Well done - Janine Booth elected onto RMT's national Council of Executives.

Congrats to Janine , from Workers Liberty :


AWL member Janine Booth has become the first ever woman to be elected to the London Transport seat on the RMT's national Council of Executives.
In a landslide victory, Janine received more than double the amount of votes won by her opponents. The key focus of her campaign was increasing rank-and-file control in the union and developing assertive industrial strategies designed to win. With the jobs dispute on London Underground now at a key juncture, the presence of a rank-and-file socialist like Janine on the union's national leadership could make a real difference.

Oh and don't forget to keep blogging here on your experiences .

Some thoughts on all the protesting malarkey , positive ones as well !

I have been a bit quiet with the blogging,doing temp work is very unpredictable. I tend to be rung up first thing and asked to go asap to a job. I have done some very long two day shifts recently and all in all found it hard to get my head into the right place to do a post.Lots have been going on and I wish I had been able to go on some of the demos, but paying the mortgage and bills comes first I'm afraid. Here though are some thoughts on the last week or so.

A little while back I did what was perhaps a bit of a jaded post re the students demos . My concern was that the protests around education should be part of a wider movement around the cuts to the public sector and should involve those who have or are at risk of losing their jobs as well as those who rely on the services they provide . With regard to the last group this needs to be done sensitively , not always a trait of the left . At the moment there is much anxiety and also expectations being dashed for them.

Over the last decade , people have been encouraged to be more independent and have more control over the support they receive. Older people have been helped to live in their own homes or extra care housing where they have a flat and not just a room . People with learning disabilities have moved out of long stay hospitals and many now live in their own flats , some of which are shared ownership or housing association, rather than large homes. Same with others , such as those with long term mental health issues .

The old ways of people being expected to be happy with day centres , separate from the rest of the community , have been being eroded . People with learning disabilities, for example, have been moving from only having the option of day centres to being more part of their community . Many have chosen to do training , voluntary work or paid work. In this climate that is becoming less likely. The cuts mean that these improvements , that people can live like the rest of us , could be coming to an end. I know of a number of areas that are looking backwards to residential care as a 'cheaper' option . The chances of people getting into the employment market is less likely now, the day centre beckons. Expectations raised are now dashed . Anxiety increases with all the uncertainty. Having choice, control and independence for people who need support will be seen as a 'luxury' when the cuts are made . It will be a return to the old ways and the cheapest .

OK, gone round the houses a bit here . My point though is cuts to public services are not just about jobs, they are about the day to day quality of life for people . That will diminish and we will start to go backwards . There are a number of strong advocacy groups nationally, as well as local ones. They need to be part of campaigns and that will mean the left listening to their concerns and experiences and not trying to lead .

As an old cynic I must now admit I am becoming more positive with recent developments . The energy and determination of the student and schoolchildren movement is encouraging and it seems quite infectious. As is so often the case in the NUS, and unions in general, the members have been more radical than the leadership. The actions and pressure of the students have forced the NUS President to back them and admit the NUS had been spineless and too cautious. TUC take note.

I haven't been on the blogs much, I hope to do a bit of a round up of reporting on the demos in the next day or two, but I did notice Phil has written about the storming of Lewisham Town hall against the Council making cuts . Very heartening to see the direct action being taken to the Town Halls and against the cuts in services. I have also seen that students joined the RMT picket lines this week, that's what is needed , united against all cuts . It also seems that the Coalition of Resistance conference was both well attended and not dull in the extreme , pretty good going when faced with many speakers and a long day. Liam , who lets just say can be a tad cynical as well, even went as far as to call it 'exhilarating.' High praise indeed .

Now I'm not naive enough to think this is 68 again, that the revolution is on its way or that the left will be united , but hey its not a bad start is it ?

Pic: Eddie and Cat's Dawg . Totally unrelated to the post, but couldn't resist!

Lobby your MP to back the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Via the LRC :

John McDonnell MP is sponsoring the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill as his private members Bill in Parliament. The Bill would tackle the increasing practice by employers of using minor technical errors in the balloting process - which have no material effect on the outcome - to take unions to court in order to prevent them from taking industrial action.

The Bill is being debated in Parliament on Friday 22 October, and requires 100 MPs to attend the debate and to vote for it. If you have a Labour MP, please lobby them to attend and vote for the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill. Come to the Lobby of Parliament and Rally on 13 October to tell your MP to back the Bill.

