That protests have broken out in the construction industry is no surprise. The dispute with the Italian engineering contractor IREM at the Lindsey oil refinery at Immingham is the flashpoint. The industry was amongst the first to be hit by the crisis in the autumn of last year. Tens of thousands of construction workers have been thrown out of work. In recent years the industry has been deregulated, privatised and largely de-unionised. There has been cutthroat competition amongst construction employers for ever-lower wages in order to get and deliver contracts. No wonder resentment builds up.

This resentment is not helped by the response to the economic crisis by Gordon Brown. He has been stuffing money down the throats of the bankers who triggered the problem in the first place whilst being prepared to see other industries go to the wall and workers thrown onto the dole.

And the EU employment framework makes the situation worse. Construction, and other contractors, have been taking full advantage of the free movement of capital which the EU provides, which was always intended to facilitate the more effective exploitation of the European working class. It has encouraged employers to compete by undercutting existing wage rates and working conditions. The way the Posted Workers Directive — which covers workers in the IREM situation — has been introduced compounds the problem.

Workers have an absolute right to take strike action against such practices. In fact from the point of view of trade union principles they have an obligation to oppose such practices. This should not, however, lead workers — such as those in the current action — to attack fellow workers who are dragged into the situation. This dispute should be with the employers and governments at both national and EU level.

The slogan “British jobs for British workers” which has been dominant in every one of the protests, both verbally and visually, is the wrong way to conduct the dispute. It is a dangerous and xenophobic road to go down. No wonder the BNP are trying to muscle in with other dangerous right-wing elements. According to reports in the Independent (Sat Jan 31) the Italian workers involved have faced direct intimidation. A hostile demonstration from the Lindsey refinery assembled outside their living accommodation in Grimsby dock to tell them to “go back to Italy”. This kind of action has a dangerous logic of its own.

In fact the demands of the strikers themselves imply that Italian workers at IREM should be sacked and replaced by British workers, and that jobs in Britain should be ring-fenced against workers from outside. This is seriously wrong — where would it leave British workers working under similar conditions in other European countries?

If wages are being undercut by IREM at the Lindsey refinery the strike is absolutely legitimate and should be fully supported both by solidarity action and by the unions. But the facts have to be clear and that is not the case yet. Maybe the Italian workers themselves or their unions could shed light on the matter of their rates of pay and working conditions? Has anyone asked them?

Wage rates and collective agreements, of course, should be defended against all comers, not just foreign employers. Undercutting from anywhere, including just down the road, is completely unacceptable. Collective agreements have to be defended at all times and the trade unions have a direct responsibility in this.

The way to defend construction workers, or any other section of workers, in today’s conditions has to be by strengthening trade union organisation and by working class solidarity — and that included international solidarity.

The trade unions should make it clear that workers from abroad are welcome in this country. They should link up with the unions where workers come and ensure that all agreements, and obligations, are carried out by the employers.

Some of the unions involved in this dispute have rightly been having recruiting drives to recruit workers from abroad. This is the best way to build a fight-back. Pitting one group of workers against the other only benefits the employers who are always ready to divide and rule.

  • Defend all jobs wages and working conditions
  • Equal access to available jobs
  • Strengthen trade union organisation
  • For unity against the employers and the government
  • Defend collective agreements
  • For international solidarity between workers
  • No to racism, xenophobia and the BNP

 

(2.2.09)

95 responses to “Contractors' strikes: Socialist Resistance statement”

  1. good statement … the whole thing shows similarities with the protests of construction workers and their union IG BAU in 1996/97 in Germany … unfortunately, these protests detoriorated often into racism, mainly against Polish workers

    Like

  2. The Socialist Worker Party, Workers Power, the AWL or my own Socialist Fight are not siding with the Gov/bosses. The line–up is clear. The strike has the enthusiastic support of the BNP, it has the support of the capitalist media, more enthusiastic the more you move to the right. The MS, the SP and the TU bureaucracy are supporting it for entirely reactionary reasons. The bosses are ‘opposed’ because that is in their immediate short tern financial interests, but they are not anything like as opposed as they would be if the plant was occupied, and the right of private property was thereby challenged, as it is in Waterford Glass. The government are ‘opposed’ but really not like they would oppose a real workers action, IN THE LONG TERM INTERESTS OF THE CLASS AS AN INTERNATIONAL WHOLE, like Gate Gourmet. They are for ‘law and order’ and against ‘trouble’ in general but if they have to have ‘trouble’ they could not get better than this from their point of view. Where are the threats to sequestrate the union funds in the midst of all this illegal action, where are the high court judges injunctions, where are the brutal police attacks? Where is the class consciousness of those who cannot see the difference?

    It is entirely nonsensical to talk of the form being reactionary and the content being revolutionary as if this was some kind of Marxist dialectic. These are reactionary strikes for reactionary ends which can only win by driving foreign workers out of the country and setting in train the destruction of the entire working class and its organisations and all their historical gains. Fight it now, fight the reactionary leadership of the class who are responsible for this appalling situation or it will get worse. Do not try to find the silver lining; it is not there. They do mean what they say. If they occupied the plant and forged international solidarity that would be an entirely different strike, with, I would say now, entirely different leaders. To pretend otherwise is to defend the existing leaders and to prepare more defeats. This is differentiating the left in Britain, it goes to the core of class politics. Fight the reaction without reservations and you will find new revolutionists who will come forward to champion the interests of the class as an international whole. And here is the Trotsky quote again just to see who has any class politics left:

    “A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defence of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership.” Trotsky 1939

    Like

  3. and what Italian socialists say:
    Fw: Rage against Italian workers- BNP infiltrates. Monday, 2 February, 2009 2:05 PM
    From:
    “Franco Grisolia”
    View contact details
    To:
    “Campbell McGregor” , “downing gerry”

    —– Original Message —–
    From: PCL Abruzzo
    To: enquiries@swp.org.uk
    Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:46 AM
    Subject: Rage against Italian workers- BNP infiltrates.

    Dear Comrades

    The latest news on the rage of British workers against what they believe are a menace to their jobs, the Italian workers, simply means that the crisis generated by a short-circuit in capitalism is starting to break up what is left of what us Communists are proud of: unity and class.
    Unfortunately, but inevitably, national-front-oriented Fascists may take the opportunity in intervening in the matter, and have infiltrate both men and ideas in this struggle, so as to make the “problem” look like one created by foreign workers, and not by the written rules of capitalism duly applied and by a big extent, already experimented by all workers around the world.
    Our hope is that the SWP may be physically present in the struggle to denounce what is becoming a falsified reality i.e. that by which Great Britain is being occupied by foreigners, and British workers are being forced out of jobs because of them.
    We should all remember that all migrant workers are accepted principally because they cost less, they have fewer rights, and are probably more inclined to work more hours, not having families with them. And when they cost the same, or have the same rights, their convenience in working in other countries is the exchange rate for foreign currency earned abroad.
    Sometimes however, they leave their countries simply because they are unemployed, even if specialized, so accepting jobs that are previously contracted by firms signing up using lower cost reasons, or buying jobs from previous contract winners, at lower conditions for all. But this is only accepting the rules of the system.
    Now the same system tolerates hate between workers, and is furthermore motivated by careless words said not more than 18 months ago by Mr Gordon Brown (“British jobs to the British”)
    Unfortunately in Italy that same policy and way of thinking is producing the same phenomena: racism and discrimination which often produce hate and fights between Italians and foreigners, workers and not.
    Our request is that to stay on guard from nationalistic instumentalization of the matter, and to stay well into the struggle against Fascism, which has a great opportunity to increase its followers in this delicate moment of world crisis.
    Remember that only a true socialist-oriented party can march alongside the workers worldwide. Traditional left wing reformist parties have always betrayed the working classes.

    Yours
    Ottaviano Scipione
    PCL-Partito Comunista dei Lavoratori (Abruzzo) http://www.pclabruzzo.it info@pclabruzzo.it
    Communist Workers Party – Italy (Abruzzi Region)

    Like

  4. Hmm. There aren’t many groups on the Italian Left that are even smaller and less significant than Sinistra Critica, but the PCdeiL is one of them.

    Like

  5. This is the list of demands that was overwhelmingly passed by a mass meeting of the strikers at Lindsey refinery, North Lincolnshire, yesterday. The motion was proposed by a Socialist Party member on the strike committee. This is the democratically expressed will of the strikers, and the idea that this is a reactionary strike is utter nonsense. If it was, the sentiments expressed in this motion would not have got a look-in.

    The issues around this strike, involving the employer seeking to use EU neo-liberal rules to attack job security and working conditions by replacing UK based workers with an isolated workforce of overseas workers, have produced something of a spontaneous nationalist response from many workers. This would happen anywhere in the world where a stunt like this was pulled when unemployment is growing rapidly.

