Well here we go again! Dave Prentis creates more hot air than a jet engine and the worse part is that some people believe him. Yesterday we see him blustering on about how the unions are going to defeat the Tory governments plans for austerity however this won't happen until after the march in October and we all know what march's achieve!. Nice one give the condem time to plan contingencies! Get real Dave you recently said we will fight the coalition on the issue of pensions, thousand of people went on strike in November for what? all we did was lose a days pay, members were still up for the fight but the union leadership and full time unelected officials capitulated to the condems demands and now union members have a worse deal. Its ironic that this announcement comes days after the result of the consultative vote on pensions. The union actively campaigned for a yes vote (organise around a no vote and stand the chance of a disciplinary) to accept the condems proposals and the result was appalling, over 600,00 ballot papers were issued and only just over 100,000 returned them. That means 500,000 didn't bother to vote and they could return the vote for free or register on line.Members are fed up with being told what to do by an incompetent leadership.The condems must laugh their socks off when they see Dave enter the arena. you can't say there will be strike action when the majority of the members won't. If we have to have a leadership of this union it should be someone who is strong, has principals and someone the membership will believe in, not a joke dictator. what is really needed is branch autonomy from all this shit. Branches are where the real work is done, give the power to the members and stop the rhetoric! Stand down Dave.All this is reminiscent of crying wolf. Fight the power!
Monday 10 September 2012
Will the real Dave Prentis please stand up
Well here we go again! Dave Prentis creates more hot air than a jet engine and the worse part is that some people believe him. Yesterday we see him blustering on about how the unions are going to defeat the Tory governments plans for austerity however this won't happen until after the march in October and we all know what march's achieve!. Nice one give the condem time to plan contingencies! Get real Dave you recently said we will fight the coalition on the issue of pensions, thousand of people went on strike in November for what? all we did was lose a days pay, members were still up for the fight but the union leadership and full time unelected officials capitulated to the condems demands and now union members have a worse deal. Its ironic that this announcement comes days after the result of the consultative vote on pensions. The union actively campaigned for a yes vote (organise around a no vote and stand the chance of a disciplinary) to accept the condems proposals and the result was appalling, over 600,00 ballot papers were issued and only just over 100,000 returned them. That means 500,000 didn't bother to vote and they could return the vote for free or register on line.Members are fed up with being told what to do by an incompetent leadership.The condems must laugh their socks off when they see Dave enter the arena. you can't say there will be strike action when the majority of the members won't. If we have to have a leadership of this union it should be someone who is strong, has principals and someone the membership will believe in, not a joke dictator. what is really needed is branch autonomy from all this shit. Branches are where the real work is done, give the power to the members and stop the rhetoric! Stand down Dave.All this is reminiscent of crying wolf. Fight the power!
Wednesday 1 August 2012
Thursday 21 June 2012
Britain a democratic country?
We keep on hearing politicians banging on about how democratic this country is. Everywhere else is so uncivilised and ruled by dictators. Am I missing something here? Ian shithead Duncan Smith is now trying to take the right to strike away from those on the lowest pay by withdrawing their family tax credits. We now see someone given an extended ASBO because they want demonstrate against the scronging royal family and the corrupt olympic games.Here we see again the rich, judge "hang the prols" Purdy, snuffing out any opposition to the royals and the olympics and by inference stopping any demonstration that upsets the state (see below). As I have said many times before when are people going to do something about this. When are people going to take to the streets and make these dictators accountable.Time is running out, this country is all ready an oligarchy and that will soon be become a dictatorship if we don't do anything. RISE UP
Full Two Year ASBO Imposed On Simon Moore For Peaceful Protest
- travelling around London and elsewhere and passing through and by the various Olympic routes and venues as part of a consequence of taking part in everyday activities including visiting family and friends and even coming to the court today. (in contravention of prohibition 1).
- engaging in peaceful demonstration against unreasonable aspects of the games or other issues in, around or near Olympic venues or routes such as Leyton Marsh.
- Living on disused land and using camping equipment such as sleeping bag, tent and other equipment in order to create low impact sustainable communities. (In contravention of prohibition 3).
On Monday morning at Westminster Magistrates Court, District Judge Purdy delivered his judgement on the case of the ASBO sought by the ‘Commissioner of police for the Metropolis’ to prohibit various activities; the stated reason being the prevention of ‘conduct leading to the disruption of the Olympic Games events 2012′.
The full text of Purdy’s judgement can be read here.
Scene of the ‘crime’ – Simon (centre) asserts his right to sit peacefully in the Lee Valley Regional Park without interference from large vehicles.
DJ Purdy decided to authorise the ASBO. He made some minor adjustments to prohibitions 1,2,4 + 5. He removed prohibition 3 relating to trespassing on land or buildings with camping equipment. The full text of the amended ASBO (the final order) can be read on the Indymedia link shown above.
Outside the court Simon issued the following statement:
”The effect of this ASBO is to criminalise peaceful protest. There are legitimate issues for concern around the Olympics such as the destruction of Leyton Marsh in East London for a temporary basketball training facility and the ethics and human rights records of corporate sponsors for the games. These punitive and coercive laws will not stop us from peacefully protesting or from doing what is right.”
You can read a full report of Simon Moore’s case from the Save Leyton Marshes Campaign here.