You can lobby your MP by email using the e-action through the PCS website or download the model letter from the RMT website to print out. You can also download the briefing on the Bill, prepared by John Hendy QC.

John McDonnell MP said:

“We have seen in the current BA Cabin Crew dispute and many other recent disputes, employers have been able to exploit loopholes in the existing law by using minor technical errors in a trade union ballot to thwart trade unionists from taking strike action.

“This resort to the courts by some ruthless employers is bringing current employment law into disrepute and undermining industrial relations in this country. This cannot be right and in the interests of good industrial relations needs to be addressed.”

Read Prof Keith Ewing’s article from the Morning Star (09/10/10), urging Labour MPs to back the Bill.

Dash it, my MP is now a Tory :-(

BBC Response to 'Perks' Complaint

Stroppyreaders may remember that I complained to the BBC about their use of the word 'perks' to describe BA cabin crew's travel allowances. Here is Auntie Beeb's response ...

Dear Ms Booth

Reference 10172

Thank you for your e-mail regarding BBC News.

I understand that you’re unhappy with the content of recent reports as you feel the term ‘perks’ is inappropriate and offensive when referring to British Airways staff travel concessions.

I can assure you that no harm or offence is intended and we’re well aware of our commitment to impartiality. Certainly, we don’t aim to denigrate the work done by BA staff in any way.

I appreciate you may continue to disagree with this, however, so I've registered your strong comments on our audience log. This is a daily internal report of audience feedback which we circulate to all BBC News staff, including their senior management. It ensures that your concerns are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

John McDonnell launches Bill to restore the right to strike

LRC press release :

John McDonnell, supported by the Trade Union Co-ordinating Group, presented his Private Members’ Bill to parliament today. If adopted, the Bill would significantly improve unions’ ability to defend their members and would be the first step towards the full restoration of trade union rights.

After coming first in the Private Members’ Ballot and in consultation with the trade union movement and leading trade union lawyers, John McDonnell MP is sponsoring the “Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill” to tackle the increasing practice by employers of using minor technical errors in the balloting process - which have no material effect on the outcome - to take unions to court in order to prevent them from taking industrial action.

Commenting on the Bill, John McDonnell MP said:

“We have seen in the current BA Cabin Crew dispute and many other recent disputes, employers have been able to exploit loopholes in the existing law by using minor technical errors in a trade union ballot to thwart trade unionists from taking strike action.

“This resort to the courts by some ruthless employers is bringing current employment law into disrepute and undermining industrial relations in this country. This cannot be right and in the interests of good industrial relations needs to be addressed.”

Bob Crow, General Secretary of the RMT, said:

“There is no doubt that this government of millionaire public schoolboys will encourage the use of the courts to try and stop workers from fighting back against the attacks that are being lined up by the ConDem administration.

“RMT has been hauled through the courts on the most spurious of grounds by employers trying to sabotage democratic votes by our members whose only crime has been to fight for their jobs and safe working conditions. We have seen the arsenal of legal measures ranged up against us by the employers increase in recent months as the bosses’ lawyers have homed in on the most ludicrous of technicalities to try and outlaw the right to strike by the back door.

“John McDonnell is proving himself once again to be the champion of the working classes in dragging this assault on democracy and human rights out of the Courts and into the daylight through his Private Members Bill.”

Steve Gillan, General Secretary of the POA, said:

“The POA supports the Private Members Bill entitled Lawful Industrial Action as employers are using the anti trade union legislation to stop legitimate industrial action from taking place, by getting the Courts to rule on minor technical errors. You only have to look at the disgraceful cases taken against Unite and RMT Unions. This is a small step in the right direction but the anti trade union legislation needs to go to protect all workers.”

Mark Serwotka, General Secretary of the PCS, said:

“PCS backs John McDonnell’s Bill which would repeal the law that outrageously allows employers to use the courts to block the democratic will of trade unionists to take action. If Parliamentary elections had to satisfy such stringent regulations, we would have no MPs and 650 court cases pending.

“This piece of legislation would improve industrial relations by encouraging employers to seek dialogue, rather than legal wrangling over minutiae, to settle disputes.”

Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the FBU, said:

“The Fire Brigades Union strongly welcomes this Bill and urges everyone to get behind it. The amount of hurdles that unions have to jump in order to take lawful industrial action is nothing short of a scandal, and is an infringement of workers’ basic democratic right to withdraw their labour.”

Joe Marino, General Secretary of the BFAWU, said:

“Recent legal action has shown that the law in relation to industrial action ballots is an ass. Britain already has the harshest industrial relations legislation in the civilized world and recent comments from the CBI show that even this is not enough for some employers. The Private Members Bill from John McDonnell MP will simply eradicate some of the most objectionable elements of this legislation and stop frivolous legal cases by employers who would be better served seeking negotiation rather than costly legal remedies.”

Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the NUJ, said:

“The NUJ supports the Lawful Industrial Action Private Members’ Bill because we suffer from some of the worst trade union laws in Europe. Employers should not be allowed to use the courts as a way to clamp down on democratic votes in the workplace. The heavily one-sided nature of the law does not respect basic civic rights and freedoms and therefore needs to change.”

Note:

* John McDonnell MP is sponsoring the Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill to amend section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) to extend the circumstances in which, by virtue of that section, industrial action is not to be treated as excluded from the protection of section 219 of that Act.

The Bill has been co-signed by Kate Hoey MP, Tony Lloyd MP, Dave Anderson MP, Michael Connarty MP, Austin Mitchell MP, Frank Doran MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Jim Sheridan MP, David Crausby MP, Ian Lavery MP and John Cryer MP.

Second Reading of the Bill will be 22nd October 2010. There will be a mass rally and lobby of parliament on the 13th October 2010.

* The Trade Union Co-ordinating Group (TUCG) brings together eight national unions (BFAWU, FBU, NAPO, NUJ, PCS, POA, RMT and URTU), representing over half a million workers, with the objective of co-ordinating campaigning activities on key issues facing their members and giving the unions a new and stronger representative voice in Parliament and beyond.

* The TUCG’s Annual Tolpuddle Commemorative Event ‘Restoring the Right to Strike’ 7pm, Monday 19th July 2010, Grimond Room, will focus on John McDonnell’s Private Members Bill.

Cross post - ACAS sit-in: the future of the Socialist Workers’ Party

Right, still away and trying to avoid the real world and the Internet . Have succumbed though to a little potter on the blogs and notice the kerfuffle about the ACAS sit in. As no one else here has written about it, I'm pinching Dave's post on the subject :

THERE might be times and places in which it would be warranted for the far left unilaterally to disrupt talks aimed at settling an industrial dispute; it’s just that yesterday was clearly not among them.

Whatever justifications the Socialist Workers’ Party advances for invading the headquarters of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and staging a sit-in, one claim it cannot make in truth is that they did so because those involved in the British Airways strike wanted it to do so.

The irony is that several generations of socialists schooled in the IS tradition will be well aware of the dangers of what SWP founder Tony Cliff used to call ‘substitutionism’; the tendency of the revolutionary party to substitute itself for the working class. What we saw at ACAS last night was absolutely a (small-scale) case in point.

It’s not that anybody on the hard left has got a problem with direct action. If we were in a situation in which easy-lifer trade union bureaucrats on six-figure salaries were about to sign a shockingly unfavourable deal, despite the express desire of the low-paid rank-and-file to keeping on fighting, then such tactics might rightly be contemplated.

This time round, nobody in their right minds could accuse Unite leader Tony Woodley of behaving in this fashion. Sure, he is looking for a compromise; but then he’s a general secretary. General secretaries look for compromises. Let’s assume – for the sake of argument – that he was about to sell out the cabin crew. Even then, the initiative would properly rest with the strikers themselves, not the paper-sellers.

Sure, the press reports will inevitably be exaggerated. There are discrepancies between the various versions available online, but as far as I can make out, only around a dozen Trots got onto the floor where the talks were taking place.

They chanted for a bit and then – much like Elvis, I suppose – left the building. It will have been a minor league pain in the arse for all concerned, but no biggie in the wider scheme of things.

But what has rendered me bewildered is the sheer bloody pointlessness of it all. There seems to be no obvious rationale, far less any intelligent assessment of how such a move fits in with wider efforts to win the BA dispute. Unless I am missing something, the reasoning more or less comes down to ‘we are SWPers, this is what we do, innit’.