    But that does not make this a reactionary strike, as the demands above show. The reaction of much of the left to this has been moralistic sectarianism, not Marxism, and frankly the SWP, WP and others have made themselves a laughing stock by denouncing this as a racist strike.

    The strikers demands are:

    No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.

    All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.
    Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.

    Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers – fight for a future for young people.

    All Immigrant labour to be unionised.

    Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers – including interpreters – and access to Trade Union advice – to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.

    Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

    Like

  6. Ever felt more of a complete prat, Gerry Downing?

    Like

  7. This is one of the rare examples of a statement by SR being taken up in the national press by a Tory commentator. Here is what Dominic Lawson has to say:

    “There is, in any case, a strongly internationalist streak within the Left, which stems directly from the writings of Karl Marx. Thus this week’s statement from Socialist Resistance, the newspaper produced by British supporters of the Fourth International, roundly criticises the British demonstrators calling for the Italian labourers to “Go back to Italy”. “The demands of the strikers themselves imply that Italian workers at IREM should be sacked and replaced by British workers and that jobs in Britain should be ring-fenced against workers from outside. This is seriously wrong – where would it leave British workers working under similar conditions in other European countries?””

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-nationalism-has-its-roots-in-socialism-as-well-as-fascism-1543648.html

    Like

  8. “The demands of the strikers themselves imply that Italian workers at IREM should be sacked and replaced by British workers and that jobs in Britain should be ring-fenced against workers from outside.”

    Except that when demands came to be concretely formulated, with the intervention of socialists, that proved not to be the case. This dispute was not for the exclusion of foriegn workers, but rather directed against the exclusion of UK-based workers from even applying for the jobs in dispute. The two are not the same thing, though the spontaneous nationalist response – quite predictable if the workers were not conscious socialists right from the start – to the latter has caused a lot of confusion on the left.

    A lot of the confusion is has been based on political laziness – failure to examine properly what the dispute was actually about – driven by a moralistic, sectarian approach to politics. And Lawson’s article is a disgusting, reactionary tract, implying that workers who stand up against capitalist globalisation are proto-Nazis. What’s worrying is that sections of the far left seem almost to agree with him!

    Like

  9. The demands of the strikers are clear and very similar to those at the end of the main article. The strikers voted overwelmingly for progressive demands.

    This IS a progresisve strike that the Left should support. The fact that the media have played up the “British Jobs for British Workers” element does not mean that this is at the centre of the despute . Workers in struggle often can get confused and pander to nationalist ideas – its up to the Left to give support and leadership where possible which I think is occuring.
    Just what is not progressive about the demands of the strikers as voted on?

    No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
    All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.
    Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
    Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers – fight for a future for young people.
    All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
    Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers – including interpreters – and access to Trade Union advice – to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.
    Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.
    The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.

    Like

  10. What is the ‘NAECI Agreement’ and what does ‘nominating rights as work becomes available’ mean? If the employers accede to the demands, where would this leave the Italian workers initially at the centre of the dispute? – i’m not criticising – just asking for clarification.

    In the mean time I wonder where the US left stands on that element of the Obama economic rescue that specifies all material used must be US sourced. Is this a demand of the US Trade Union movement? I read that the EC has strongly attacked the proposal.

    Like

  11. You’ve hit the nail on the head, Will.

    Nominating rights means the union gets to control hiring and firing. This means either –

    The IREM employees lose their jobs and get sent home, because British workers should come first, not foreigners.

    The IREM workers keep their jobs in which case what was the point of the whole exercise ?

    This is a simple racist/nationalist strike to keep foreigners out. BJ4BW sums it up nicely, which is why everyone uses it to describe it, except some on the Left who are trying to twist and turn in the face of this simple fact.

    Like

  12. This morning’s news reports, if they are true, – and reporting of this dispute has been poor – that half of the Italian workers are to lose their jobs is very alarming.

    Like

  13. On Radio 4 this morning, Simpson posed it as a choice between British and foreign jobs. Very dangerous. One of the demands raised by the leadership of this dispute is tricky: “Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.” This would not only lock out foreign labour but also lock out labour that was not ‘locally skilled’.

    Like

  14. “Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.”

    Could someone explain how this is different to “British Jobs for British workers”!

    The only rational interpretation I can think of is that the union would compile a register of ‘local’ workers from which available jobs would be allocated. In fact in could be seen as worse since it is more akin to to ‘local jobs for local workers’.

    Could someone therefore also explain what a ‘local worker’ is in the context of the construction industry. Would someone who has lived there all their life be taken in front of someone who has been in the area six months?

    Would a ‘foreign’ worker living locally qualify?

    Like

  15. So SR have followed the inglorious path of the SWP and AWL in reading this key dspute all wrong. Well done comrades – enjoy your empty pseudo-internationalist rhetoric, attack the strikers for no good reason and have the right wing and BNP laughing their socks off at your crass stupidity. If you want your class struggle pure, clearcut and unmessy why don’t you invent a boardgame and go and play with that. Meanwhile us Marxists will get our hands dirty in the real world.

    Like

  16. Hi Doug,

    Reality is complex. If you want to have all perfect over there and all nasty over there, then stay at home. The reality is that the different left groups have partial, and partially correct, views on this. I think it’s very useful to look at the view of the CGIL on this matter: http://socialistresistance.org/?p=305 and at the statement from Permanent Revolution.

    The complexity is that the striking workers are describing an real, genuine grievance against the managers. It would be wrong to write off their concerns. However, I agree with Alan that some of the demands being raised would put many of the Italian workers there out of work – that seems to be the strategy of the UNITE leaders.

    Socialists need to support the strikers’ legitimate grievances but also oppose the use of demands that divide workers.

    The SWP and the AWL have taken a mistaken approach to this strike. But it would be quite wrong to criticise them for opposing demands that are nationalist and which divide Italian and British workers.

    Like

  17. Any chance of an answer to any of the questions above?

    Like

  18. Actually, the AWL have changed their position back to something that is reasonably in tune with reality. See their new statement which I posted on Socialist Unity. I don’t like the AWL on many things, but they now belatedly have a good position on this strike.

    Of course, since the other demands of the set passed call for all immigrants to be unionised, trade union assistance for immigrants and the provision of interpreters, its obvious that ‘local’ means locally resident. I.e not living on a segregated flotel (run according to the Italian CGIL by a completely non-union company). Locally resident workers who are immigrants would be considered ‘local’. If they didn’t, that would contradict the rest of the demands passed.

    Taking one isolated point from a set of demands out the context of a set is not a good idea, it gives a distorted and misleading view of what the demands are.

    Like

  19. So, ID, are you for sacking the Italians?

    Like

  20. Ian: “Actually, the AWL have changed their position back to something that is reasonably in tune with reality.”

    I don’t see how we hanve changed our position, we spent a couple of days on the picket lines and in amongst the dispute disentangling fact from media distortion before coming to the only position we have held. It is some long way from the cold distance of the swp position or the lukewarm response of socialist outlook.

    Whatever the arguments about the slogans, are duty to get stuck in and support the strikers, argue our politics, help refine demands and raise class conciousness remain priority tasks for socialists in this dispute- no good can come from standing on the sidelines.

    Like

  21. But its absolutely key demand of the list because it deals with what the strike is all about — who gets available jobs. And it provides for a unions controlled list of local labour from which workers would be allocated to the jobs available. In other words a veto over none-local or foreign workers need not apply.

    By the way what has the Italian workers living in a flotel got to do with it? Would it all be different if they were in a hotel in the center of town? Would they then be local?

    It is certainly true that IREM is unorganised, unfortunately the same as the vast majority of British construction contractors.

    Like

  22. No, but they could be redeployed. Since they are permanent employees of the non-union Italian company they could be redeployed elsewhere. They could also join with the strikers, go on strike themselves and demand to be redepoyed elsewhere.

    I don’t see that a serious attempt has been made to win them over as yet. Mind you, if such an appeal was made and they were to ignore it and side with their non-union employer, then it would be legitimate to treat them as scabs.

    Like

  23. It is relevant that they are in a segregated flotel, away from contact with on-shore workers and unions, and that their accomdation is completely in the hands of a non-union company that refuses to hire local labour, with an anti-union motive.

    And I see nothing wrong with the union controlling who gets available jobs. As long as the criteria for doing so are not racist, that is something we should be positively in favour of. The peculiar emphasis on ‘local’ is simply a reflection of the circumstances where workers feel they have been shoved out in favour of a imported replacement workforce. The other demands show this is not a anti-‘foriegn’ statement per-se.

    IREM is not organised, but obviously the people who are striking against them have some form of organisation,otherwise these strikes would not be happening.