Simon represented himself at court as he wanted to politically (rather than legally) challenge the charges against him. This is the statement Simon read out:
“I feel that this ASBO is symptomatic of the nature and feel of the Olympic games in London 2012 and the general state of consciousness of the authorities at this time.
I think it is clear to see from the delivery of London 2012 that these games are not simply about sport and amusement. They involve the channelling of very large amounts of public funds into the hands of private corporations whose primary aim is to make as much profit from their service as possible.
Partly due to this, I believe that a culture of greed has been created as London 2012. It has been reduced from an event which could be a benefit to everyone to a profit making exercise which places private interests above public.
The games offer the government the chance to increase its national and international image and popularity at a time when austerity and turbulence are becoming commonplace. The government appears to be desperate to use the games to better its image.
For these reasons I believe that there is a pathological desire on the part of the authorities and private interests to insure that the delivery of the games is executed to exactly as they intend. This is not a healthy, balanced and reasonable attitude and it is creating negative effects.
The needs of local communities in the areas where the infrastructure of the games are located are being ignored and in many cases overwhelmed or infringed on by the delivery of the games. This is evidenced by multiple examples including:
The intensive and ecologically destructive developments for games related venues on open metropolitan land at Hackney Marshes, Leyton Marsh and Wanstead Flats to name a few. This destruction of local community resources illustrates that the authorities believe is a price worth paying despite how unpopular the decisions have been in the local areas. It feels like a case of: ‘the games must be completed at any cost’.
The pathological desire for results has created an atmosphere of intolerance towards anyone or anything that disagrees with any aspect of the games or its delivery.
This has meant that when local communities have expressed legitimate concerns about the way some aspect of the delivery of the games is being delivered in their neighbourhood, not only have they been ignored, they have been criminalised and penalised. The campaign to Save Leyton Marsh which is made up of residents and locals has been subjected to coercion and intimidation through the use of the law as it attempted to peacefully stand up for the protection of a community space which was taken without their consent for the construction of a basketball training facility. The construction has created a lot of problems for the locals there including the exposure to dangerous toxic waste in areas in which children, adults and animals regularly play, not to mention being effectively locked out of a vital community space indefinitely. Their concerns are legitimate and have not been listened to by the authorities to any degree which could be called understanding.
The use of measures such as the ASBO which are tools to coerce and punish, are being used for those who are engaging in ordinary peaceful demonstration against aspects of the games which are unpopular. They can and are being used to stifle legitimate dissent. This reflects a possible desire by the authorities to ensure that the public image that they are crafting for the games is not tarnished in anyway by peaceful protest. It is a further indicator of a pathological mentality which characterises the undertaking of the delivery of the games
Personally I do not think disrupting the ceremonies or sporting events of the Olympics would necessarily be an effective form of helping to awake people to an injustice. I think there is a risk of alienating and irritating those people who may be open to a message, but are also keen to enjoy these events.
However I believe that this use of punitive and coercive measures to intimidate and punish those who cause or are under suspicion of causing some form of limited, temporary and non-harmful disruption is unreasonable and is symptomatic of the pathological mentality which characterises these Olympics.
This attitude shows no attempt to understand why people have issues with aspects of the games including its delivery, its timing and its relationship with private interests.
The authoritarian nature and behaviour of the authorities in its behaviour in delivering the games are also present in its everyday activities, although perhaps in a less extreme way. It seems that our system of diluted fascism is becoming more fascist everyday. It need not be this way and it is within our power to change it.
In my case this ASBO has imposed on me a challenge whether to proceed with activities which I know are fair and reasonable and by so doing break the law or to succumb to its coercive nature and stop. I have decided to break the law.
The activities which I speak of include:
Sir I would like to put to you that if you think the prohibitions contained within this ASBO are just then you should do as you see fit. However if you see the injustice of this ASBO or any legislation which you think is unjust, you would show the highest respect for the law by resigning your post.”
Sunday 3 June 2012
Well here we go again
El presideti Dave Prentise and unison what can you say. Yet again a deal has been stitched up with the government to the detriment of the workers. Yet again the bureaucracy of this union has rode rough shod over the membership. There has been no consultation with the members and now they are asking members to vote for a pensions package that still makes them worse off than they already are. However you won’t be surprised to see that El Presidenti Prentis is one of those unfortunate fat-cats who earn between £100,000 and £112,950. Someone on that money is subject to personal allowance tapering. This means his marginal rate of tax was 60%.
Rather than pay this rate of tax though, Prentis has engaged in some personal tax avoidance and paid the money into his pension, ensuring the state couldn’t get its hands on it. By doing so he has effectively got a 60% tax relief on those payments. Because the Unison financial year doesn’t match the fiscal year, its not possible to say exactly what Mr Prentis’s pay in 2010/2011 was, but I understand that it was not more than £99,999. El Presidenti also went on record saying “The Government would be better advised to look at plugging tax loopholes for the rich and tackling tax evasion that costs us billions, rather than giving top earners a cash break.” Nuff said Dave!