Perhaps the perpetrators are congratulating themselves on the publicity they have secured, in the hope that it will make them attractive to some layers of youth. Perhaps. But to most of the population they will come across as a bunch of berks determined to undertake occupations just for the sake of it. In the eyes of many ordinary union reps, the SWP’s standing will be even more tarnished than it is already.

As the terms ‘Socialist Workers’ Party’ and ‘revolutionary left’ are synonymous in many people’s minds, the rest of us can expect to get flak for this when we get back into our workplaces tomorrow.

In truth, I’ve still got a soft spot for the SWP. I have in the past been a member, and I think that the left as a whole would benefit from having a sizeable Marxist formation outside of Labour, with a base among the most combative sections within the working class.

But it is increasingly apparent that the SWP is not that kind of a party, and there is nothing in its current practice that so much as hints that it has the potential to become that kind of party. That ‘workers in struggle’ – to use the almost anachronistic jargon – are not attracted to the SWP in the way that they once were to the Communist Party of Great Britain tells you everything you need to know on this point. What is more, even at the level of theory, signs of disorientation are increasingly apparent.

During the era when post-war consensus social democracy dominated politics, strikes were an everyday feature of labour movement life, and international relations was characterised by the Cold War, the far left had answers on a postcard courtesy of the classic Marxist texts. Yes, the SWP tweaked those texts, but still operated within a recognisably Marxist framework.

We now live in a very different world, and the SWP has patently lost the plot. Since the death of Cliff, it has increasingly oriented away from the working class and towards both ‘the movements’ on the one hand and openly rightwing and bourgeois Islamist forces on the other.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the precisely the same sort of mistake that the Fourth International made in adapting to student vanguards and radical third-worldism in the 1960s and 1970s. The IS was among the FI’s sternest critics, and understandably so. But look, it’s way beyond my pay grade to act as keeper of the Cliffite flame.

Just as many Trotskyists who entered the Labour Party in the early 1980s ended up going native, so the SWP is increasingly infected by the quasi-situationist bad habits it has picked up from its latest turn. And to this day, the organisation remains in denial over just how much of a fiasco the Respect debacle truly represented.

International Socialism Journalism still sometimes carries impressive articles. But more and more it instantiates an internalised system of thought, in which positions are justified by reference to the writings of Cliff, Kidron, Harman and Callinicos rather than engaging with any ideas from outside this constellation.

It is difficult to engage the average SWPer in friendly informal Marxist-to-Marxist political discussion, as once might have occurred over a pint after a union meeting, for instance. Even those who would once have relished arguing for their politics against other leftist viewpoints now simply shy away.

There has been a lot of gloating on other blogs about the ACAS occupation. Socialist Unity speculates that the SWP is ‘finished’, which it very obviously is not. Harry’s Place is predictably jubilant at having its prejudices confirmed. I am not inclined to join in.

But can I just say – more in sorrow than in anger – that the comrades badly need to get their act together. There are many warning signs that the SWP is rapidly degenerating politically, and some of the obvious historical parallels leave me feeling more than a little uneasy.

Workers Standing Up For Themselves? There Must Be A Law Against It!

British Airways have gone crawling to the unelected octogenarian wig-wearing brigade in an attempt to get cabin crew strike action declared illegal.

The company claims inaccuracies in the union's ballot, in that people who no longer worked for BA were sent ballot papers. I would be interested to know whether BA notifies Unite when employees leave, because it seems to me that if an employer refuses to assist a union in maintaining 100% accurate membership information, then it has no right to complain if there is a slight flaw.

Moreover, the very idea that a handful of inaccuracies would have altered the outcome of a ballot in which over 80% voted and over 90% of them voted Yes is, of course, completely absurd.

And therein lies the crux of this particular anti-union law. It is not designed to ensure ballots are spotlessly accurate - if it were, it would require employers to co-operate with the union in maintaining records. Rather, it is designed to give courts a pretext to ban strikes at the behest of any employer who can find the tiniest imperfection in the ballot.

The bigger the workforce, the higher the number of workplaces and grades, the faster the staff turnover, the nearer impossible it is for unions to keep up-to-the-minute information for balloting. When RMT on London Underground fell foul of the law on balloting information in 2001, there were 150 staff movements per week on the Tube!