    Like

  24. But the word ‘local’ is crucial. Trade union control of incoming labour on an open and equitable basis whether from another part of the UK, the EU or the world, is one thing we can all vote for with both hands. That’s what the closed shop used to do. But trade union control of a list which is limited ‘local’ labour (whether ‘local’ is defined as the local town or the UK — it could be either) is another matter all-together, because it discriminates against the rest on an extremely dubious basis.

    By the way if anyone has a breakdown of unionisation of the various contractors on this site it would be very useful.

    Like

  25. I don’t think it is crucial. It is arguable what it means. The other demands contradict an anti-immigrant interpretation of it. I hardly think demands that incorporate help for immigrants, including with translations, are going to exclude non-immigrants from other parts of the UK! I think the intention is to state that the unions have the right to stop this kind of thing – the replacement of a workforce – happening again.

    This is not directed against immigrants or even non-local non-immigrant would be workers, but rather the replacement of a workforce that was percieved as unfair and anti-union. That is the real context.

    Like

  26. Really how some people can come to this totally upside conclusion and say this proposed settlement is in any way progressive is beyond me. Workers are to be employed, or not employed, on the basis of their NATIONALITY, the union have accepted this is a good thing and have offered a compromise, but the militant workers have rejected this rotten sellout compromise and have demanded MORE BTITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS. And there are similar issues ‘bubbling over’ in many other sites, Simpson tells us. Well us British lads will sort out Johhny Foreigner there as well. That what it bagan as, it was not media lies, the SPEW compromise was a fig leaf, and that is how will be ended. We do not know what test of Britishness, or localism even for F-sake, the local unions will enforce but they will surely come up with something. And we won’t have to have any more stikes, because we have now established the BJ4BW principle.

    And I am very pleased the SR have come tup with a relatively good position, as I was that the SWP, the AWL and P did. I even thought for a fleeting moment I agreed with Duncan, but no, he taked the fudgist line as usual, like PR have done (disappointingly – does it feel good to be to the left of SK comrades?). And Yes the AWL are backtracking lest they rupture their relationships with a TU bureaucracy (their statement was weak on this anyway) which has taken an alarming turn to the right. But it is is any consolation to them The Commne split is now clearly revealed as a right wing one, it is the most enthusiastic advocates of spreading the strike, it it is to pressure from that quarter that the AWL has capitulated by publicly denouncing their principled youn revolutionist, Robin.

    Ans Franco G says his group is 500 strong, far bigger than the Sinistra and indeed did get more votes last time, but then how can you trust these Italians or why should you give them jobs?

    Like

  27. No understanding of class dynamics in the above piece of sillyness. Micro-sectarian mania and complete divorce from social and political reality. A sad development.

    Like

  28. Here’s another bit of non-class silliness for you. Also check out Joel Heyes in today’s Morning Star in reply to their reactionaru stance. This is from tofay’s Indy:
    Johann Hari: Strike, yes – but not at this target

    And so the rage begins. For months we have sat inert as the economic roof collapses in on us. The Greeks and the French rioted, but we – the British – were shocked into silence. Until now. The pervasive insecurity has finally taken physical shape, with thousands of unofficial strikers taking to the streets bearing fury-streaked banners.

    So which of the people responsible for knocking out the support beams of the economy are being picketed and pilloried? Is it the market fundamentalist politicians – both Tory and New Labour – who told us endlessly that economies work best when they are regulated least? Is it the bankers, who used this deregulation to spread the dry rot of bad loans throughout the banking system? Is it the bank CEOs who – even now – are using taxpayer money to pay themselves fat bonuses for screwing up? Is it the corporations who are refusing to pay £12bn in taxes every year? Is it the super-rich who are stashing £11.5trn in tax havens – many of them British dependencies – rather than contribute to rebuilding this mess?

    No. It is a few immigrant workers, living in hostels. They are the only people who have seen a British protester outside their door in this depression. The wildcat strikes are directed at them – and they are spreading.

    Our anger has skipped over the people responsible, to people who are not. Why? The political elite and much of the media have a vested interest in directing our rage away from their own responsibility on to someone – anyone – else. Murdoch’s News Corporation – and other lackeys of self-interested billionaires – sold us the deregulation- mania and tax-slashing that contributed to this disaster, and have refused to pay any net taxes in Britain for over a decade.

    The political elite was happy to follow their lead and bask in their applause. So now it has reached its predictable end-point, they have failed to tell the story of how this disaster came to pass. They have not named and shamed the bankers and market fundamentalists who brought the economy crashing down – because they would have to point into a mirror.

    So the wildcat strikers settle on the people closest to hand: the Poles and Italians. The men protesting outside their factories and plants are – rightly – worried about their jobs and their futures. Because nobody has given a shape to their anger or offered a roadmap out of this insecurity, they have lapsed into zero-sum scrambling for the scraps that seem to remain.

    There is a real issue concerning recent immigration – but it is low on the list of the factors threatening these men’s livelihoods. Nonetheless, we have to be honest about it. It is true that immigrants make a net contribution to the British economy of £2.5bn a year, but it is also true that this benefit isn’t felt equally. When there is a significant increase in the supply of cheap labour – with immigrants arriving in large numbers – the price businesses pay for it falls. This means at the bottom of the income scale, wages are eroded. It is not racist or irrational for people in that position to feel angry.

    But is the solution to turn on those immigrants? The protesters in Hull and Lincolnshire are motivated first, second and third by a desire for a secure job. They need to be shown that the route they are pursuing now won’t achieve it – but there is an alternative to fight for that will.

    What would happen if we ended the freedom to work across the European Union? Yes, one million Europeans based here will have to go home, and you won’t be competing with them any more. But the 1.5 million Brits based elsewhere in the EU will also have to return too. You would be competing against them instead, in an economy that would be even more depressed by the unravelling of European trade.

    No. The best way to deal with the wage-depressing effect of immigration at the bottom is to demand an increase in the minimum wage. This places the white working class and immigrants on the same side against the CBI-led elite – rather than squabbling among themselves as the bankers stroll away laughing.

    But this is only the first step. If we are going to pull out of this depression, we need the Government to embark on a huge programme of job creation, just as the US government did in the 1930s. We urgently need millions of jobs anyway to turn Britain into a low-carbon economy – and the Government can pay for it by closing tax havens and finally getting the rich to pay their fair share. That’s real, urgent work.

    But so far, the Government’s fiscal stimulus has seemed to only concentrate on people at the top: bankers and big business. Gordon Brown is not talking plainly about launching huge programmes to get Britain working through a depression. His response has been filled with jargon and hard to follow.

    Compare it to Barack Obama’s statement last week, calling Wall Street “shameful” and saying “the American people will not tolerate this behaviour”. David Cameron’s Conservatives are much worse, renouncing the idea of any fiscal stimulus at all – guaranteeing a much more bitter economic contraction.

    But neither party is going to spontaneously propose the New Deal we need. They have to be pressured into it: even FDR had to be spurred by heavy waves of public protest. My friend Nick O’Donovan has launched a British equivalent to the US campaigning group moveon.org to draw together the great latent mass of people in Britain who want to lobby for a progressive way out of the slump. It is called Dosomethingaboutit.org.uk – and it should be the fulcrum for turning anger currently directed at immigrants into demand for a British New Deal.

    If we turn on each other like rats in a cage, the depression will only become longer and more bitter. There is a better way. We should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the wildcat strikers and, yes, immigrants too, in protests outside Downing Street demanding a big fiscal stimulus that will get us all back to work. That’s the only outlet for our anger that will drag us up and out. Our choice now is between a New Deal – or a national ordeal.

    j.hari@independent.co.uk

    Like

  29. Johann Hari’s political compass is so reliable that he only recently repented his support for the invasion of Iraq. I’m pretty sure he still supports the occupation of Afghanistan.

    If Johann Hari told me the sun rises in the East, I would probably go outside and make sure he hadn’t got things the wrong way round. On class questions, he doesn’t know his arse from his elbow.

    You might as well quote Paris Hilton as an authority on political developments. Gerry, you’ve lost it.

    Like

  30. Johann Hari!? Sure it’s interesting to read lots of commentators, but what he has to say matters not one jot to forming an opinion – on anything.

    Like

  31. Alan

    “By the way what has the Italian workers living in a flotel got to do with it? Would it all be different if they were in a hotel in the center of town? Would they then be local?”

    The issue here – as I understand it – is that the floatel is actually run by their employer, and living on the floatel is part of their overall deal, with board and lodging deducted from salary.

    This means that even if they are paid the same nominal pay rate as the British domiciled workers, the net pay rate is much lower, as the employer profits from the accomodation.