Its conference season again and what don't we see? a debate on cutting ties with Labour. Daves mates on the standing orders committee ruled a motion on Labour and the trade unions "out of order" as they don't want a debate on the affiliation issue as they know they will loose It is clear that the membership doesn't want any truck with the traitors in the Labour party as less than a third of the membership actually subscribe to the party but Daves waiting for his gong so we mustn't leave.Its also ironic that if a branch doesn't send delegates to conference they are fined, what a joke. A trade union fining its own membership, who the fuck would want to attend their stage managed conference anyway!
El Presidenti Dave is now Non executive director of the Bank of England I don't suppose he will be giving his salary to the union or paying it into his pension. It all becomes laughable, he has is head of the biggest public sector union but he can find time to brown nose. We need to fight to take the power from the right in this union and make it a member led democratic union not this Stalinist junta that we currently have.
Tuesday 27 March 2012
You Must Read This
Is This Chris Grayling’s Biggest Lie Yet?
Employment Minister Chris Grayling told a string of breathtaking lies last Monday when he appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee. The Committee asked a number of questions about the Atos shambles, Work Experience and other current DWP schemes. Looking increasingly shifty-eyed the Minister bluffed and blustered his way through right up until almost the last question,when he was asked:“Chair: Can I ask about another possible area for confusion, at least for me? Say you are in the Work Programme and are in one of the black boxes; is it possible that some of those black boxes contain mandatory work experience and that is where some of the media confusion is coming from?”
The black box is DWP jargon which means that Work Programme providers such as A4e are able to mandate claimants to almost any activity if they think it will help them find work. This can include workfare.
Grayling’s response was astonishing:
“Chris Grayling: There is no evidence to suggest that has happened, and indeed all of our Work Programme providers said to us, “What would be the point of forcing somebody to go and work for one of our commercial partners, because if we did we would lose the opportunity to send other people in the future?” What we have done since the Work Experience row is sat down with our Work Programme providers and agreed with them that they will pursue exactly the same strategy as us nationally for the Work Experience scheme. They have the power to mandate but they will only mandate to community benefit projects. All participation in Work Experience with commercial organisations will be done on a voluntary basis in the Work Programme as well as through Jobcentre Plus. So we have exactly the same rules applied across the board and we are making sure all the guidance is in line with that.”
Note he says no evidence. Not I haven’t seen any evidence. Not even I am unaware of any evidence. The Minister is adamant. Which seems a little strange when you consider this Freedom of Information response. The DWP were asked which organisations were involved in providing mandatory work placements under the Work Programme in the South East. The document reveals that claimants had been mandated to work at Holiday Inn, ASDA and Poundland amongst others. This document was removed from the DWP’s website during the workfare row and the DWP are now refusing to answer FOI requests relating to the Work Prgramme.
It doesn’t end there. Up until recently the DWP’s Work Programme Provider Guidance stated:
“Where you are providing support for JSA participants, which is work experience you must mandate participants to this activity. This is to avoid the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which will apply if JSA participants are not mandated.”
When this paragraph was pointed out, after Grayling had lied in the Telegraph that no-one was mandated to work for a big company, it promptly disappeared from the the guidance notes. Perhaps this is what Grayling meant when he said that guidance had been updated to bring it into line with the new rules that up until last Monday hadn’t even been announced. It’s far more likely however, that just like the disappearing freedom of information response, this was a bodged attempt to cover up for Grayling’s lies.
The DWP even contradict Grayling’s claims that he sat down with the providers and decided: “They have the power to mandate but they will only mandate to community benefit projects. All participation in Work Experience with commercial organisations will be done on a voluntary basis in the Work Programme as well as through Jobcentre Plus. “
A Freedom of Information response received just over a week before the Committee meeting stated explicitly that: “Jobcentre Plus is not routinely informed of participant’s activities, which may include work experience placements, by the Work Programme provider.” The DWP had been asked specifically how many people had been mandated to workfare for private companies. If Grayling had been telling the truth they would surely have said no-one. Even if Grayling had only been fibbing a bit, they would have said that no-one will be anymore. But they said they didn’t know.
So Chris Grayling lied to the Committee when he said there was no evidence of people mandated to workfare on Work Programme. He lied when he said that all work experience for private companies would be voluntary, when in fact until recently the guidance said it must be mandated, and he quite possibly lied again about his cosy little chat with Work Programme providers.
Furthermore, documents have been altered, or removed from the public view, in an attempt to cover up these lies. Lying to Select Committee can be punished by a fine or imprisonment, although this power has not been used since the 19th Century. It still remains a serious charge however, and Grayling should, at the very least, be forced to resign.
It is now impossible to know whether people are mandated to private companies under the Work programme. The DWP said they were, now they say they don’t know. Chirs Grayling says they weren’t, and still aren’t. Someone, whether under Grayling’s orders or not, is rewriting and hiding documents to make it appear this is the case.
Not even a Commons Select Committee can get to the truth about what the DWP are really up to. Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith, who is ultimately in charge, should also consider his position. He has been just as economical with the truth.
It remains to be seen what action, if any, will be taken. It is likely they will do everything they can to sweep this under the carpet as well. Should that happen, then we now have clear evidence that this Government will lie to the press, to the public and even to Commons Select Committees about their activities and we can no longer trust a single word they say.
If Ministers can lie with impunity to the public and Parliament alike, then we have entered a different league in British politics. The House of Commons becomes little more than a talking shop whilst the Government carries out their real intentions under a cloak of secrecy. And that, however you stretch the word, is not democracy
Monday 19 March 2012
Get up Stand up!!!