Meanwhile, Unite General Secretary Tony Woodley has just been on the telly. He told us that his members (not himself, presumably) were prepared to take a permanent 2.5% pay cut as an alternative to BA's proposals, and that they would call off the strike if the company paused - explicitly, did not need to indefinitely postpone - its imposition of attacks on pay and conditions. If this was an attempt to appear 'reasonable', it appeared to fail spectacularly, as text messages condemning the union continued to wing their way to the BBC. A bit more assertiveness and a bit less grovelling would go a long way.

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.

The Return of the Post Strikes?

Forwarded by National Shop Stewards Network
-------------------------------------

Postal Workers' Dispute - London Update 20.11.09

At this afternoon's meeting of the London Divisional Committee it was reported that after some six meetings with London Royal Mail they are still refusing to honour the full terms of the interim agreement.

All they want to do is make more cuts and introduce "absorption" without re-engaging about the changes they have already imposed with regard to job cuts, revisions, part-timers, belated hours, rest day hours, 4-day weeks etc in line with the agreement.

It is clear that London Management want to continue to punish, bully, intimidate and harass our members for daring to stand up to them and defend our terms and conditions.

The London Division has therefore unanimously agreed to demand that the national union, when it meets on Tuesday, announce national strike action. This is a national agreement they're breaking, it's a national union, therefore it requires national action.

Support the Post Strikes

We should all do what we can to support the national post strike due to take place later this week.

Just as with the firefighters' dispute seven years ago (yeah I know, doesn't seem that long, does it?), the employers are banging on about the need for "modernisation", a term which sounds like an inarguably good thing, but actually means whatever the people advocating it want it to mean. In this case, it means "attacking jobs and working conditions", just as it did with the firefighters.

The "modernisation" propaganda is supplemented by a dollop of cant about "Spanish practices". I've no idea what the Spanish have done to deserve this particular term, but you will notice that the employer's side has very little to offer up in the way of specific examples of the allegedly bad practices. The only one I have seen specified is that you can go home when you've finished your work. Blimey, what a terrible thing. Obviously, people should sit around the sorting office doing nothing instead. Or perhaps they should just walk more slowly when out delivering.

Neither can we fall for Mandelson's line that the strike is "suicidal" because it will damage the Royal Mail as a business. Follow that argument and pretty much no workers would ever go on strike, and we would all be powerless to defend ourselves against the employers' attacks.

Mind you, threats by clients, especially big ones, to take their business elsewhere are an issue for strike strategy. Those threats would be seriously undermined if workers in the alternative distribution companies refused to handle post which should go out by Royal Mail. There is a tradition of such solidarity, for example when posties refused to handle scab post from Grunwick in one of the most important disputes of the 1970s. I don't know in detail which of these companies are unionised and if so, by which union - but, as one exmaple, Initial CityLink workers are in RMT.

With Royal Mail planning to take on 30,000 casuals to help break the strike, people who support the CWU's fight can help out here too. Student unions should oppose recruitment campaigns around colleges. JobCentre and benefits workers should refuse to promote scab jobs or to coerce unemployed people into taking them under threat of losing benefits.

But first off - everyone to the picket lines on Thursday morning!

"Union fires official for taking side of low-paid women"

I wonder whether any of our Scottish readers or Unison members might be able to tell us more about this?

Sounds pretty outrageous to me.

One thing (among several) that stands out for me is the it appears that the union sacked this geezer following complaints from an employer.

Save Vestas

Just a bit of a round up on this.

First off check out the website and the Facebook group for updates and how to help.

There is a petition, so head over and sign it.

There is a solidarity protest at the Vestas HQ:


Create Green Jobs – Don’t destroy them
Support the Vestas Occupation
Solidarity protest at Vestas UK HQ in Warrington
Saturday 25th July @ 12 noon
Vestas Celtic UK HQ
302 Bridgewater Place
WA3 6XG
Warrington
For Further info: Richard 07760 224 580 – Gtr Manchester Respect

Hat tip Liam.

Liam also has a report from the London demo last Wednesday. Seems Simon Hughes was heckled :

Did you know that Simon Hughes is not a Trotskyist? I can exclusively reveal tonight that the Liberal Democrat MP is not in favour of nationalising stuff under workers’ control and that this is the view of his party.
Who’d have predicted that? Eh?

