Weekly Worker 424 Thursday March 21 2002
SA trade union conference
One of the notable features of Saturday’s Socialist Alliance trade union conference lay in the organisation of a series of workshops. Here could be seen our weaknesses and lack of direction, but also our enormous potential - if we begin to organise trade union fractions
Rail: Vote for fraction
Greg Tucker opened the meeting in the Dolphin pub - directly over the road from the Camden Centre. There were around 20 comrades there representing all three rail unions - RMT, Aslef and the TSSA. Comrade Tucker stressed the importance of Bob Crow’s election as RMT general secretary and his principled stance of presenting sitting Labour MPs with a list of political conditions - to which they must agree if they are to continue receiving union funding.
After he finished there was a brief pause when no one seemed willing to get the ball rolling. Yet once it had begun the debate proved fascinating and could have usefully continued for hours.
On the political fund there were essentially three positions.
Mick Skiggs, chair of Portsmouth RMT, favoured a drive to ensure that members could exercise an individual choice - this actually found no support. Nor did the argument presented by a lone member of the Socialist Party in England and Wales get much of an echo. The comrade insisted that there should be no “shifting from one Labour MP to another”. Labour was now a party of big business. A new party is needed. There must be a complete break from Labour. Support came from Martin Wicks only - an RMT militant from Swindon and formerly a leading oppositionist in the Socialist Labour Party.
The majority of comrades rejected such essentially apolitical formulations. Janine Booth, a member of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and the only female railworker to speak, presented a convincing argument. There should be no individualistic withdrawal from the political fund - which is a collective expression of class power. Unions need to be active in politics. Sponsorship of MPs must continue - and we should still support certain Labour MPs.
Interestingly, however, most contributions centred on what the Socialist Alliance itself should do. Peter Grant of the CPGB, chair of Manchester Piccadilly Aslef, took the lead. Sectionalism in the rail industry “suits the bosses” and must be “overcome”, said the comrade. A start must be made inside the SA. The SA was never intended to be a mere electoral organisation. The SA needs to set up union and industrial fractions. Not to substitute for, or cut across, existing broad lefts and rank and file groupings, but to coordinate an industrial arm of the Socialist Alliance. He therefore proposed an SA rail fraction.
Some expressed doubts, including Martin Donaghy of the RMT: “We shouldn’t run ahead of ourselves”, he pleaded. Dave Barns, in his turn, complained of Aslef strikebreaking and how Aslef members arrogantly “swagger”. Aslef militants should simply join the RMT. But other comrades enthusiastically took up comrade Grant’s theme.
Derek Goodliffe, CPGB member and RMT activist, underlined the case for an SA rail fraction and called for close cooperation between comrades throughout the industry and joint fringe meetings at the various union conferences. Geoff Palmer, RMT London underground worker, stressed the advantages of fighting for the principle, ‘one industry, one union’. He also called for an SA fraction and a rank and file bulletin. He said the comrades should elect a fraction coordinator.
When it came to the summing-up, comrade Tucker listed the various proposals that had been made during the course of the meeting, though he appeared somewhat confused about what exactly comrade Grant had in mind. The latter quickly put him right. Nevertheless the determination of the comrades was quite clear. They voted without dissent to form a rail fraction. Comrade Tucker volunteered to act as coordinator till the next meeting.
John Bridge
Unison: Strategy absent
The Unison workshop was the largest workshop. Unfortunately, most comrades had difficulty hearing speakers who had to stand on a chair and shout - sparking jokes about health and safety. The workshop was opened by Candy Udwin (SWP), who categorised Unison as the most undemocratic union in the country. Comrade Udwin focused her opening on conference resolutions and branch discussions and suggested that we should have a fringe meeting.
In what seemed to be a planned intervention, about five Socialist Party members counterposed their call for an alternative political fund to the widely held view that what was needed was the democratisation of the existing funds (Unison has two already). They also argued for the immediate disaffiliation from the Labour Party. Neither proposal won any wider support.
Although several comrades mentioned the centrality of winning over the rank and file (“getting to the masses”, not “cutting ourselves off”), no strategy or tactics beyond the branch or conference were discussed. There were no votes or decisions, no agreement - only a vague consensus. This leaves the question of SA organisation up in the air.
