obvious which is better, isn't it?!

Faint? Whaddya Mean, Faint?!

The news broke last week that Fred "The Shred" Goodwin is back in gainful employment after a year kicking his heels and living off the vast pension that you apparently deserve if you royally mess up the bank that you run. And there was us thinking that pensions are for people who have retired.

Widespread outrage greeted this news, but was not matched by government action to recover the public dosh that Fred stuffed into his pockets. Do our politicians not feel as strongly about this as the rest of us mere mortals?

Apparently not. According to the article linked above, Michael Connarty, Labour MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, said the appointment was "odd", while Margo MacDonald, independent MSP for the Lothians, said she felt "faint disgust".

"Faint" is defined by the Chambers dictionary as "weak in spirit", or from an online search as "barely perceptible".

Good to see such passion in our political representatives. Or is strong denunciation and stern action something they reserve for asylum seekers and benefit cheats?

BA Strikes - Bah Humbug!

News broadcasts since yesterday have been dominated by Unite's announcement of 12 days of strike action over Christmas by British Airways workers, who face 30% pay cuts. Predictably, the tone of the coverage is outrage that the workers - who voted by more than 90% on an 80%+ turnout for action - should have the damned temerity to strike. After all, it is hardly a gesture of festive goodwill to ground the planes over the holiday season, is it?!

What the newshounds singularly failed to mention is that neither is it a gesture of festive goodwill on the part of the bosses to cut workers' wages by 30%! If anyone is in the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge here, it is BA management, but just because workers are refusing to play Tiny Tim, it is them who get the blame.

On the telly news this morning was an irritated posh woman, bemoaning that she would not be able to spend Christmas in Mauritius because of industrial action with which she has no sympathy. In the current economic climate, she declared, they should be grateful to have a job at all. No bread? Let them eat cake, I reckon!

How is it that when workers go to work and make big money for the bosses, it is the workers, rather than the bosses, who are expected to be grateful?! How is it that when times are good, the bosses get to cream off massive profits, but when times are bad, workers have to "share" in the sacrifices ie. take the hit?

I consistently argue within my own union that when we strike, we should do so at times that will hurt the bosses rather than our fellow working-class people. I have argued strongly against, for example, Tube strikes on New Year's Eve, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. That is an argument of tactics, to be had among rank-and-file members, and I would be interested to know what input the workers themselves had into the decision regarding the timing of this action.

But under the barrage of anti-union, anti-worker, hypocritical cant from BA management and their media mouthpieces, I am fully behind the BA workers' right to take whatever industrial action they feel will be most effective in defending their livelihoods against a vicious assault.

Is the Recession affecting TV Adverts?

I may be imagining it, or on the other hand it may be self-evident and others may have made this observation before and with more expertise than me, but I can't help but notice two apparent developments in TV advertising since the recession started to bite:

1. There has been a return of adverts not seen for years, recycled for a 21st century audience. The Milky Bar kid has swaggered back into town, Persil is broadcasting its greatest hits, the OXO family are back round the kitchen table, and the red car and the blue car are once again racing to promote Milky Way. Perhaps the companies are saving the cash of which they are strapped by using archive ads rather than making new ones. But I suspect it is more to do with appealing to viewers' desire for security in troubled times, for reminders of "better days" even if they were not much better at all, and to show that these particular products have stood the test of time.

2. Some British TV adverts have adopted the practice of directly slagging off their rivals. Is it Morrison's telling us how many more price cuts they have than Asda, or was it Tesco dissing Sainsbury's? I can't remember, but while this sort of stuff has been standard on say, US TV, for decades, in Blighty it was always seen as rather too distasteful or impolite. Profits down, knives out, it seems.

Which all begs the questions ... Any old-time ads you'd like to see re-broadcast? Or any that you hope will never see the light of day again? And any companies you would really like to see sticking the boot into others? Comments box open ...

The bad boys did it and ran away!!

Ha ha - check this out "men blamed for financial crisis" and it isnae me that's saying it - it's a bloke.

Read it here from the BBC website

"Just Be Grateful You Have A Job"

In an attempt to convince workers to put up with the sh*t that's thrown at us and to accept paying the price of a recession we didn't create, the employers' class, their tame political mouthpieces, and their little lieutenant managers keep reciting the mantra that you should “Just be grateful you have a job.”