Yet again I feel that I have to write about this shitstem that we the people are wedded too and the scary fact that we are heading fast towards a totalitarian dictatorship.
We now hear that this government that was unelected as a coalition and those did vote for it were few are now hell bent on privatising the road. What a great idea that is, what next toll keepers? Will we have to pay different companies for different stretches of road. Will there be roads where only the few can drive and we the tax payers have already paid for them many times over. I don't remember anyone asking the public if that's what they want I also don't recall seeing it as an election pledge.
Come to think of it I don't recall the public being consulted on the destruction of the NHS, the privatisation of the railways, the introduction of CCTV, academy schools, tax on petrol , tax on beer and removal of working family tax credits to name but a few. Isn't it ironic that none of these ideas affect the rich. All these sweeping changes have be done with little or no concern for the working man / woman yet they have major impacts on the them. We also see that during the Olympics shop opening hours are to be relaxed. Who does this benefit. It doesn't benefit the workers! it would appear it would benefit the mindless morons who rush to the openings of shopping centres, those who have nothing better to do and the rich who are making money off the labour of the store workers. The British see all this happening and do nothing. The common refrain is "oh that's terrible, not to worry, have a cup of tea and everything will be OK. When will the apathetic British get off their arses and fight these rich parasites. GET UP, STAND UP! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS.
We now hear that this government that was unelected as a coalition and those did vote for it were few are now hell bent on privatising the road. What a great idea that is, what next toll keepers? Will we have to pay different companies for different stretches of road. Will there be roads where only the few can drive and we the tax payers have already paid for them many times over. I don't remember anyone asking the public if that's what they want I also don't recall seeing it as an election pledge.
Come to think of it I don't recall the public being consulted on the destruction of the NHS, the privatisation of the railways, the introduction of CCTV, academy schools, tax on petrol , tax on beer and removal of working family tax credits to name but a few. Isn't it ironic that none of these ideas affect the rich. All these sweeping changes have be done with little or no concern for the working man / woman yet they have major impacts on the them. We also see that during the Olympics shop opening hours are to be relaxed. Who does this benefit. It doesn't benefit the workers! it would appear it would benefit the mindless morons who rush to the openings of shopping centres, those who have nothing better to do and the rich who are making money off the labour of the store workers. The British see all this happening and do nothing. The common refrain is "oh that's terrible, not to worry, have a cup of tea and everything will be OK. When will the apathetic British get off their arses and fight these rich parasites. GET UP, STAND UP! STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS.
Wednesday 14 March 2012
Unison the fighting union hahaha
Hows this for a contradiction? Unison the "union" is saying in its latest blog that the fight for the NHS is not over. It gos on to say that it is calling on the Libdems to respect the wishes of members over this issue. What a load of hypocritical bull from a union that constantly ignores the wishes of its members.
The members were and still are up for a fight with the government over the issue of public sector pensions but the leadership and the unelected officers decided that it was not in the interest of the union to carry on the fight. Did they consult the membership over this line of action NO! Heather Wakefield another unelected paid official is on record as saying at the women's conference this year as saying "the unions are united in working together with the exception of the PCS and NUT. That may be because they are the only ones still calling for further industrial action.
The membership has constantly been calling for meetings to discuss further action and tactics yet the unelected paid officials are constantly crushing this action and threatening members with disciplinary action.
Unison conference is yet another example of an undemocratic union, not only do you have to clock in with a swipe card to conference but if you don't attend the required number of meetings your branch will be fined. Who has ever heard of a union fining its (unpaid) membership.
Last year 50% of motions put forward by the branches were ruled "out of order" how can that be? is it because they are arguing for action? is it because they criticise the leadership or is it because they want to appease the leadership of the labour party?
Its about time we got rid of these parasites and made the union a real fighting union. We need to follow the examples of the PCS or failing that we withdraw our membership and join a real fighting union the IWW
The members were and still are up for a fight with the government over the issue of public sector pensions but the leadership and the unelected officers decided that it was not in the interest of the union to carry on the fight. Did they consult the membership over this line of action NO! Heather Wakefield another unelected paid official is on record as saying at the women's conference this year as saying "the unions are united in working together with the exception of the PCS and NUT. That may be because they are the only ones still calling for further industrial action.
The membership has constantly been calling for meetings to discuss further action and tactics yet the unelected paid officials are constantly crushing this action and threatening members with disciplinary action.
Unison conference is yet another example of an undemocratic union, not only do you have to clock in with a swipe card to conference but if you don't attend the required number of meetings your branch will be fined. Who has ever heard of a union fining its (unpaid) membership.
Last year 50% of motions put forward by the branches were ruled "out of order" how can that be? is it because they are arguing for action? is it because they criticise the leadership or is it because they want to appease the leadership of the labour party?
Its about time we got rid of these parasites and made the union a real fighting union. We need to follow the examples of the PCS or failing that we withdraw our membership and join a real fighting union the IWW
Sunday 19 February 2012
Workfare / work for nothing!!!
Workfare isn’t just an austerity measure, it’s part of a longer term restructuring of the labour market. That makes it all the more important to kill it while we still can.