    It also puts the Italian gang under much closer supervision, and incentivises them to spend more time on the job, as opposed to the desperate fate of being on a boat in the smellist harbour in Britain (it really does pong of fish)

    The floatel also reduces the collateral spending by the workforce into the local Grimsby economy – although that is not really a trad eunion matter.

    Like

  32. No ones told me what ‘NAECI Agreement’ means so i’ll guess ‘national something something construction industry’ and that its some sort of negotiating machinery between the construction unions and the big employers. Personally I’ve been greatly heartened by the appearance of wildcat strikes, of solidarity action and of action to defend jobs. I was concerned at some of the reactionary slogans initially but thought the statement of the strikers demands was reassuring. I was especially heartened by the reference to building better links with European construction unions. It says on ceefax tonite that the settlement agreement means the Italian workers won’t be sacked.

    I was also impressed by the well informed and fraternal comments by the various left groups which must stem from the fact that the bulk of their members work in the construction industry.

    Like

  33. Downing: you are a crazed ultra-left neo-liberal.

    Like

  34. My mum, who is currently living in Cornwall, is thinking of moving to Manchester. One job she thought about applying to with Manchester City council was ring fenced as “applications will only be accepted from permanent residents of Manchester”. Not saying this is a good or a bad thing just that the demand for local jobs for local people seems to actualy be a mainstream practice.

    I think that the left is sometimes insensitive to the fact that people don’t live really live in some post-modern dream where they can easily travel all over the world. People are locally located. They tend to have family, social ties, history that is tied. So, when the bosses are trying to ship people in to undermine their terms and conditions that people who live locally should be given positive discrimination is an understandable one.

    The danger is that this can turn to xenophobia. To counter that you have to raise the demand that all communities are open so that anyone id free to come and live and become part of any community.

    Like

  35. I think that the left is sometimes insensitive to the fact that people don’t live really live in some post-modern dream where they can easily travel all over the world. People are locally located.

    This is a really important point. Raymond Williams argued against the liberal standpoint which challenged racists by saying that recent immigrants were “as British as you are” – no, Williams said, as hard as it may be to acknowledge, somebody who has had a career and brought up a family in Britain is more ‘British’, just in terms of their lived experience, than someone who arrived last year. Being ‘British’ in that sense isn’t good or bad – it certainly shouldn’t confer any benefits – but it is real.

    Should capital provide jobs for the people of Grimsby? Hell, yes; I don’t see anything wrong with that demand.

    Like

  36. David Ellis is bereft of political arguments so he resorts to personal abuse. I ‘outed’ a personal abuser as a BNP member on the Socilist Unity blog. Can you make some clarification on what you think.
    Here is a post from the National Shop Stewards Network which shows that some can take objective and internationalist judgements independently of how this might affect their career prespects in the TU bureaucracy:

    Why the apparent silence? I couldn’t agree more with Gerry Downing: ‘British Jobs For British Workers’ is a rampantly xenophobic and completely unsupportable slogan. It leads to division within the working class and directly down the path of racism. You can be sure that the BNP agree wholeheartedly with the slogan. It’s not foreign workers to blame for this capitalist mess, it never has been.

    The workers are rightly angry at being made to pay for this crisis but socialists should be taking the argument to them that targeting foreign workers is to play ideologically into the hands of the bosses, the governments and the fascist filth who will feed on these sentiments. When such slogans are raised and accepted they provide an audience and direction that is diametrically opposed to that which is needed. We make our task a hundredfold more difficult by not openly and vociferously opposing this ideological poison.

    I hope that the lack of discussion – I’ve not seen one other email – is a result of my spam filter misbehaving or some such – rather than anything more worrying.

    Come on comrades, can we have some agreement on this or at least an open debate.

    Steve Campbell

    Like

  37. Gerry, I think everyone here is against raising the slogan “British jobs for British workers”. As Steve’s email points out, the workers’ anger is justifiable (something that much of the left, and the bosses, cannot see).

    I don’t know David, but you seem to make the point that he is supporting nationalist demands in order to progress in the bureaucracy. That kind of ad hominen attack is pointless. You have no proof of it, and it simply diverts the discussion from the political arguments.

    Like

  38. I don’t know who David is either. I am having a wider punt at SP types who have become Serwotka’s bagmen in the PCS, and others of that ilk who are far from disinterested in promoting political positions that they think will advance their careers in the TU bureaucracy, which has now lurched so alarmingly to the right in Britain over this very issue..

    Like

  39. Some people on this thread ought to come down from their ‘more socialist than thou’ pedestal, pontificating about challenging the nationalist ideas around the dispute and actually bother to look at the facts on the ground. Read the Lindsey Strike Committee proposals, accepted at the mass meeting and tell me that these don’t challenge any racist, nationalist interpretations about what the dispute is about.

    Now a settlement proposal is on the table I think we ought to open a book on who’ll be the first Swappie to shamlessly forget the last week and start screaming SP sell-out.

    Like

  40. Gerry Downing

    “David Ellis is bereft of political arguments so he resorts to personal abuse. I ‘outed’ a personal abuser as a BNP member on the Socilist Unity blog.”

    No he doesn’t. The characterisation ‘crazed ultra-left neo-liberal’ is both political and accurate. Especially if you’re reduced to citing Johann Hari – a bourgeois liberal and former ‘laptop bombardier’, who has probably not been near a workers strike in his life – as an authority on the course of this strike, it seems well deserved.

    David Ellis is not a BNP member; he is a Respect member and revolutionary socialist. I don’t always agree with him, but on this he is right. The innuendo that he might be a BNP member is pretty appalling and a classic sign that Gerry has lost this argument.

    Like

  41. (screams) SP sell-out!

    Like

  42. Strike committee puts recommended deal to mass meeting of workers outside factory gates.

    Decision taken on show of hands.

    Workers democracy in action.

    If this is a sell-out then I want more of them.

    Like

  43. Andy

    Yes the flotel is provided by IREM. What we don’t know is what the Italian workers think about it as accommodation or what the deal is. You claim that there are deductions from their salary? Do you have any information about this? I suspect you have no more idea about it than I have.
    IREM are well capable of doing such a thing, of course. I raise it, however, because what you say, in the loose way you say it, chimes in with the dangerous way that the accommodation of these works has been demonsied and targeted from the start. “Italians dragged in on a boat” etc was coming from the picket line. It was implied that the fact that these workers were in a company owned floating accommodation and not in a company paid hotel in the town gave them less rights to the job — with no idea as to the employment conditions of these workers. It played well in demonising them but was a dangerous road to go down.
    Just how dangerous was demonstrated by the fact that it led to some of the nastiest incidents in an industrial dispute for some time with the Italian workers trapped on the boat for days with strikers outside chanting ‘go back to Italy’ and with a real threat of violence against them. There were apparently threats to sink the their boat in the dock. Some did go back to Italy because of the frightening situation. Two were disciplined by IREM for gesturing back.
    Whether a hotel in town would have been targeted in this way with them trapped inside it is hard to say. It might have been more difficult to chant “go back to Italy’ in the high street than in dockland.
    I have been dismayed — what every the rights or wrongs of other aspects of the dispute — by the lack on condemnation of this gross anti-working class behavior by the leaders of the strike or by the unions involve. Or if I have missed it please point it out and I will make the necessary apologies.

    Like

  44. Steve Campbell, ‘The workers are rightly angry at being made to pay for this crisis…’

    Duncan Chapel, ‘the workers’ anger is justifiable…’

    Really ? Because a bunch of Italians have got work on their site and they don’t. This is OK in your book is it ?

    If the strike action was directed simply at job losses then why did it not erupt in November when the Shaw redundancies were announced ?

    If the strike action was directed at undermining of the NAECI then why is it not around the demand for equal pay and conditions for IREM workers, and why did it not break out during the tendering process last year ?

    If the action is about unionisation then why is it not directed at recruiting IREM workers into the union ?

    None of the glosses put on this strike to cover up its reactionary nature make any sense, nor do they convince anybody outside the small circle of leftists desperate to see something positive in this very ugly dispute.

    Even the statement, ‘being made to pay for this crisis’ makes no sense in relation to this dispute. For while there is without doubt an economic crisis, and it is workers who are paying for it, at this refinery jobs are actually being created in a construction project that will secure the life of the plant for several decades.

    So we have a certain picture of this dispute and what its about, and then we have reality.

    And what is the reality ? Shaw’s contractors are angry that they are about to be made redundant while on another part of the site a bunch of Italians (well, actually Italians, Portuguese and 22 Brits who work for IREM) are just about to start work. That’s not fair.

    And why is it not fair ? Because this is Britain and in Britain British workers should come first.

    So we come to BJ4BW, the essence of the strike, as everybody knows.

    What would a principled stand by socialists look like then, taking reality into account as opposed to fantasy ?