Surfing the net, I found this rather tasty take on that. Hat tip to CyberCJH, who ever she or he may be.

=====

Based on a meeting we had a work today, I’ve decided to split myself into two separate and distinctly different people. From now on, when I step through my employer’s doors, the new work-me pledges …

… to remain grateful that I have a job. I will keep this in mind as my sole motivator. Nothing else is as important is this. That’s why it’s Number 1. I don’t go to work for any sort of personal satisfaction or fulfillment. And, I certainly don’t go to work because I enjoy what I do. I go to work because I’m grateful to have a job.

… to not speak unless I’m spoken to. Nobody is interested in what I have to say and chances are whatever I had to say would be wrong anyway.

… to pretend to have no other interests, friends or even a life outside of work. Thoughts of my life outside of work serve no other purpose except to distract me from remembering that the only reason I’m here is because I’m grateful my employer gave me a job.

… to have no expectations to a learning environment. While I fully understand that I’ll probably be more eager to go to work if I feel that I will learn something new and improve myself, I’m just grateful that I have a job.

… to expect no communication from management unless I’ve done something wrong. Good employees expect to be told when they do good work. Me? I’m just grateful that I have a job.

… to have no expectations to good working conditions. Good employees expect their employer to be making constant improvements so the workplace is not only safe, but pleasant. But, I’m just grateful that I have a job.

… to not have fun. I’m not here to have fun. I’m here to work. I understand smiling is also highly discouraged as it may seem to be an indication of happiness and happy employees aren’t thinking about how grateful they should be for their jobs and if they’re not thinking about that, they’re not thinking about work and if they’re not thinking about work, why are they getting paid? I’m just grateful that I have a job.

… to remember I’m a cost to the company, not a human. I will strive to be as dedicated to the business as possible, doing more than what is expected and putting forth 110% without giving any consideration to my personal needs, thoughts or desires. My schedule is rigid and ever expanding. My clock will tell me when I’m hungry. I’m just grateful that I have a job.

Is It Time For 1931 Again?

In 1931, in a deep recession, the leadership of Labour in government did not act to defend working-class living standards, but did the opposite. It proposed to cut unemployment benefit. The unions wouldn't have it, the majority of the Cabinet wouldn't have it, the Party Executive wouldn't have it, and the benefit-cut supporters, led by Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden, debunked from the Labour Party and shackled up with the Tories and Liberals in a 'national government'. The Labour Party had split.

In 2009, in a deep recession, the leadership of Labour in government is not acting to defend working-class living standards, but doing the opposite. It proposes, with its Welfare Reform Bill, to cut entitlement to state benefits.

We need the labour movement to reject its leaders' actions in 2009 as it did in 1931.

Sadly, the Labour Party of 2009 is not the Labour Party of 1931. The Party has spent the intervening 78 years travelling the road from its origins as a party to represent the working class in politics towards becoming a straightforward party of the ruling class, and is very near the end of that journey. But even if it is politically weaker and stripped of confidence, the labour movement still exists, and it should rise up and force a split as in 1931.

Many unions have policy against the Welfare Reform Bill and other New Labour anti-working-class policies. There is no hope from the Cabinet or the majority of the National Executive, but at least some Labour Party members must be appalled at their government's actions, and there are socialists and campaigners outside the Labour Party who would welcome an attempt to refound a party of labour. This time, it may not be possible to drive the right wing out of the party but we must split the bulk of the political labour movement away from the class enemies of the Labour leadership.

Would a split damage Labour? On one level, you might say 'who cares?', as New Labour has damaged working-class interests and the labour movement itself so badly. But we should also remember that 1931 led to 1945. After MacDonald split, Labour took a kicking in the election, but began to rebuild. 14 years and a World War later, Labour won a landslide election victory and brought in the most extensive pro-working-class reforms that a Labour government has ever managed.

I'd sooner not have to wait 14 years - let alone go through another war - but right now in 2009, we could do with a bit of 1931.

Pants and the recession

Just a quick post, any thought on this dear readers:

Last month, Y-fronts outsold boxer shorts for the first time since the early 1990s - the last time when Britain was in recession.

Debenhams said it is the standard, thick, warm, white, slightly frumpy styles which are selling like hot cakes rather than the skimpy, tight, high fashion versions of previous years.