I came away more convinced than ever that the decision to split into separate union workshops - without first discussing general principles and forms of organisation and struggle for the whole of the SA - was a mistake. In Unison at least we were left with no perspectives and no strategy beyond selling a pamphlet and getting resolutions passed at union conferences.
Alan Stevens
Education: Motivate rank and file workers
The second largest workshop (after Unison) was of education workers, with well over 100 comrades. Overwhelmingly these were made up of members of the National Union of Teachers and Natfhe, the lecturers’ union. No doubt this reflects on the social composition of the SWP membership, who made up the majority of those present.
The convenor of this workshop was Kate Ford of Workers Power. Comrade Ford made many good points about New Labour’s false claims on education, the evils of privatisation and selection, the “scandalous situation with faith schools” and the potential for a fightback. But, with less than an hour for anything practical to be achieved, some comrades began to show signs of impatience, calling on her to “wind up” 20 minutes into her introduction.
Of course some contributors to the discussion followed in her footsteps, reporting on what we all know - for example, on the NUT strike in London or other local struggles - but an SWP comrade from south London made the practical suggestion that we should “work through the Socialist Alliance to motivate the rank and file”. Kirstie Paton (WP) went further, pointing out the need for a “rank and file network” to enable us to keep in contact with one another. She suggested that a meeting of regional SA representatives of the NUT should be convened.
At this point it was decided that the minority of Natfhe comrades should separate off to discuss their own union’s affairs for the remaining time. Names and email addresses were exchanged on a sheet of paper hurriedly passed around the 40 comrades in attendance. Clearly this was not the most efficient way of doing things. Surely details of union affiliation could have been collated centrally from delegates’ credentials? But, of course, if there was no intention of forming union fractions, or even networks, what was the point?
Howard Miles of the SWP, chair of the union’s further education sector in Yorkshire, agreed to act as coordinator for Natfhe SA members. Comrade Miles urged those who were not already members to join Natfhe Rank and File, while his SWP comrade, Roger Smith, who is currently contesting the adult education seat on the union executive, is to set up an e-list for Socialist Alliance lecturers.
Peter Manson
PCSU: Not too formal
The PCSU workshop was attended by over 30 comrades, who engaged in four main areas of discussion.
Not surprisingly, the political fund itself was at the centre of our considerations.
It was noted that several branches had submitted motions to the conference in May. There was a discussion around how best to win support in any subsequent ballot amongst the membership. It was generally agreed that different arguments would apply depending on the particular circumstances members find themselves in, some, for example, were facing privatisation and others were not. It was also agreed that the positive argument for what the money should be spent on was important as well as the need to democratise the process.
Chris Ford (Benefits Agency branch secretary, Central and West London) gave a report on the latest developments in the safety dispute in the Department of Work and Pensions. Chris reported on the proposed terms now being put by the employer, and that the Benefits Agency and Employment Service executives were both recommending acceptance.
The terms were not regarded as being the major victory that Left Unity members of the executives were claiming. At the same time it was not a bloody defeat, which had been a possibility. Some members of the SWP argued the offer should be rejected, whilst others - including one SWP member - asked what choice we had in the circumstances where escalation of the action was not possible. Those arguing for rejection put up no proposals on how to carry the fight on.
Everybody was encouraged to campaign for the left slate in the forthcoming elections to the executive and for the DWP. On the NEC slate there are both Socialist Caucus and SWP members standing, while on the DWP slate Socialist Caucus members are contesting.
The question of our future organisation proved to be the most contentious. There was resistance from some SWP members to setting up anything “too formal”, such as a Socialist Alliance fraction. Nevertheless, by a majority vote it was agreed that Lee Rock (CPGB) and Charlie McDonald (AWL) would convene a further meeting of PCSU Socialist Alliance members. It was agreed that for national conference a PCSU Socialist Alliance leaflet would be issued and that a fringe meeting would be organised around the issue of the political fund. Charlie and Lee were asked to organise these. It was also agreed that a network of PCSU Socialist Alliance members would be established.