    Well, I think the starting point should be the right to work – of IREM employees, in the face of nationalist bigotry.

    On the basis of accepting this, then some of the real issues can be addressed, to do with undercutting across the EU, the rights of mobile workers, the threat of a race to the bottom, the compromising of safety standards, and the lack of job security in the face of the current economic crisis. In a way that allows for some genuine European class unity over these issues.

    None of these issues have anything much to do with the current Lindsey context, but they are real enough, and could emerge at Lindsey in the future too. It would be so much better if we could get past the current diversion of BJ4BW and get to the things that matter to workers everywhere, not just Shaw’s employees who think being British means they are deserve better treatment that everybody else.

    One of those issues has to do with transparency. There is no evidence in this case that IREM have undercut local conditions or the NAECI, all the available evidence points the other way. However the facts are not in full view and this may not turn out to be the case after all. A good demand for a European wide movement would be to install a mechanism for ensuring the facts of such matters are out in the public domain, because there is no denying undercutting goes on and is a real concern.

    As for those on the British Left who have supported this strike, linking arms with the BNP in the process, well the choice is becoming clearer. They can be a British Left, and go along with this kind of movement, competing directly with the BNP as they have done this last week, or else they can adopt a European and internationalist stance, in which case they will have to distance themselves from this kind of action, and look to different social forces to build with, such as the multinational working class that is also present in its millions inside the UK.

    It will be interesting to see if there are any murmurings within the CWI’s European sections over the SP’s line in this dispute, a kind of a test whether they are really an international or just satellites of the British mother party.

    Like

  45. Comrades,
    The strike is now coming to a conclusion. The British labour movement will emerge from it a great deal worse that when it began. The negotiations are centred around which nationality gets which jobs, with even more reactionary demands emerging from the SP that jobs should be ‘local’. The strike began about BJ4BW, some gave whole hearted support and pretended the posters, union jacks and pickets comments were just ‘media lies’ (Galloway et al), others came to the schizophrenic conclusion that the strike might be on reactionary demands, but ‘really’, dialectically, in a contradictory way it was about a fight to advance the rights of all workers and since it might become that it was ok – a sort of ‘if your aunt had balls’ argument.
    Now the moment of truth is upon us, turn your head away and pretend not to see but the Eyties’ are to be turfed out, our British, or better still our ‘local’ lads will get first call on 101 out of 198 jobs, is it? And presumably these locals will have to pass some test of ‘localism’ or ‘Britishness’ set by the local union committee. And now we can move on to ensuring ‘fairness’ in every other site and in council house allocations as the Sun and News of the World have advocated for so long.
    I worked in the buildings for 20 years, I have know many English Tory brick layers, I know what reactionary craft unionism is and this is what you are seeing here. The founding of the Labour party was a result of the great blows struck by the New Unionism inspired by the Match girls and the London Dockers against the elitist, privileged empire loyalism in these unions. They would troop across Westminster Bridge in bowler hats to go to work in the building sites, the same reactionary aristocracy of labour represented by the Ulster unionists, which many of us believed was its last redoubt.
    The marginalisation (but not elimination) of this reactionary tradition allowed the Labour party to be founded as a bourgeois workers party (in Lenin’s famous characterisation) and this was a great world-historic advance for workers everywhere. The re-emergence of the ascendance of craft unionism will destroy the Labour party as a workers organisation of any kind unless it is fought, and its influence halted and reversed. The defeat has not yet been inflicted on the working class but unless we fight these reactionary labour lieutenants of capital in our ranks now the future will be bleak. And that would be a world-historic defeat and a reversion to the 1870s, but in far worse circumstances.
    Barber applauded Brown’s British jobs for British workers speech, did anyone notice which other TU leaders did so too? We can hope that some trade unions will refuse support to these strikes, but their silence to date speaks volumes. In any case Unite and the GMB have adopted this line, they have allied with reactionary labour aristocratic unionist consciousness against the ‘lower orders’. And that is not just targeting Johnny Foreigner, it will target the unskilled and the unemployed and, ultimately it will rebound on its ‘socialist’ supporters too – apparently the German Social Democratic leaders were pleading with Hitler to be allowed to serve his cause as they were being led to the concentration camps. The BNP are correct to see fertile recruiting ground opening up for them.
    So yes, Patrick, Janine, Chris and Stuart, you did get it profoundly wrong and when the moment of truth arrives, when the deal based on the nationality or the locality of the workers is accepted, you will have to turn your heads away and pretend not to see.

    Gerry Downing

    Like

  46. I’m still awaiting some answers from the likes of Alan Thornett, Davie and Gerry Downing et al:-

    Would you have recommended crossing union picket lines and that non-unionised labour be bussed through them?

    If so, would your ability to influence the workers involved in the dispute have been greater ,or less?

    If not, what practical policy would you have pursued in the strike?

    Why do you ignore the fact that NO Italian or Portuguese workers have lost their jobs, but 100 British workers got them as a result of the agreement reached?

    Had those 100 workers remained without work, do you imagine that they would be more, or less likely to sympathise with the BNP?

    Like

  47. “The British labour movement will emerge from it a great deal worse that when it began. ”

    Complete nonsense. This is a limited victory, it has resulted in the creation of new jobs for workers who would otherwise be unemployed, and has demonstrated in practice to millions that Thatcher’s anti-union laws can be made unworkable. Furthermore, a defeat has been inflicted on a rather indvidious neo-liberal tactic involving what every class-conscious worker should recognise as insidious discrimination and a divide-and-rule tactic. Those like the wilder elements of the SWP,
    WP and Gerry Downing have only made themselves look extremely foolish.

    Like

  48. “apparently the German Social Democratic leaders were pleading with Hitler to be allowed to serve his cause as they were being led to the concentration camps.”

    Actually, this is pure early 1970s Healyism. Gerry Downing is unfortunately returning to his roots.

    Like

  49. “As for those on the British Left who have supported this strike, linking arms with the BNP in the process, well the choice is becoming clearer. ”

    This is a travesty of the truth. In fact, the actions of the SP and others have undermined the BNP. If the left had condemned these strikers then the way would have been clear for the BNP. In fact, people who argue this stuff are playing right into the BNP’s hands.

    Like

  50. indeed my friend ID it is you and your co-thinkers who have done so much to advance the cause of the BNP. Their agenda has won and you thought that by ingnoring the reaction, pretending that it did not exist it would go away. Check out the BNP sites to see who they think have won. Reaction only grows by conciliation

    Like

  51. Alan Thornett

    “Yes the flotel is provided by IREM. What we don’t know is what the Italian workers think about it as accommodation or what the deal is. You claim that there are deductions from their salary? Do you have any information about this? I suspect you have no more idea about it than I have.
    IREM are well capable of doing such a thing, of course. I raise it, however, because what you say, in the loose way you say it, chimes in with the dangerous way that the accommodation of these works has been demonsied and targeted from the start. ”

    We don’t know the full details, no. Because IREM refuse to disclose such things to trade unions on grounds of ‘commercial confidentiality’. That says a lot in itself. According to the CGIL, they do not recognise trade unions. I think the suppositions made are therefore eminently reasonable. If an employer refuses to employ trade unionists, and refuses to disclose such information to trade unions, it is reasonable for unionists to make a judgement on what that probably means. Not give the company the benefit of the doubt. Why should we do that?

    As for the confrontations, it should be noted that that polarisation was undermined by the tactics of the SP as the strike went on, and in any case was fundamentally the responsibility of the employers for creating this situation in the first place. Again, if the strikers had simply been ‘condemned’ by the left instead of engaged with and led in a different direction, how would that have mitigated the confrontations? It wouldn’t. It would have just left the field open for the BNP.

    I think the role of the SP comrades in this dispute has been excellent. A limited victory has been obtained out of something that could have been tragic. They deserve congratulations.

    Like

  52. Gerry Downing thinks the workers are vanguard of fascism. He is no Marxist, that’s for sure, but a liberal strikebreaker.

    Like

  53. One other thing worth mentioning is that the 102 workers taken on by IREM as a result of this deal are certain to be trade unionists. So a non-union company (according to CGIL) is being forced to take on trade unionists after a strike. That is a victory for trade unionism, whichever way you look at it.

    Like

  54. Alan
    If workers were shouting racist slogans then that should have been tackled. The strike committees handling of the dispute gives me reason to believe this would have been done
    .
    You put the question of the boat versus hotel the wrong way round. Why do you think they were isolated in a boat and not in a hotel?

    IREM is a non-union firm as we now know paying 1,000 euros per month less to their workers than the existing workforce.

    It was a neo- liberal internationalism that led some on the left to condemn the strike as being against workers unity.

    I wouldn’t underestimate the easy popularity of the BJ4BW slogan but wringing our hands isn’t going to change it. Socialists have had to deal with it in various forms throughout their lives.