Workfare has been kicking up a twitter-storm again lately. First with such joys as a permanent job stacking shelves on the Tesco night shiftfor your £67/week JSA, and unpaid ‘pre-employment training’ which is“mandatory; (...) Claimant informed consent is not required.” Then later it was announced that “disabled people face unlimited unpaid work or cuts in benefit.” This got me thinking. Workfare significantly pre-dates austerity. Labour introduced the New Deal in 1998 during the supposed ‘boom’ years, which was rebranded the Flexible New Deal in 2009. The idea was to ‘help’ people who’d been unemployed for more than 6 months back into work with ‘voluntary’ training and work placements. This went hand in hand with demonising the unemployed as work-shy scroungers – workfare was purportedly to get them back into work.
In the world of workfare, ‘voluntary’ of course means ‘we’ll sanction you if you refuse’. And if your JSA is sanctioned, it can interrupt other claims such as for housing benefit and cause serious cash-flow problems for claimants. The LSE professor who devised the New Deal was made a Labour peer – Baron Layard – and loads of private sector firms (many with links to Labour) got on the gravy train as ‘providers’. Notionally, this was about ‘helping’ people back to work in a context of relatively full employment and economic growth. The whole thing merrily rolled along until the recession hit, when the scheme was revamped and continued to do exactly the same thing – mandatory unpaid work on pain of losing benefits. Bizarrely, the rhetoric demonising ‘scroungers’ has escalated in keeping with the ratio of jobseekers to jobs. As someone pithily put it on twitter, “JOBSEEKERS: Empirically, there are no jobs, but ideologically, we have potential full employment IF YOU WEREN'T SO LAZY.”
The Flexible New Deal was extraordinarily expensive, and lots of firms – not the claimants obviously – made a lot of money out of it. When the Tories axed the scheme, they claimed it cost £31,000 per job. They promptly replaced it with their own Work Programme, which is essentially a rebrand of the same thing, only switching the provider contracts (presumably now to Tory-linked firms). The Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) own report found that workfare is not at all effective in achieving its stated aims of getting the long-term unemployed back into work:
There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers. (…) Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.
So either successive governments and the ruling class in general are really stupid, and they keep pouring money into hugely expensive and ineffective schemes, or this really isn’t about ‘helping’ jobseekers and creating jobs at all. Another point strikes me here. Someone recently wrote on twitter that “you can’t have US levels of inequality without US levels of incarceration.” This really resonated with the plans to criminalise squatting, as well as the law and order backlash after the August riots. For context, below is a graph of the US prison population. The massive rise is more or less engineered by the ‘war on drugs’. The massive increase in prison capacity has been met by private firms, covering their costs with low wage prison labour, which is apparently a booming sector of the economy, particularly for war production (helmets, webbing etc).
Back in the UK, according to a 2008 Ministry of Justice report, prison labour already:
• provide employment places for some 10,000 prisoners in 370 workshops;
• provide some 12 million hours of activity per year;
• have an estimated value of production of over £30 million at market pressures, largely saving the Service external procurement and therefore releasing resources for other priorities;
• generate income of some £6.5 million per annum from external sales – mainly through contract services workshops.
Furthermore:
We now plan to increase the range of constructive work available to offenders inside prison, and in turn their job opportunities on the outside. We have an existing corporate alliance with more than 70 employers, in addition to those working in individual prisons and probation areas, but the Government is now committed to expanding this programme significantly.
These plans – bound up with the proposed Titan prisons – collapsed due to a failure to get planning permission. But they do demonstrate that an expansion of prison and prison labour is certainly on the mind of the ruling class. The prison-building programme has been questioned by projections showing incarceration levelling off. But the same report found tougher sentencing could see an additional 9,000 people locked up by 2016. So the plans are likely to re-emerge in some form. Even if prison-building stalls, there could well be a push to privatise prisons as part of wider public sector cuts. Private prison providers are likely to want to maximise their profits by leveraging cheap and compliant labour. It’s not hard to imagine G4S or their ilk running a prison and being told to balance the books by exploiting prison labour.
Of course, like workfare, low wage prison labour is ‘voluntary’. But compliance will certainly help your chances of an early release, while resistance could conceivably add to your sentence. What Erik Olin Wright says in 'The Politics of Punishment' about prisons could equally go for the logic of workfare:
Contemporary prisons in the United States can be described as liberal totalitarian institutions. The apparent paradox in this expression reflects the contradictions that pervade the life of prisons. They are institutions which, at least formally, have adopted the liberal goal of rehabilitation, while maintaining totalitarian control over the lives of prisoners. Moreover, they have adopted a variety of liberal programs (the indeterminate sentence, therapy programs) which in practice often serve to further the totalitarian goal of changing prisoners into strict conformists to authority.
Workfare is not prison (or the other common analogy, slavery). But there is a similar logic at work, which is at once liberal and totalitarian. Workfare notionally aims at reforming the unemployed into employable wage labourers through training and work experience. But in practice, it does little to help people find work, and even replaces minimum wage jobs with workfare ones (shelf stacking etc). That is to say its real object is to produce conformity to the diktats of the flexible labour market, both for those on it and those who fear falling into it. The ever-present threat of sanctions betrays the totalitarian aspect of workfare liberalism, and its supposed ‘voluntary’ nature (that wonderful phrase of ‘no informed consent required’).