Tony Bond
TGWU: Socialist caucus
Around 30 comrades attended the Transport and General Workers Union workshop - about three percent of those who came to the conference. A start was made towards establishing a Socialist Alliance-centred caucus (even if it does not yet call itself a ‘fraction’) in the TGWU, with convenors for each region being chosen, on top of a decision to participate in the lobby of the Labour Party conference in September.
There was discussion about a name for the new grouping, with ‘T&G SA supporters’ being rejected because there were comrades present from Scotland, and comrades from Wales are also welcome to work with us. ‘Socialist T&G’ was proposed as an alternative.
But there was some uncertainty about how openly the Socialist Alliance can organise in the TGWU. Factional activity is grounds for expulsion according to union rules, and some suggested that comrades ought not to use their real names or be open about their Socialist Alliance membership. Many activists, however, rejected such secrecy, saying they have nothing to hide. Being open with the rank and file about your views will win you support and strengthen your fight against any disciplinary moves by the rightwing bureaucracy.
Some comrades expressed doubt about the possibility of successfully winning a motion on democratising the political fund at the next biennial delegate conference. The national executive committee of the union is split between left and right, but the left is reformist and weak, divided and mostly supports the Labour Party.
Several comrades expressed reservations about working with some individuals supposedly on the left of the leadership, although after discussion it was decided to cooperate with the various broad lefts.
While TGWU general secretary Bill Morris was applauded for his stand on asylum-seekers, he was described as one of Tony Blair’s favourite trade unionists in other respects. He personally intervened to prevent the region one banner being taken to the Stop the War demonstration in November, which was attended by large numbers of the union’s members.
The right wing of the leadership is worse; it wants to drop even reformist politics and transform the TGWU into an apolitical business union. The right would be pleased to see the union break the link with Labour. Another reason why some comrades expressed caution: ‘I don’t want my money going to Labour, but I don’t want to withdraw from politics’ was the general attitude.
Other comrades were more optimistic about winning a motion on the political fund. The rank and file is angry with officers who do not represent their best interests, and by the next biennial delegate conference, in nearly two years time, a majority might be won to support a motion for democratisation, especially if other unions have already taken the lead. Once the dam bursts, anything could happen.
Mary Godwin
Amicus: First steps on a long march
A couple of dozen delegates met for a preliminary exploration of what was possible in terms of socialist organisation in the Amicus union.
Due the fact than Amicus itself is newly formed, although massive and strategically placed, the meeting necessarily did not get much beyond the stage of introductions, with socialists active in the MSF section for the first time engaging with leftwing elements in the AEEU section of the merged conglomeration. In this regard, the fact that a mailing list was put together of attendees for future coordination and meetings is itself a start.
It was noted that the formation of Amicus was furthered as part of the strategy to create a solid rightwing, pro-Blair block to counter the newly emergent trade union-based left in the rail unions, civil servants, etc. Therefore, the fact that ‘Sir’ Ken Jackson, the superannuated rightwing leader of the dominant AEEU section of Amicus, has been forced to stand for election, has some importance.
The meeting was addressed by Derek Simpson, the AEEU left’s candidate against Jackson, who - from what he said and an examination of his website - appears to have politics broadly compatible with the rightist end of the spectrum of the old Labour left. His statement on the Amicus Unity Gazette website, which is broadly supportive of comrade Simpson’s campaign, calls for transparency and democracy in the union and a firmer defence of trade union principles against the Blairites (www.amicusunitygazette.com). However, his call for the union to continue to back Labour puts him somewhat at odds with, and to the right of, the thrust of the conference itself.
Nevertheless, the consensus of the meeting was that, such reservations side, Jackson’s campaign is a key element of Blairite strategy, and therefore his defeat, which may just be possible, would be a real blow to the government. Therefore, the AEEU section activists would support brother Simpson’s campaign (SA comrades in the MSF section, not having a vote in this election, would endeavour to render what assistance they could - encouraging AEEU contacts to back the anti-Blairite candidate, etc).
All in all, an encouraging initial attendance, but also small beginnings, as befitting a merged union with a reactionary, unscrupulous bureaucracy in which the left has a very long way to go.
Ian Donovan