    On a more positive note; the BBC web site said there was going to be a protest by the Staythorpe Power station workers in London. No details yet but I think this is an opportunity for socialists to turn it into a big Labour movement protest.
    We in Respect need to on the ball pushing this idea.

    Like

  55. “If workers were shouting racist slogans then that should have been tackled. The strike committees handling of the dispute gives me reason to believe this would have been done.”

    Actually, if you read the AWL’s belated (and supportive of the strike) statement, it is clear that from something they quote that it was tackled by someone who apparently was quite prominent in the strike – not in a condemnatory, but a political manner. I quote:

    “We want to be careful with the nationalism, lads, so that things don’t turn nasty. I’ve got nothing against the Italian workers as such, they’re just doing a job, putting food on the table for their families.

    “They’re not Without Papers, as they are EU citizens and are legally allowed to work here. Besides, this is racist. Many of us have worked abroad – Germany, Spain, Middle East – did we think or care about jobs
    in those countries? Getting at the workers is just going to give us a bad reputation, and turn the public against us.

    “The problem is with the tenders, Total management and probably the Government for allowing foreign companies to undercut…” – A striker from the Lindsey Oil Refinery site, on the strikers’ website.”

    This makes it clear that there was a political counter-response to the stuff Alan was talking about, from within the strike.

    Like

  56. For those above playing down the racist attacks on the Italian workers. Do you think they were scabs?

    Like

  57. I dont see any ‘playing down’ of anything. No, they were not scabs – I have argued against this idea throughout the strike. See what I said about this above. Whether or not they were scabs was never tested.

    Like

  58. ID. What kind of test do you have in mind to establish whether they were scabs or not?

    Like

  59. Honestly comrades, this was a complex and contradictory dispute for socialists to follow and intervene in. Denouncing each other as walking “arm in arm with the BNP” and as “neoliberal crazies” only discredits the left.

    The key question is “was this a reactionary strike, one that was unsupportable?”. I (and PR thought) the answer was no. It certainly had nationalist and protectionist overtones, and I am sure we would all denounce “Jobs for British workers” and demos against Italian workers telling them to go home. You intervene to argue against.

    I am not sure why Alan thinks the demand “Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available” is so terrible. It presumably relates to union members made unemployed when the sub-contract was cancelled. Surely it was legitimate to demand of the new contractor that the TUs should have control over hiring?

    Any closed shop as Alan knows can become regressive – in the print it was used to keep out black workers and women and keep jobs in the family. It doesn’t make the principle wrong – we just fight for a progressive implementation. It is called workers control of hiring and firing.

    The SR statement pins support or not of the strike on the “rates of pay” of the Italian workers. This was just plain wrong. The issue was about the right of the employer Total to sub contract, sack one set of workers, bring in a non union firm, that only employed its own workers. It was about the EU’s neoliberal rules that set out to undermine conditions and wages across Europe under the guise of “free movement of labour”. If the strike has made employers think twice before they try this again, it will have been a success.

    And we need to make sure we fight to prevent any strikes being directed in a nationalist and anti-European direction. The best way to do that is to intervene, not to denounce from the sidelines.

    Like

  60. If there had been a serious attempt to appeal to them to join in the strike, and they had sided with their employer, then they would have been scabs. As it happened, for a variety of reasons, that appeal was never made in a manner that really tested things. Partly because of the nationalist element in the strike, partly because the strike didn’t actually last very long.

    Some people on the left, for instance Eddie Truman of the SSP, did consider them scabs. I disagreed with that and said so. Its arguable, I think it wrong, but it is not ‘racist’ as some said to believe that they were scabs.

    Like

  61. But Stuart if there is no issue of the undercutting of wages and conditions involved — i.e social dumping — what is the problem of a contractor bring its existing labourforce in for a temporary contract? It is happening all the time. British workers are sent abroad to carry out for for British companies, often with terms negotiated by the unions. It would be interesting to see some figures on this. Car industry multinationals often switch workers between plants in different countries to cover temporary work with union agreement. No doubt workers often argue that they should have first call on such jobs because they are already employed by the firm. Do we want to get to a situation where Italian workers are outside of a British contractors site chanting British go home?

    By the way as far as unionisation is concerned do you know if Shaws was organised and to what extent? Does anyone know?

    Like

  62. I think they were operating as a scab labour force since IREM is a scab labour force, but the strikers were all unionised.

    The obvious point being, they should have respected the union picket line and come out in support of them.

    Since none of the Italian or Portuguese workers have lost their jobs, why doesn’t someone go and sign them up to the union?

    Then everyone can find out how much they’re actually being paid. Maybe they could go on strike too?

    Like

  63. *should read “since IREM is a non-union company”

    Like

  64. Prianikoff:

    Efforts were made to leaflet the Italian and Portuguese workers, with very limited success due to a heavy security presence and deliberate segregation.

    As for finding out how much they’re actually being paid, one of the workers concerned was interviewed by ITN last night and said that they were getting £1000 a month less than the local union rate.

    Like

  65. From front page of todays FT:
    ‘Brussels yesterday waded into the UK’s industrial dispute over employing foreign workers, promising to take a closer look at how European Union rules governing the free movement of labor are affecting employees.’

    The FT describes this as a
    ‘..move that could hamper employers’ ability to undercut local wage levels by hiring workers from cheaper EU member states…’

    It was said on Newsnight several days ago by ‘left labour MP for Dagenham John Crudos(?)’ that European unions had been pressing for ammendments to the legislation covering the movement of labor to include a social dimension but that Britain’s New Labor had vetoed the changes to protect the ‘flexibility of the UK labor market’. Does anyone know more about this?

    Like

  66. Working for a un- unionised company for less than the going rate is not a scabbing.
    Crossing picket lines is.

    I have not called them scabs because most of the information I have has been gleaned from the telly. I have not actually seen pictures of coaches crossing picket lines. Maybe prianikoff has more information. It certainly looked like a scab operation in the waiting though.

    The interview with the two- I think they were Italians- last night was not very revealing other than to confirm they were getting 1000 euros less than the British workers. Whether that includes payments for their digs on the luxury yacht I have no idea.

    Wouldn’t it be great if they came out for equal pay and were supported by the existing workforce? It seems farfetched I know but I’m sure a campaign with the Italian unions could succeed.

    Like

  67. No, I don’t have any more info. about it than youse two do. But let’s not be naive, multinationals don’t ship in subcontracted gangs and house them in prison ships- [sorry ] barges, if there isn’t some dodgy financial angle involved.

    So the basic working assumption must be that IREM is a scab, wage cutting outfit, which is, no doubt, also cutting costs on health and safety. Therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed to operate on the turf of any UK unions.

    Which doesn’t, of course, preclude trying to recruit and organise its employees to a union. Something that would be made easier by a reciprocal union membership agreement between the British and EU unions.

    Like

  68. British jobs for British workers may be a nationalist slogan but its not necessarily racist. The BNP would like to think ‘British workers’ really means ‘white’ workers but I’m not so sure the wild cat strikers mean that. There are a good few million British workers of African, Asian and European descent who might (or might not) support the slogan of ‘British jobs for British workers’. Personally I support the ‘No Borders’ people but I suspect most of the British working class don’t – but that doesn’t make them racist – however the BNP deludes itself.

    Like

  69. paulv: “If workers were shouting racist slogans then that should have been tackled.”

    I have personally spoken to a number of comrades who witnessed this happening. Let’s at least deal with reality rather than what we wish was real or I’ll be singing along to ‘Station to Station’ at Bowie’s 1976 gig in Nassau.

    Like

  70. That doesn’t have to be the basic presumption. The subcontractor gets the contract for a relatively specialized kind of engineering-construction. The contract will include clauses about the standard and timescale taken to do the job, and undoubtedly there will be clauses which penalize the subcontractor for not meeting deadlines etc…because only idiotic organizations (such as NHS trusts, or Oxbridge colleges) don’t include such clauses.

    The subcontractor can use an existing workforce known to the subcontractor, and known to be able to fulfill contracts without problems. Or it can recruit a local workforce which is an “unknown quantity/quality” as far as the subcontractor is concerned. The motivation for bringing in a workforce doesn’t have to be a “scab, wage-cutting.”

    Does anyone really think that all the power stations in this country were built primarily by people who lived in the immediate vicinity of the power stations? And then what? Did they simply retrain to do something else after the huge local building project finished? Or did they use their skills to go and migrate to the next big construction project somewhere else?

    Construction workers travelled up and down the country to build our current power stations hundreds of miles from where they lived. Subcontracting and internal migration has always been a part of specialized construction, and there was always a possibility that a firm based in the Northeast and employing labour recruited in that area might get a contract over a more local firm with a more local workforce. The only difference here is that the migration is across national borders.