The store's spokesman Ed Watson said: "These are the sort of pants our fathers wore.

"They provide a much greater sense of security than loose-fitting boxers, and perhaps, in these troubled times, that's what men need to feel."

Y-fronts were launched in the US 74 years ago. In recent years, loose fitting boxer shorts and slim line trunks have been, by far, the biggest sellers in Debenhams' menswear range.

The fashion chain's sales figures show that the sudden surge in Y-fronts began in November, just as the recession was starting to bite.

In total, sales have leapt by 35% over the six-month period, the company said.

Armoured car , is it Punchie in the city ??

Ok, another quickie.

There is some footage of the police stopping an armoured car on the demos today (can't work out how to embed ).

I want one of those !!

Coatsey thinks the guy with the Che beret, hair and flak jacket looks like 'Wolfie' Smith, I say its Punchie !!


Oh and apparently :

City workers have been leaning out of windows to wave £10 notes at G20 protesters on the streets below, the Press Association reports. Demonstrators responded with jeers and shouts, their reporter says.



Hm, isn't tenners a bit credit crunch ? Not exactly 80s style with wads of cash and Bollie is it.

Bankers taking the piss

Senior City bankers are demanding pay rises of up to 10 per cent this year to make up for the clampdown on the bonus culture, a senior City head-hunter has told The Independent.

So when they fuck up and can't get 'performance related' bonuses they then want more on their salary? So what happened to all the free market arguments about competition, rewarding ability etc etc.

Seems they want to get paid well regardless of how well they perform. Now what would they say of that was the public sector?

Alistair Darling. Banks. Discuss

Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling has asserted today that banks are better run in the private sector.

The comments box is wide open for anyone who would like to offer a single coherent argument or shred of evidence in support of this view.

Tories splashing the cash ...credit crunch, what credit crunch.

No sign of it amongst those at the annual Tory Black and White Ball:



Hundreds of well-heeled aristocrats, socialites and celebrities turned out to gorge themselves in spectacular style at the Conservative Party’s annual Black and White Ball.

Arriving in a long-line of chauffeur-driven Bentleys – complete with personalised number plates and built-in TVs – they had paid £10,000 for a table at the lavish do.

Tory leader Cameron, 42, had contemplated cancelling the event because of the gloomy economic climate. A senior Tory admitted: “The last thing we want are photos of us quaffing champers while people across the country are losing their jobs.”

As a consequence, security guards manned the entrances and police patrolled the building, determined to prevent unwanted guests seeing the opulent soiree.

Cameron even ditched his bow-tie in a bid to show he is an ordinary guy and that his party has changed to be more in touch with the common man.

Guests including fashion guru Trinny Woodall, Liz Hurley, Bryan Ferry and ex-Tory leader Michael Howard, partied the night away in a giant Union Jack-decorated marquee in London’s Battersea Park. An auction for party funds raised around £300,000 with one true blue supporter paying £13,000 for a game of tennis with Cameron and actor Richard E Grant.

Another blew £70,000 – more than double the average national wage – to hire Annabel’s nightclub in London for just ONE night.

A large portrait of former leader Margaret Thatcher went for £3,100.

And as many people struggle to pay the mortgage or even put food on the table, last night’s revellers did not bat an eyelid when someone paid £16,000 for a day of partridge shooting on an estate in Salisbury.

Other lots included a two-seater Morgan, which went for £24,000, a special-edition Rolex for £18,000.

...

Cameron, who was careful not to be seen sipping champagne, left almost as soon as the auction had finished, stopping off for one quick dance with wife Samantha.

Defend Jobs - Blame The Bosses Not Foreign Workers

Over the last few days, workers have been walking out of oil refineries around the country in support of their workmates at Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire where a contract has been awarded to an Italian firm.

Lindsey, owned by Total, is building a new diesel refining plant. Diesel is cheaper to produce than petrol, but in Britain is more expensive (96p vs 85p ish per litre at present), partly because of lack of refining capacity in this country. There is also a shift from petrol towards diesel at present, with, for example, more diesel cars being produced. Hence, new refining plant needed. The contract for the new plant went to Jacobs, who have sub-contracted to an Italian company, which pre-recruited its workforce in Italy and has allegedly stated that it will not take on British labour (although this may be an urban myth).