The cops had decreed that no megaphones were to be used and I can’t claim to have heard too much of what he said but there was something about the importance of skills, something about windpower being a good thing and global warming being a bad thing. Not quite the revolutionary programme but not worth getting your knickers in a twist about. Applaud mildly and see who’s up next is the sensible reaction.
Gosh no!
“It’s a popular front!” “He’s just grandstanding!” “Let’s occupy the ministry!” “Are you in favour of nationalisation???”

Hmm.

Threat to sack binmen and street cleaners in Brighton if they don't accept cuts of up to £8000

Pay equality is a good thing, men and women should be paid the same for work that is comparable. Trouble is, this is being used as an excuse to "equal down." Women have fought hard to get equal pay , but not to get the wages of men reduced. These workers, men and women, are usually some of the most low paid . Eddie drew my attention to cuts being proposed in Edinburgh.Seems this is not a one off:

A council has drafted a secret plan to sack 821 workers if they refuse to take pay cuts of up to £8,000 each.

A confidential document seen by The Argus sets out Brighton and Hove City Council's latest move in its attempts to stave off compensation pay-offs which cost it more than £23 million this year.

It sets out proposals to terminate the contracts of 821 workers who are mostly employed either as binmen and street cleaners in its CityClean waste department or in the city's parks service.

Their jobs would be lost on January 1, 2010, unless they accept new lower wage deals.

The document proposed the plan as a contingency if negotiations with trade unions over the pay cuts fail.

The cuts being asked of workers range from £2000-£8000.

Any examples of this happening elsewhere ?

Cross post - "599-1 for strike action.Edinburgh binmen fight pay cut. SSP - Scottish Socialist Party"

Found this via Eddie Truman, on Facebook. The article is by Colin Fox and its on the Scottish Socialist Party web page .

Here it is cross posted here, with agreement of Eddie :


Edinburgh binmen refuse to lift £70 a week less as council demands cuts
by Colin Fox - 4th July 2009

The Scottish Socialist Party received a call from David Cameron last week.
But this wasn't the David Cameron born with a silver spoon in his mouth who went to Eton or votes Tory.

He is a bin man with Edinburgh City Council and has been for 21 years.
David contacted us to ask for help after the Council's SNP / LIberal administration informed him and 600 of his collegaues their pay was to be 'modernised', by chopping £3,000 a year from it.
Bin men like David earn £16,000 including bonuses. Management aims to take £70 per week off them.
Council leaders insist the cuts are necessary if they are to implement the 'single status' agreement in the Equal Pay Act.

This Act, passed into law three decades ago but not fully implemented, affords women workers the same rights as men by insisting that work of equal value be equally rewarded regardless of gender.

The Scottish Socialist Party supports this principle wholeheartedly, however we, and the rest of the labour movement for that matter, are determined that wages are 'equalised up' not down. In other words it must mean a substantial pay rise for women not a cut for men.
In a ballot result announced last week David Cameron reported that the 600 bin men in Edinburgh had voted '599 to one' to strike against the proposed wage cuts.
He further explained that the workforce had begun a 'work to rule' refusing overtime or taking up shifts on their days off.
The union believes the ballot result puts the ball firmly in the Council's court. The prospect of rubbish piling up in the city's streets with temperatures, as we have seen this week, into the 80's and with 200,000 visitors heading here for the Festival will put the SNP/Liberal coalition under huge pressure to back down.
Meanwhile I have written to Stephen McGregor, TGWU Unite shop steward pledging the Scottish Socialist Party's full support for the union. I added that as far as I was concerned bin men earning only 2/3rds of the average wage was an inadequate level of pay for the important and yet dirty job they do in serving our communities across this city.

Just one quibble, were all the binmen, men ? I know its mainly men, but I have seen women 'binmen.'

Expenses Scandal: Why Are Union Leaders So Quiet?

I may have missed a lot of proclamations of outrage by trade union leaders about the MPs' expenses scandal. If so, this post will be a little off the mark.

But if, as I suspect, they have actually been quite quiet on the subject, it begs the question as to why.

Possibly, they have been too busy shouting from the rooftops about job losses, pay cuts and attacks on workers' rights? Sadly, no: union leaders' response to these issues has ranged from co-operating with the bosses to flawed attempts to resist, and their efforts certainly leave hours in the day to proclaim on other issues too.