    Like

  71. Very sensible estimation of the situation by Jodley, local labour just could not supply the specialist skills needed for this kind of construction work, we are not talking about building houses here. And of course Will is right, this is not YET racist, it is important not to exaggerate the problem and to understand the dynamic. But there is a dynamic established now which has to be fought. There will not be, as yet, many BNP sympathisers amongst those strikers, although I would be surprised if there were not a few now. But no explicit renunciation of BJ4BW on the SP-inspired motion was surely conscious. I am sure the SP man would have proposed just that if he thought he would get it through, but that would have been to repudiate the whole purpose of the strike.

    Tomorrow’s NSSN NC will undoubtedly repudiate the slogan, but that is a gathering of lefties, the Italian CGIL has made a clear statement asking for repudiation, problem is the class has rudely intervened and we need to address them now with propaganda against this.

    I think all those who opposed these strikes because of their chauvinism should hold a conference to decide how to tackle the issue, with papers from those who have concrete proposals. Those who think a victory has been achieved and there is no problem now will not be interested in coming, but there must be many wavering and apprehensive activists out there who would like to discuss what to do next.

    Like

  72. ‘Strike committee puts recommended deal to mass meeting of workers outside factory gates.

    Decision taken on show of hands.

    Workers democracy in action.

    If this is a sell-out then I want more of them.’

    PaulV, you’ve probably noticed, but in case you haven’t I was responding in a jocualr fashion to Dougs comment two posts above mine.

    For the record, I think that the SP played a creditable role in shifting what was an extremely dubious situation in a more positive direction.

    Like

  73. No one doubts the decision was taken in a democratic way, that it was the result the most of the workers wanted (some apparently were muttering they wanted more BJ4BWs) and that, in a certain sense, the union bureaucracy was marginalised and this was a manifestation of workers power (not the group, who opposed).
    But workers power to do what? It is not the case that we would have socialism if only the workers were given their head, if we could remove the bureaucratic misleaders and have proper workers democracy.
    There must be a dynamic interaction between a revolutionary leadership, schooled in scientific Marxism and the class. If sections of the class are going in the wrong direction, albeit because they are convinced they are right, we have to say no, you are making a mistake, your enemy is not Italian workers but the boss, you must make international alliances to tackle the problems in the local area. How do the Italian workers on the river feel about this ‘victory’? Very nervous, I would say. How do International labour organisations, even bureaucratic ones like the Italian CGIL, feel? See their statement, they are very apprehensive.
    More serious thought, my SWP comrade, on where we are going and a little bit of doubt and apprehension – as you started with one cheer for the demonstration of the strength of the organised working class, you should then have given two big boos for Gordon Brown, Derek Simpson, BJ4BW and localism, and then your initial cheer might seem a little premature to you.

    Like

  74. ‘More serious thought, my SWP comrade, on where we are going and a little bit of doubt and apprehension’
    My positive comments re the LOR strike were limited to just that situation. On the wider arena, i think that this strike has made BJ4BW go nationwide as a popular slogan, and our side has its work cut out in challenging that as a solution to the crisis.
    So no complacency here.

    Like

  75. ‘There must be a dynamic interaction between a revolutionary leadership, schooled in scientific Marxism and the class.’

    With respect Gerry, I’m one worker who doesn’t want to be ‘led’ by people who talk like this – though i agree with some of what you say. To be honest i’ve never heard many workers saying they want to be ‘led’.

    The dispute has thrown up interesting issues for the Climate Camp. At Kings North last year I was very impressed by the group at Climate Camp who set about talking to the workforce and their union reps. Climate Camp people in Bristol appear to be following the dispute seriously – it clearly has tremendous implications for their attempt to intervene in the politics of power generation in an anti-capitalist mode.

    Like

  76. Jodley concludes “The only difference here is that the migration is across national borders.”

    No, that’s not the only difference. There are a whole host of other factors involved, including unionisation, the role of agencies and what the workers are actually being paid.

    Temporary workers posted to the UK by their employers for less than 12 months, who get a certificate E101, can continue to pay contributions in their home country, rather than in the UK.

    Form E101 confirms to the authorities in host EU Member States that contributions continue to be paid in the home State and, prevent a demand from the host State for Social Security contributions to their scheme. It’s obtained by the employer, on behalf of the employee, from the home Social Security authorities, prior to posting and is valid for up to 12 months.

    The Italian Contractor IREM seems to hire workers individually through an agency. This means the workers themselves would be responsible for paying income tax and national insurance.

    But in most EU states checks are very lax, which allows workers to avoid making tax and N.I payments.

    So both sides of the scam can benefit:
    Employers can obviously use it to pay lower rates, on the basis that the workers will still be making more than if they paid taxes.

    Employees can still make more than if they paid their taxes, pension and national insurance and probably aren’t too concerned about the long term loss of benefits.

    It’s not that different to the situation which existed for workers on part-time and Fixed term contracts before the British unions began to tighten up on employers making Pension and NI contributions.

    Whether TOTAL or the employers at Staythorpe are operating such a scam, I have no idea.

    But the question has to be asked:-
    What economic benefits are there for them in employing these un-unionised, agency recruited gangs on their projects?

    Like

  77. Our first exposure to this dispute was pictures and comments of the BJ4BW, British first, union jack variety. Overseas workers were to be employed in place of British workers. The involvement of the BNP, the economic circumstances, our understanding of Fascism, all led quite reasonably to the conclusion that this was a reactionary strike and should be opposed. We don’t support all strikes, regardless of their legal status. From this starting point socialists took up their positions; counter demonstrations, arguments not solidarity, calls on the unions to condemn etc. OK why all the arguments then?

    A closer examination of the facts very quickly made these positions idiotic in my view. The statements and comments by the strike committee and other strikers, the history of the dispute, the nature of the contracting company, the EU laws ,the general assault on wages t/c’s all meant we had to give 100% support to the strike.

    I don’ know the details of the settlement but I will be interested to see them.

    I did mention there was a proposal by the Staythorpe power workers to have a protest in London and I thought this might be an opportunity to get the whole labour movement moving. Does anyone have any details or was I dreaming?

    Sorry swp member, only one of your comrades on another site has dimmed my humour sensibilities.

    Like

  78. To SWP comrade, you really cannot limit the LOR strike to just that situation. It has national, and more importantly, international repercussions. And Will, on workers wanting to be led, someone is going to lead them, someone at a mass meeting in a car park in Dunstable (it is true the strikes has shown that that age is returning) is going to propose something, and someone else might propose something different. If the Marxist proposal, and that would be how we would strengthen the self-confidence of the workers in fighting for socialism by a transitional demand to take the struggle forward and it might contradict the proposal from the right winger who would propose a short term solution which would bring immediate local benefits but would do immense long term damage. There is leadership and we only opt out by ceding the ground to the right wing status quo.

    On what we do now. George Binnette has proposed below we ask the CGIL over to discuss and this would be the most promising outcome on tomorrow’s NSSN meeting. And I have not given sufficient attention to Climate Change so I will come along to that meeting if at all possible. I can only bug everyone so much now because I am off sick.

    Re: NSSN steering committee 7 February 2009
    Friday, 6 February, 2009 11:15 AM

    “Binette, George”
    c:
    yes an excllent idea george i would support this -Andy
    On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Binette, George wrote:
    Dear All –
    Please see below from an official of the CGIL in Rome. This email was evidently written late on Tuesday or early Wednesday before the deal was struck to end the walk-out at the Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR). Below the email is an article translated from Italian at the beginning of the week and including a quote from Nicolosi.
    There is clearly a considerable divergence of views among NSSN supporters about the recent wave of wildcat strikes and I don’t have time at present to contribute to what is clearly a critically important debate, but I am sure that there is consensus that the whole range of issues raised by this and similar disputes are crucial for the European trade union movement and working class as a whole.
    I would therefore encourage comrades who are able to make tomorrow’s steering committee to discuss the possibility of the NSSN acting to facilitate a visit by representatives of the CGIL and perhaps COBAS to Britain to meet with key activists in the construction and engineering industries.
    Obviously, the CGIL is a union confederation and though it is well to the left of the TUC on paper it may not ultimately be possible to bypass the TUC. Still, I think it is worth giving it a go.
    Fraternally, George.
    Dear comrade,
    it’s with deep concern that we are following your situation, that is involving workers from our country.
    The Italian General Confederation of Labour would be glad to meet you and the workers, to make them understand that any nationalist approach has to be avoided. Please give us all the necessary information about date and venue.
    Fraternally yours,
    Nicola Nicolosi
    Head of CGIL Segretariato Europa
    Nicola Nicolosi
    Head of CGIL Segretariato Europa
    Corso Italia 25 – 00198 Roma
    tel. +39 06 8476328
    fax +39 06 8476321
    http://www.cgil.it/segretariatoeuropa