I do not buy into the view prevalent on parts of the left - and in my own union's leadership - that all bad things come from the EU, but in this case, the European Court's Viking and Laval rulings have added a poisonous element to the situation. Under these rulings, the contractor is allowed to employ workers in Britain under conditions that would not be allowed under British law (eg. wages below the minimum wage) because it pre-recruited them in another country. It can apply the other country's legal standards if it wishes too ie. if it enables it to pay workers less and rip them off more.

Following a meeting at 7.30 yesterday morning, hundreds of workers walked out of Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland in sympathy with protesting Lindsey workers. Similar walkouts have taken place at several other refineries.

The Grangemouth workers' resentments have some history. Every so often, the refinery has a 'turnaround', the most recent of which was in 2007 and lasted about six weeks. During a turnaround, the refinery is closed down, and loads of maintenance, inspections, etc carried out. Although some of this is done by Grangemouth workers, most is done by contractors. Thousands of workers are needed, with a whole village of temporary accommodation set up for them.

In the past, the contractors have used local labour. However, especially with future turnarounds likely to be longer, there is not enough skilled local labour (partly because many skilled British workers are overseas being 'foreign labour' themselves!), so more and more foreign workers are being used. In particular, there is a shortage of fitters, electricians, plumbers and other skilled labour in the local area. In the 2007 turnaround, resentments had already started about foreign workers "taking our jobs".

Despite the nationalist rhetoric, there is a genuine issue here for workers. They are entitled to fear for their jobs, and the whole system of contracting has a corrosive effect on both wages and conditions, and on unionisation and working-class unity. Employers deliberately use contracting-out, not only to save money, but to divide the workforce into separate chunks, on different pay and conditions and harder for unions to organise. Where contractors are bringing in workers from outside the area, they are often physically separating them from other workers in temporary accommodation and with working conditions designed to keep the union out.

Meanwhile, both the New Labour government and the trade union leaders are reaping what they have sown. Remember that conference speech in which Gordon Brown said the word 'British' how many times? He can hardly complain when workers call him on his word! And the union leaders who have been willing to use nationalist slogans in the past (only recently, we had 'Keep Burberry British') are now allowing jobs to go and recommending wage cuts, hardly inspiring their members' confidence.

None of this, of course, is an excuse for turning workers' anger against fellow workers of a different nationality. We don't want 'British jobs for British workers', we want decent jobs for all workers. We need workers of each country organising co-ordinated action with each other, not making demands against each other. The BNP are salivating over the last few days' events, seeing a nationalist struggle from which they can build their influence and through which they can spread their poison. And the xenophobic element is being played up by the press, who seem to be reporting 'wildcat strikes against foreign workers' rather than actions against contracting out and fear of job cuts.

For socialists, self-organised working-class militancy is the beginning of wisdom. That does not oblige us to support reactionary strikes: the most commonly-cited is London dockers walking out in support of Enoch Powell, and I also seem to remember telecoms workers refusing to work on the Gay Switchboard in the early 1980s for fear of catching AIDS. But although they are showing some unpleasant nationalist, even racist, manifestations, the current refinery walkouts are not straightforwardly reactionary.

There are two ways in which socialists and trade unionists could do a disservice to these walkouts: by cheering them uncritically, or by denouncing them. We need to get in there, and mobilise our support to encourage them in the direction of genuine militancy and international solidarity, rather than down the dead-end of nationalism. For these walkouts to become a rallying point to oppose contracting and defend jobs, they need to turn their back on counter-productive and poisonous nationalism.

Job Losses: Can The Unions Defend Their Members?

Contrary to some opinion amongst the trade union bureacracy, workers join unions not for plastic key fobs and will-writing services, but to defend and improve their jobs. With economic crisis biting and jobs being lost by the shedload, the unions' ability to deliver this most basic of their functions is being put to the test.

And while the unions could and should put up an effective fight to protect workers from the effects of the crisis, the sad truth is that many union leaders are failing this test in quite spectacular fashion.

Faced with the collapse of Woolworths and the loss of 30,000 jobs, USDAW can do nothing more than be appalled, plead with the government to ask JobCentres to help Woolies workers get new jobs, and give us the dates when the stores will close. There is no hint of any effort to stop the job losses, not even a flicker of a fight from a union that to all intents and purposes gave up before such a fight event started.