Just over a decade ago, the shift towards workfare prompted a pamphlet titled ‘Stop the clock! Critiques of the new social workhouse.’ The title riffs on the idea of the social factory, a claim by dissident Marxists in the 1970s that the whole of society was replacing the factory as the site of both production and anti-capitalist struggle. The subsequent development of workfare, casualisation and prison labour fleshes out this claim. The workhouse is not the physical building of the Victorian era. It’s fast becoming a sector of the economy – or rather a tier of the labour market – in its own right. Those who fall through the cracks of normal wage labour (itself nothing to write home about), are increasingly being forced to work for their dole, or perhaps even criminalised and facing prison labour.
The whole thing is vastly expensive to the ‘taxpayer’, but for precisely that reason serves as a massive state subsidy to private capital. Directly, it provides cheap labour to businesses. Indirectly, it undercuts the minimum wage and disciplines those in waged work not to rock the boat lest they be cast into workfare. Perhaps the new social workhouse is a harbinger of an emerging state capitalism to compete with the low wage economies of South and East Asia. After all, the ‘knowledge economy’ turned out to be mostly hot air, and India has far more English-speaking graduates than the UK anyhow. Or maybe that’s just one possibility – if we don’t kill off workfare in its relative infancy.
Refusal of unpaid work is running at about 50% amongst claimants. However this was seen as a success by the government in cutting the dole bill, as refusal stops benefits. So ‘the refusal of work’ in itself doesn’t seem a viable strategy. In fact, the government seems to be counting on it to cut the welfare bill. But on another front, already Waterstones and Sainsbury’s have pulled out of workfare nationally. Poundland in Brighton pulled out after one picket. March 3rd is a national day of action called in solidarity with a Liverpool Uncut anti-workfare action. If the anti-workfare movement can capture half the momentum UK Uncut had at its peak, we could still derail workfare yet
On the trade unions and “boring from within”
This is brilliant piece of work and shows how we should be organising within the unions. We must stop the creeping bureaucracy led by unelected officials and give the power back to the workers. Enjoy!
Phil Dickens critiques the 'boring from within' union strategy advocated by various left groups.
I’ve written a number of pieces now on anarchist activity within the trade union movement. In particular, I’d point to Trade unions, worker militancy, and communism from below, What is anarcho-syndicalism: revolutionary unionism, Anarcho-syndicalism and the limits of trade unionism, and my most recent post on Building the rank-and-file. However, these have all focused primarily on the difference between bottom-up and top-down workers organisation. Here, I’d like to look at differences in approach between those who advocate mass-led organisation – in particular the notion of “boring-from-within.”
I was inspired to write on this subject by a conversation with another rep within my workplace. They aren’t, or certainly don’t identify as, an anarchist. However, they have agreed with a lot of the ideas that I have articulated on workplace organisation – in particular the need to build from the ground so that workers as a mass can take control of their own struggles from the union bureaucracy. Where the differences came was in the attitude to the existing bureaucracy. In particular, to the executive committees which make decisions on the direction of the union and its response to decisions made by the bosses, largely in isolation from the will of the rank-and-file. Agreeing with me that simply putting different faces into the existing structure was useless, he asked why we couldn’t put people into positions with the specific aim of using them to i][change[/i] the structure.
I was inspired to write on this subject by a conversation with another rep within my workplace. They aren’t, or certainly don’t identify as, an anarchist. However, they have agreed with a lot of the ideas that I have articulated on workplace organisation – in particular the need to build from the ground so that workers as a mass can take control of their own struggles from the union bureaucracy. Where the differences came was in the attitude to the existing bureaucracy. In particular, to the executive committees which make decisions on the direction of the union and its response to decisions made by the bosses, largely in isolation from the will of the rank-and-file. Agreeing with me that simply putting different faces into the existing structure was useless, he asked why we couldn’t put people into positions with the specific aim of using them to i][change[/i] the structure.
As I have already alluded, this idea within the libertarian movement is called boring-from-within, an idea articulated by the now-defunct Workers Solidarity Federation of South Africa in Unions and Revolution;
We must do two things if we want the unions to play a revolutionary role. First, get rid of the union bureaucracy and make sure that the unions are controlled by the membership. Second, win the union membership over to Anarchist- Syndicalist ideas.We must work within the existing unions to achieve these goals. All unions are workers combat units. Leaving the mainstream unions to form new “pure” revolutionary unions has serious consequences. It withdraws militants from the unions, leaving them at the mercy of bureaucrats and reformists. It isolates militants in tiny splinter unions because the masses prefer to join large, established unions. Small groups of revolutionaries working inside established unions can achieve impressive results. For example, the main French (CGT) and Argentinean (FORA) union federations were won over to Anarchist-Syndicalism in this way in the early twentieth century.
At this point, the idea isn’t distinct from that prevailing within the Solidarity Federation in Britain, whose industrial strategy argues that “workers will still be likely to hold union cards here to avoid splits in the workplace between union members and non-union members.”
However, it is beyond this point where the two strategies differ. Whilst Solfed argue for building up “an alternative structure to official union structures that are dominated by full-time bureaucrats,” the boring-from-within approach involved attempting to directly transform the existing structures in order to democratise and de-bureaucratise the union.