Possibly, the Labour-loyal union leaders do not want to avoid chiming in with attacks on the party that they still delude themselves is 'theirs'. This is probably partly true, but they could get round that by sticking the boot into the Tories - there is plenty of material, from moats to floating duck islands, to throw in their direction.

Which leaves another explanation - namely, that union leaders may not want to invite scrutiny of their expenses. I have had the dubious pleasure of attending TUC Congress a few times, which comes across as a week-long binge where union big cheeses already on salaries way above their members' hardly dip their hands in their own pockets all week, instead living on sponsored nosh-ups and flashing the union credit card at the bar. And during the other 51 weeks of the year, union activists continually find that unions are far more reluctant to part with cash for rank-and-file initiatives, representation, organising, campaigning or - dare I mention it? - strike pay than for hospitality.

I have no doubt that some union leaders are very much more guilty of this kind of thing than others, but I am equally convinced that the feathering of leaders' nests is not only wrong in itself, but contributes significantly to rank-and-file members' alienation from trade unions. It also puts a weapon in the employers' hands: while we busily publicise the fat-cat salaries, bonuses and expense accounts of the bosses who attack our jobs, pay and rights, they can retort that at least some union leaders are in a similar league.

I Wouldn't Deliver Fascist Crap Either - Would You?

From the Manchester Evening News - hat tip: Bruce

Posties refuse BNP leaflets
May 19, 2009

ROYAL Mail workers have refused to deliver British National Party election leaflets as their union accuses Royal Mail of breaking a 'conscience clause' allowing staff to refuse to deliver literature they find offensive.

A number of the 160 delivery staff at a postal depot in Macclesfield told bosses they would not distribute the material. Some postal staff in Prestwich, Bury, Glossop, Wilmslow, and Alderley Edge have also objected to delivering the leaflets.

Sian Jones, spokeswoman for the Communication Workers Union said: "At Macclesfield staff were apparently told by delivery depot manager that if they did not deliver the BNP leaflets they would not be allowed to deliver any political leaflets, and so would lose money, as they get extra for delivering them. That is a clear breach of the clause we agreed.

The pamphlets promote the BNP ahead of the European Parliamentary elections on June 4.

The Royal Mail has a legal obligation under the Representation of the People Act to deliver election material but delivery of the leaflets has caused anger.

Vicky Charles, who lives in Hazel Grove, Stockport, said: "The postman gave one of the leaflets to me as we were outside packing the car. I was outraged and said I didn't want it.

"But he said 'I have got to deliver it'. It was full of inflammatory statements relating to Muslims and asylum seekers. It annoyed me greatly, but how will people from black and ethnic minority groups feel about having this stuff pushed through their letter box?"

A spokesman for the Royal Mail said in a statement said: "Where possible we will try to be flexible and sensitive to individual personal circumstances or beliefs. However, we need to balance this with Royal Mail's legal obligations, under the Representation of People Act, to deliver election material."

BNP spokesman Simon Darby, said: "It is called an election - it is one of the privileges of living in a democracy.

"Most of the leaflets have gone out. If some post workers don't want to deliver the leaflets they will find some with a more professional attitude, who want the overtime and will. It is up to the public what they read not post workers."

He said the Royal mail had delivered 29 million leaflets nationwide for the BNP.

Bob Gibson, CWU national official, said: "We have a national agreement with Royal Mail with a conscience clause which allows individuals to exercise their right to not deliver material which they find offensive or believe their customers may find offensive.

"It is not specific to any political party. We are protecting the rights of our members to be safe at work. Royal Mail has a responsibility to ensure the safety of their employees.

"We have had instances of delivery workers being threatened, chased and spat at for delivering some election leaflets. We will support individuals who feel strongly about delivering these items. Postal workers are well within their rights to refuse to deliver offensive material."

Lewisham Bridge and the Non-Union Fightback

Parents continue to occupy the roof of Lewisham Bridge school, under threat of closure and demolition. Well, you would, wouldn't you? Parents defend their kids from all sorts of things - illness, playground bullies, traffic ... why not council wreckers too?!

Here is the Early Day Motion that John McDonnell and others have put together. Why not drop your MP a note asking him/her to add his/her name? Better still, if you live in London, take yourself down to Lewisham and spend a spell on the roof yourself!