Could USDAW not even bring itself to suggest to the government that it might take Woolworths into public ownership?! After all, Gordon Brown found £500b to bail out the banks and Woolies is on sale for a quid. Could it not have mobilised workers, their families, and the potentially massive public support? A big march? Local protests? Sit-ins of stores? Dare I say it - industrial action?! Oh no - just sadness at the demise of the shops and their members' jobs.

That sadness - at Woolworths and MFI going into the hands of the administrators - came two days after USDAW had issued one of its frequent press releases in praise of the New Labour government, lauding the pre-Budget statement and claiming that it would relieve the financial pressures that its members were feeling. USDAW's leaders have long been the most obsequious creeps to Blair/Brown amongst the trade union movement (which is quite an achievement) and one of the least effective industrially, two things which are most definitely linked!

So it was pleasing, but not surprising, that there was a hefty vote for a lefty against the sitting USDAW General Secretary in September. Said lefty - Socialist Party member Robbie Segal - is now standing for the Executive and for President, and must stand a decent chance of being elected: although if she is, we can be confident that the bureaucracy will minimise her power and influence on the union. I should also note that Robbie was not too impressive when she was on Newsnight the other night, although at least she was there and speaking up for workers and criticising the government, unlike the union's leaders.

Anyway, I digress. Lest anyone think that USDAW's leaders are the only ones failing to give their members the lead that they need and deserve, the GMB's Paul Kenny has thrown his hat into the ring. Despite his reputation for being on the left of the union movement, of being part of the 'awkward squad', Brother Kenny has called for workers to take pay cuts in order to prevent job losses, and his GMB union has already persuaded members to do this in at least three companies.

Kenny claims that "It is difficult for union officials to stand up in front of members and recommend that they should lose pay. It is much easier just to say 'No, no, no' to employers." Sadly, it seems that many union officials do not find it difficult to recommend that workers lose pay, nor do they find it easier to say 'No, no, no' to employers. In reality, most union officials seem to find these things completely the other way round (except that they might find the 'standing up in front of members' bit hard, and prefer to accept pay cuts behind closed doors). Mind you, since the economic crisis clearly threatens the financial health of unions too, can we assume that Brother Kenny and other union leaders will be offering up their pay to be cut?

Kenny's grasp of history is also poor. In the slump that started in 1920, union leaders such as Jimmy Thomas and Ernest Bevin accepted pay cuts for their members in order to save jobs. Guess what happened next? They got job cuts too.

A dishonourable mention, too, for Unite's Tony Woodley who, while making the case for a car industry bail-out on the telly yesterday, indulged himself in a little special pleading. He suggested that it was OK for the government to let the likes of Woolworths go to the wall, as other shops will pick up their trade and create jobs which the ex-Woolies workers can get. Redundant car workers, on the other hand, will remain redundant car workers, and therefore their employers deserve the bail-out that high street stores do not. Actually, not only is that special pleading of a quite nauseating nature, it is also wilfully ignorant illusion-mongering to assume that if a Tesco store sells a few more rolls of Sellotape on the back of the local Woolworths closing down, it will necessarily create new jobs.

Our urgent priority now must be to demand that the unions fight the job cuts not by sacrificing workers' pay or rights but by waging an effective battle. And if the leaders fail, the rank and file must take up the challenge, for example by occupying shops and factories under threat of closure and demanding they be taken into public ownership and run democratically. In the absence of such a fight, no amount of petitions or proclamations will do the job.

The Strange Logic Of The Rich

It is not often that I defend the New Labour government, and I think yesterday's budget announcement falls pathetically short of what is really needed, but the criticisms from various fat cats has made me feel almost defensive of Brother Darling.

The cut in VAT is A Good Thing, albeit a very small Good Thing. VAT is a thoroughly regressive tax, as not only does everyone pay it at the same rate regardless of their wealth or income, but the lower your income, the greater proportion of that income you spend on VAT-taxed goods. The poor pay more. VAT should be scrapped altogether.

Anyways, there is no guarantee that you or I will notice the VAT cut, if shops choose to keep prices the same and trouser the tax cut themselves. Bourgeois ideologues would have us believe that the discipline of the market and the rigours of competition (actually, aren't those phrases from New Labour's Clause 4?) would ensure that prices will fall, but the market has not exactly covered itself in glory of late, has it?