In its position paper on trade unions, the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement lays out the strategy for transformation in some detail;
7.3 No WSM member will accept any unelected position that entails having power over the membership.
7.4 Members elected as shop stewards consider their position as that of a delegate rather than that of a ‘representative’ who can act over the heads of the members.
7.5 When going forward for elective positions we make it clear that we are not accepting the structure as it now exists. We will fight for more accountability, mandation, information for members, etc.
…
7.6.5 UNION DEMOCRACY
(a) We fight to change the role of the full-time officials – not to change the individuals who occupy the positions. Their decision-making powers have to be removed and returned to the rank & file membership. They should be elected and paid no more than the average wage of the people they represent. They should only serve for a fixed period of no more than five years after which they return to ordinary work. The unions will have to win the demand for jobs to be kept open in order for this to be realistic.
(b) All officials to be subject to mandation and recall.
(c) We are totally opposed to the ICTU “two tier” picket.
(d) For regular branch and workplace meetings, in working hours where this is possible.
(e) For direct elections to all committees, conference delegations and national officerships, subject to mandation and recall.
(f) All strikes to be automatically made official as long as they do not contradict trade union principles.
(g) Support for all disputes, official or unofficial, in pursuit of higher wages, better conditions, jobs, trade union principles or any issue in the interest of the class.
(h) For the publication of minutes of all union meetings.
(i) Where revolutionaries can gain enough support to win election to national officerships in large unions, or indeed small ones, this support should not be used to merely elect a candidate. Instead it should be used to fundamentally change the structure of the union in such a way as to return power to the membership and turn the officers into administrators and resource people rather than decision makers.
This relates to the strategy argued for by my fellow rep at work. Yes, we should be organising at a rank-and-file, building mass participation and forcing a culture shift when it came to decision-making and to taking action. But why could we not compliment that by trying to put people into place on the Group and National Executive Committees who would support this and could help remove any potential barriers that might arise?
On the face of it, this is a compelling argument. Building from the ground, almost from scratch, is not an easy task to contemplate. Surely, there’s no harm in using the existing structures where you can, and making sure that you have people within them who are willing to step back from them when the time is ripe to put the new structures into practice?
However, the question here is – if such a thing is possible – then why does it not follow that you can simply replace the existing leadership with a more militant and “left” one, and see things change that way?
The answer, as those who argue for the above strategy would broadly agree, is the fundamental nature of the trade union bureaucracy. As the WSM themselves state, “no matter how radical or left-wing [the leadership] are at the beginning, their role sucks them into the business of conciliation.” More explicitly, “if they are to have anything to bargain with at the negotiation table,” then ” the union official has to sell the employer labour discipline and freedom from unofficial strikes as part of its side of the bargain.” Hence their role as “keepers of industrial peace.”
Does this change if you enter the role with the specific aim of supporting rank-and-file organisation and transforming a trade union into a revolutionary one? To a degree, perhaps. After all, you will be far more conscious of the pressures that the role will place on you and arguably better equipped to address them.
However, in practice we see that this awareness doesn’t help you to fare any better. As Joseph Kay wrote in Thinking about unions: association and representation, “the problem is highlighted by the number of modern day bureaucratic unions with radical syndicalist origins (of which the French CGT, founded under large anarchist influence is the most obvious example).” It was Buenaventura Durruti who rebuked the CNT during the civil war for seeking to “get the CNT legalised and alleviate the repression,” because “bureaucratisation and subsequent mediation was a result of taking on a representative role.”
JK cites the Direct Action Movement pamphlet Winning the class war;
Of all the areas that the unions seek to have influence in by far the most important is its dealing with management, for it is from this area that all their power flows. They must retain the right to negotiate wages and conditions with management. It is by having the power to negotiate on behalf of workers that they retain their influence within the workplace and ultimately attract and retain members. In turn it is having that control and influence in the workplace that they are of use to the boss class. The unions offer stability in the workplace, they channel workers anger, shape and influence their demands and, if need be, act to police the workforce.
It is for this reason that the CNT now consciously spurn representative functions, arguing against “giv[ing] your ‘representatives’ the power to sign and negotiate for you” as “you and only you, are representative. When you take in your hands your problems, you gain representation.“
It is not difficult to see how this works in practice.
If you are a delegate, directly accountable to the membership, it is very difficult indeed to stray. You are there to voice the demands of the workers, and their response to offers made, with no capacity for independent decision making. If you violate that mandate, you can be instantly recalled.
By contrast, a representative has been mandated by their election with decision-making power, and is part of a key body with responsibility for negotiation in the manner described above. Even if they are put forward as a candidate by a group to whom they consider themselves answerable, they cannot be recalled from their seat if they betray that trust, as such a mechanism doesn’t at present exist. Thus, the accountability rendered by direct democracy almost completely dissipates when it is used to “bore-from-within” a system of representative democracy.
It could be argued that, in building up the strength of the rank-and-file at the same time, you create a situation whereby even if instant recall cannot be enacted the recall will still occur the next time elections come around. But there are numerous flaws in this logic.
In the first instance, there is the problem of numbers. Even with the straightforward objective of switching the leadership in PCS, the Left Unity faction which currently dominates had to build for many years in order to have the strength to put forward a full slate of candidates. Within the current structure, a single voice or even a minority voice is not significant enough to influence the direction of the union – as in PCS the rival 4themembers and Independent Left factions currently experience.