    Rome, 2 February – “What’s going on in Lincolnshire is one of the ugliest pages in the history of the trade union movement in these globalised times: English workers against Italian workers.” That’s the view of the heads of the European office of FIOM-CGIL (CGIL engineering section), Sabrina Petrucci, and of CGIL’s European secretary, Nicola Nicolosi, commenting on the strikes by English workers against the contract given to the Sicilian firm Irem to build a plant in a north England refinery.
    “The current economic crisis,” say the two officials, “caused by a capitalist system devoted to financial speculation, lacking rules, and centred on debt, is producing one of the worst social evils: the poor against the poor, workers against workers.” Furthermore, while the economic crisis has led to the loss of thousands of jobs, for Nicolosi and Petrucci, “the solutions put forward at Davos are exactly the same as those which created the crisis. Even in Europe, unemployment is growing and fear is becoming a social phenomenon. There are cases of racial intolerance in Italy too: odious, unacceptable, to be condemned and fought with maximum energy.”
    But the two union leaders also say that we should understand the ill-feeling underlying the events at Lindsey Oil. “We have a duty,” they say “to understand the workers’ unhappiness. The consequences of European judgements on the labour market, on the right to free movement of goods and people, are multiplying, opening the door to social dumping.” In this regard they cite the recent Viking Line and Laval judgements from the European Court “on the pre-eminence of employers’ rights over those of trade unions sanctioned by national contracts and laws, which have aroused justified concern from trade unions, lawyers and workers. In these cases ‘salary dumping’ becomes an opportunity for the firms to cut labour costs and creates unfair competition.”
    In the case of the Lindsay refinery, in Lincolnshire, Nicolosi and Petrucci add, “the protest is taking on connotations that the nationalist right-wing is turning against the “foreigner”. The English workers claim that this contracted work should use the local labour force, already hit by the loss of 500 jobs in December alone. If it’s true that the contract includes a clause excluding local labour, we say that’s wrong and a source of discrimination. The firm, on these questions, has enormous responsibilities. What’s more, we want to make the point that this is a non-unionised firm. Which says a lot about its approach to industrial relations.”
    But, at the same time, “the effects of the crisis in globalisation must not slacken the ties of international solidarity between workers, condemning all those events which could lead to xenophobic and racist forms,” say the two union leaders and, furthermore, argue that “European law should not allow social- and wage-dumping, as has happened in the Viking and Laval cases, and the parts of the ‘Distacco’ directive that can be abused to differentiate between workers from different countries must be modified.” And “that the CES campaign “equal work, equal pay”, against differentials in pay and conditions for the same work in the same country should be developed.
    To develop the spirit of a Social Europe we need solidarity, a value to which we can link aspirations and prospects for widespread well-being.” Nicolosi and Petrucci conclude, “the economic and financial crisis can’t be fought within national boundaries, even if these English workers are given a response within their national boundary: we need a European and global trade union initiative to support the unemployed and for new social and industrial policies and perspectives.”

    Like

  79. Gerry “I can only bug everyone so much now because I am off sick.”

    we al hope you get better soon then

    Like

  80. Good news that the CGIL want a meeting.

    Perhaps we could ask them what they would like British workers to do to aid them in there sruggle against non-union firms like IREM. Go on strike perhaps!

    Like

  81. Good news that the CGIL want a meeting.

    Perhaps we could ask them what they would like British workers to do to aid them in there sruggle against non-union firms like IREM. Go on strike perhaps!

    But hopefully not against British workers!

    Like

  82. If this is the objection, then the demand should surely be “End E101 provision. Pay National Insurance where you work.” But then again, false self-employment status has always been a massive problem in the construction industry – so perhaps that wouldn’t be a popular demand?

    Like

  83. Gerry -‘And I have not given sufficient attention to Climate Change so I will come along to that meeting if at all possible. I can only bug everyone so much now because I am off sick.’

    Well – I hope you get well then. These issues are complicated for Climate Camp – who oppose the construction of new fossil fuelled power stations but don’t want to act against the interests of power workers.

    I’m sceptical of those promoting themselves as leaders – many working class people spend much of their lives being supervised by arrogant people who claim they are more intelligent. So people who never admit they are wrong and know the answer to every question don’t appeal. Monty Python’s parody of the Left in ‘Life of Brian’ struck a powerful chord with the British working class. The film’s song has been adopted as the informal anthem of the class.

    Like

  84. Gerry
    No. Against all non-union operations wherever they are from and whatever the nationality of there workforce.
    I think you knew I meant that.

    Like

  85. absolution granted

    Like

  86. Gerry
    Of course it’s our job in Britain to put pressure on our own TUC to instigate talks with similar bodies elsewhere.
    The fact is it has taken an illegal strike to bring urgency to this matter says all about these bodies.
    How does this fit with your “we are worse off now” by the way?

    Like

  87. silver linings

    Like

  88. I’m pleased that the discussion here has got a lot more civilised: it’s a belated recognition that the issues in this dispute were and are not simple and the results probably contradictory. For me, it is still not clear whether this was a victorious struggle for trades union rights or for bigoted reactionary nationalism, or a mixture of the two. I presume there will be a similar mix of interpretations in the wider working class.

    One of the things that concerned me was the apparent failure of the strike organisers to make serious approaches to the workers in the barge. It can’t simply be for logistical reasons: in the days of internet, mobile ‘phones etc., approaches to Italian, Portuguese or British contacts could surely have provided links to some of the workers, even if actually meeting them was difficult. Or was it the case that there was an initially very hostile (spontaneous?) reaction to these workers that made further contact impossible? A reliable account of all these events is vitally necessary. Perhaps then we can begin mend some of the breaches on the left that have come up over the issue.

    I suspect this is the first of many struggles over “social dumping” and/or “foreigners taking our jobs”: some will be completely reactionary, some “progressive” and in others it will be difficult to decide the trajectory. Some could start taking one position and go over to the other.

    The left in the union movement seriously needs to get together to work out how to tackle this – a not just those on one side or another is this particular dispute.

    Like

  89. PhilW – i whole heartedly agree that this has been a complicated, contradictory and important dispute that has raised key issues.

    I’ve appreciated the serious discussions on these matters. I also believe that if people talk with some humility, respect for others views and lack of arrogant pre-ordained certainty then we’ll get deeper, more informative and profound discussion.

    I am very struck in the current world situation how top world politicians and capitalists are desperately resisting the lure of nationalism. The spectre of the protectionism, slashing world trade 70% in 1931/2, haunts them. Globalisation was always a contradictory project for the Right. With the ruling classes reluctant to unleash nationalism, there was never a better time for the working classes to strengthen international links. A campaign to get Britain off the UN Security Council would be a good start.

    Like

  90. PW – that’s fair enough. But you were national executive member of the main union involved in the dispute. You have also been central to forming the SWP’s policy in Amicus for some time.

    Don’t you have a more concrete assessment of matters? You’ve signed the statement produced by Sean Vernell in your capacity as an Amicus regional officer. I hope the official policy of the SWP moves closer to that statement

    Like

  91. ooops. hahahahah. You’d be philW not PW. Sorry. Been a long day!

    Like

  92. No, I’m not PW, whoever that is.

    I don’t have a more concrete assessment of matters partly because of lack of information. Many people on the left appear to have taken positions on this dispute by trying to look simply at slogans on placards or even ones adopted formally at a mass meeting. I don’t think these are enough information for making a “concrete analysis of the concrete situation”.

    Part of the problem, of course, is that we don’t have a mass revolutionary party, or anything like it, that is capable of by-passing the bourgeois media and using its roots in the working class to assess the impact of the dispute. This is not an argument for left groups not taking a position on it – and the SP, in particular, had to formulate one as a member was centrally involved. But is is one for understanding that those positions (including that of the SP) are not rooted in a thorough view of all the dispute’s ramifications. Therefore, as Will Brown says, some humility and willingness to listen to other points of view is necessary.

    Like

  93. I agree PhilW. I’d go so far as to say that even if we had a mass revolutionary party with its roots in the working class – some humility and willingness to listen to other points of view is still necessary.

    My experience of life is that working people often have deep disagreements about all manner of things because the universe is dynamic, complex and infinite. I was a university technician for 15 years – many of my colleagues experimented on animals. Some of the union members I represented in the Physics Dept bitterly opposed this – as do huge numbers of working class people. This was not a disagreement that could be settled by a choice quotation from Trotsky of Marx. To me, respectful, well informed discussion and democratic structures are the way forward.

    Like

Leave a reply to Nas Cancel reply

Trending