EDM 1345 LEWISHAM BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL 24.04.2009

McDonnell, John; Cryer, Ann; Wareing, Robert N

That this House applauds the action taken by parents of children at the Lewisham Bridge Primary School who are occupying the school rooftop to express their anger at plans to close their school and build a new academy; notes that pupils' lives are being disrupted by being bussed to a temporary school in New Cross as a result of the project whilst Lewisham Bridge Primary School currently stands empty; and therefore urges Lewisham Council to halt plans to demolish the school and allow the pupils to return.

It is interesting that it is parents, rather than teachers or other school staff, who are leading this action. Just as it is interesting that it was non-unionised workers who occupied Prisme in Dundee, and seemed to have achieved a victory in winning funding for a workers' co-operative. Even where unionised workers have taken radical action, such as at Ford Visteon, they did not have a particular tradition of militancy or active union involvement. And this is not a new phenomenon. The Grunwick dispute, one of the major struggles on the 1970s, was a fight by workers who at the outset were not union members.

So what is happening here? Are established trade unions proving to be a brake, rather than a vehicle, for working-class resistance? Do unions give out a vibe to members that the union will do everything for them, or worse, that there is nothing that can be done? If you are not in a union, does that mean you will be more inclined to rely on yourself and your workmates than on some distant bureaucracy?

In other words, are we wasting our time trying to build and strengthen trade union organisation? Would we better off forgetting all that and looking out for spontaneous, radical action to support?!

Or does this make the case not for giving up on trade unions, but for a radically different view of what an effective trade union would be?

The comments box is all yours ...

Pics From G20 Protest

Reporting on today's Put People First march in London to coincide with the G20 summit, I thought I would start with the most amusing placard of the day. Private Fraser would love it.







Next, here's the other 'arf and kiddiwinks on the Tube from Whitechapel to Temple preparing to protest. (Indulge me, please, this is one of only two occasions on which we have all managed to go on a demonstration together.)

In the spirit of which, here is young Harrison in his RMT hat.

I will be posting lots of RMT pics on the RMT London Calling website later this weekend, so will include just one here - a snap of part of the RMT contingent, with a few branch banners and flags on display.

A comment here ... Loads of unions had contingents with logo-adorned flags, banners, T-shirts, Hi-Vi vests, whistles and what have you. But very few had anything with any demands or political slogans on. The one exception on the RMT contingent was the 'No to EU' banner at the front, which I avoided straying too close to.

It seems to me that unions are preoccupied with branding themselves rather than raising their demands - with being seen to be there rather than using being there to promote their issues and battles. Where were the logo-adorned placards demanding 'Stop The Job Cuts', or 'Scrap the Anti-Union Laws', or 'Decent Pay and Jobs for All'?!

Fortunately, the march was not bereft of such banners, this being a good example ... Workers of the World Unite - defend women, migrants, youth ...

... and this making a highly pertinent point too. These were on the anti-capitalist, feminist and internationalist contingent that Workers' Liberty supported.

Homer Hangs On

Stroppyblog's original Wanker of the Week / Friday Fuckwit - Derek Simpson - has crawled back into office as General Secretary of Unite, following a less-than-impressive victory with just 38% of the vote on a woeful 12% turnout. My calculations tell me that means that just four-and-a-half per cent of his members want Derek to be their leader.

Simpson also polled just two-thirds of the votes that he received when first elected in 2002, when he beat Ken Jackson by 89,521 votes to 89,115. Perhaps the better his members know Derek Simpson, the less they like him.

Jerry Hicks came second with 25%, with right-winger Kevin Coyne trailing in third with 19% and some other geezer 1% behind him.

Goodness, makes you wonder what a credible left-wing candidate could have achieved.

Derek Simpson: what a tosser

(pic © Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk)

I think that Stroppyblog's Wanker Of The Week award has been resoundingly won by Derek Simpson, General Secretary of Unite-Amicus. Del is seen in this picture, with a couple of Daily Star 'girls', waving the flag for British Jobs For British Workers.

In doing so, he manages to be divisive, sexist and nationalistic, to assist a vile right-wing rag in disingenuously promoting itself to workers, and to debase a genuine workers' struggle. Quite an achievement for one photo.

Hat tip: Vicki / Jess Hurd