Thus, in order to “change the role of the full-time officials” and make other fundamental changes in how the union is run at the top, you essentially have to take over the leadership. Not only does this require an immense amount of time, energy and resources better spent on rank-and-file organising, but it then puts you in the same position as any other broad left takeover. It is now you “at the negotiation table” with responsibility to “sell the employer labour discipline” in negotiations. The fundamental nature of power structures means that they do not allow for their own dissolution, and there is little reason to expect that we will witness anything other than rank-and-file militants falling prey to bureaucratisation.
More pressingly, if a rank-and-file movement has enough influence as to sway the election of officers to an executive, why do they need to seize power of the executive at all?
If there has been a steady effort at organising workplace committees based on mass participation and direct action, and you have lay reps taking up the role of delegates, you have already dismantled the existing power structure at a local level. If this is spread across enough of a cross section of any given trade union that you can be the major voice in elections, it is a safe bet that you have already lain the foundations for building a national federal structure.
Thus, to alter the structure of the union, you simply have to circumvent it. Rather than wasting the effort of taking over the existing leadership in parallel with rank-and-file organisation, the rank-and-file can establish an entirely different structure and vote en masse to disaffiliate from the reformist union whilst establishing a revolutionary one. I have over-simplified the idea somewhat, as this is not a quick process and there would be a significant battle of ideas to be won, but fundamentally that is the essence of the thing. The bureaucracy has essentially been jettisoned and the bosses are forced to deal with a militant rank-and-file rather than officials who will meet them halfway.
Thus, to alter the structure of the union, you simply have to circumvent it. Rather than wasting the effort of taking over the existing leadership in parallel with rank-and-file organisation, the rank-and-file can establish an entirely different structure and vote en masse to disaffiliate from the reformist union whilst establishing a revolutionary one. I have over-simplified the idea somewhat, as this is not a quick process and there would be a significant battle of ideas to be won, but fundamentally that is the essence of the thing. The bureaucracy has essentially been jettisoned and the bosses are forced to deal with a militant rank-and-file rather than officials who will meet them halfway.
There is a clear precedent for attempts to transform the fundamental nature of a trade union being akin to alchemy. Down that path, we repeat mistakes already made and become what we were fighting against. In order to build a revolutionary union movement which is genuinely led from below by the rank-and-file, what we need is to build the new structure within the shell of the old.
Friday 17 February 2012
IWW cleaners victory
London, 16/02/2012 -IWW Cleaners and Allied Trades | Once again vindicating the IWW mottos - "An Injury to One is an Injury to All" and "Don't Mourn - Organise!" - the Fighting Industrial Workers of the World Cleaners and Allied Trades Union today gained yet another victory notch on their belt against unscrupulous bosses! Not ones to passively accept injustice, after their unfair sacking for organising a union, the Cleaners of NTT Communications stood up and confronted the management of cleaning services contractor Dynamiq for this unacceptable act of union-busting. Through the IWW Cleaners' Union's negotiations with Dynamiq management, the NTT Cleaners today obtained their reinstatement as a workforce onto a single worksite, and payment of the London Living Wage. The demonstration planned for Friday 17 February has thus been CANCELLED for cause of VICTORY!!
Dynamiq Cleaning and Program Management Ltd kicked out an entire workforce who had been at NTT for years - why? Because they joined a union and stood up for their rights in the face of bullying and intimidation.
Following today's negotiations with the cleaning contractor Dynamiq, who cover the contract for NTT, the Workers, with the IWW Cleaners Union's representation, secured an agreement which puts all the workforce in one site and provides full-payment of the London Living Wage.
As a result the IWW Cleaners Branch and London Delegates Committee has cancelled the demonstration called for Tomorrow at Devon house. We thank all trade unionists and fellow workers for their solidarity and support
As a result the IWW Cleaners Branch and London Delegates Committee has cancelled the demonstration called for Tomorrow at Devon house. We thank all trade unionists and fellow workers for their solidarity and support
Thursday 26 January 2012
Wednesday 25 January 2012
What can you say. This government gets more like a fascist dictatorship by the day and still we stand back and do nothing. There are sparks on strike up and down the country as the employers are set to smash their terms and conditions and reduce their pay by 35%, the petrol tanker drivers of Jet are also set to strike yet we hear little or nothing about them, I wonder why that is. These corrupt bastard politicians are determined to crush the working classes, not only are they intent taking away peoples benefit, they are now expecting people to work for nothing at places such as Poundland and Tesco's (they have the cheek to call it workfare) work unfair. As if the rich bastards don't make enough profits!!
Here's something equally ridiculous, an internal e mail from a government department;
" Living Streets (the charity that campaigns for pedestrians and better local environments) have kindly agreed to visit and give us a talk about what they do, explain the individual and organisational benefits of walking to work, and show us some of the tools we can use to help us walk more in our everyday lives. For those who are interested, they have also agreed to hold a number of one-to-one "Walk Doctor" sessions for staff (places will be limited). This is a good opportunity to learn more about the benefits of walking, and some tips and tricks for doing it more, just in time for StepChange."
Civil servants need to be told how to walk! Next week they are having a seminar on how to breath. Yet again we see government not only wasting money but also giving civil service employees time off to go to this crap. Its a joke!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)