I have just watched a city geezer on the telly scoffing at the VAT cut, pouring scorn on the idea that anyone would even notice saving "36 pence on a £20 sweater". Clearly, he's a bloke who does not need to take care of the pennies so the pounds take care of themselves - unlike lots of people. So good on the BBC interviewer who retorted, "Well, you're used to talking in millions and billions - and that's just your expenses!"

There has also been dismay at the prospect of extra tax on incomes over £150,000 - mainly from those on incomes over £150,000. The main characteristic of these whinges has been the reservation of arguments for the rich that they would never allow to be wasted on the working class.

"It's a disincentive: why should I work harder if I would only have to pay more tax?", whined a wealthy businesswoman on Radio 5 yesterday. By that logic, cleaners, teaching assistants and numerous other low-paid workers would not even bother getting out of bed in the morning (or, often, in the middle of the night) to go to work at all, would they? Clearly, low pay is a great motivator for the low paid, riches a great motivator for the rich. Glad we've got that straight.

The next, and somewhat breathtaking, whine was from a posh bloke who argued that there is no point taxing the rich because they will just find ways to avoid paying the tax bill - indeed, the government could lose, rather than gain, income! That logic is so brilliant that I think we should extend it to everyone. We shouldn't charge Council tenants rent because they will just find ways of not paying it. Shops shouldn't charge for any goods because people will just find ways to nick them. We shouldn't make kids go to school because they will just find ways to skive off. We shouldn't have laws because people will just find ways to break them.

The rich seem to believe that they are subject to different rules, and even different logic, from the rest of us mere mortals.

NUT / PCS: Are Workers Unwilling To Fight?

The last couple of days have seen NUT members vote by only a small majority on a low turnout for strike action; and PCS call off a strike called for Monday based on a ballot which also had a smallish majority on a low turnout. NUT's Executive has decided not to call strike action; PCS has got the employer's agreement to extend its mandate pending talks.

It was hardly a surprise to see the PCS strike called off, as its advance press release had led on a call to the government to avoid the strike rather than an announcement that the strike was to take place.

I'm not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of the specific decisions not to call and to call off, respectively, strike action - rank-and-file activists in those unions are better placed than me to judge the rights and wrongs. But obviously the weak mandate is a key factor, and I think it is worth kicking off a discussion on why the members' votes were so un-resounding. I would suggest two factors.

Firstly, the economic crisis. Many workers may respond to the economic doom and gloom with a reluctance to rock the boat in case the boat capsizes and tips them out. They may feel too nervous about keeping their job to be willing to put themselves on the line for higher wages - perhaps especially in the civil service where so many jobs have already gone. Or they may go along with the idea that in times like this, the whole country should pull together and tighten our belts.

This is an understandable but unfortunate attitude. Alternatively, workers might respond to the economic crisis in a more belligerent way, saying "If I have got higher fuel bills then I need higher wages", or "If the government - my employer - can afford £500 billion to bail out the bankers, then it can afford less than that to give me and my workmates a decent pay rise". Indeed, workers may well feel both the fear and and the sense of injustice at the same time. Which one is decisive in choosing whether to vote for a fightback or not may well depend in their confidence in their union's chances of winning.

Which leads neatly on to my second point. Striking involves sacrifice, and beyond a certain limit, workers will be willing to make that sacrifice not just to make a gesture but if they think they have a chance of winning. This is perhaps especially the case, and more of a cold mathematical calculation, when it comes to pay fights. In my experience, when a union asks its members to fight over pay, the members ponder on how much they will lose by striking versus how much extra they are likely to win.

It has been great to see both NUT and PCS take national strike action over pay when for so many years neither did. But those have been one-day strikes months apart, easily ridden out by the employer, and I can't see how anyone would think that Gordon Brown would crumble in the face of that.

It is a particular shame to see the confidence, mobilisation and power of April 24's action apparently dissipating, its momentum allowed to drain rather than being built on.

Finally, I am not excepting my own union from criticism. RMT has messed up its share of pay fights, and lost a ballot in Network Rail operational grades earlier this year. Here is an interesting analysis as to why that particular ballot was lost.