Workers show their strength and win! Friday 13 February 7pm Friends Meeting House, Euston Road , near Euston station With Keith Gibson, Socialist Party member and member of the strike committee in Lindsey, Bill Mullins, Jerry Hicks (left candidate for Unite general secretary). More details to follow.
Workers show their strength and win!
Friday 13 February 7pm
Friends Meeting House, Euston Road , near Euston station
With Keith Gibson, Socialist Party member and member of the strike committee in Lindsey, Bill Mullins, Jerry Hicks (left candidate for Unite general secretary).
More details to follow.
good to see the campaign for jerry hicks creating practical unity.
it will be interesting to see the isg and other ultra-lefts who opposed the strike tackle keith gibson, the sp cde who was on the strike committee and played a good role along with other in turning the strike away from any nationalist sentiment and towards a good outcome.
ks
LikeLike
Nice to see unity in action between the SP and Respect both of whom were clear this was a progessive despute (even if some of the early slogans could have been better).
We should all support the “Fight For The Right To Work”.
LikeLike
The ISG did not oppose the strike. You’re thinking of Workers’ Power. Easy mistake to make, if you hate both of them.
LikeLike
Good to see the SP and Respect working together – two key pillars of building a wider left alternative.
LikeLike
I think this meeting has had to be rescheduled too Friday, and Jerry can no longer make it.
BUt it is the thought that counts.
LikeLike
Yes, Duncan, but it was never clear whether the ISG actually supported the strike. The statement was ambiguous at best, abstentionist at worst. To quote:
“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. ”
Did it ever become clear for the ISG before the strike was over? Did it ever say it supported the strike? Maybe it did, if so I’m sure you can point us to it.
LikeLike
Hi Stuart, at the time we made its statement, the facts of the matter *were* ambiguous. But the fact is that the ISG did not oppose the strike. As far as I can see, we took a similar line to PR.
LikeLike
Indeed Duncan, both the ISG and PR fudged the matter excellently. where do we go from here?
I returned to my job as a London busdriver last Tuesday after a five week illness and enquired how the drivers felt about Bj4Bw? The replies were unprintable and the anger against Unite for promoting this slogan was very strong. Of course none of the drivers were ‘British’ (there are only about a half dozen British drivers out of 250 drivers in our garage). So they were just victims of media propaganda, didn’t understand the building trade etc? And the Poles, some quite pro-management ones I spoke to, were among the angriest. Maybe some SP members should take the British working class in its diversity and the need to conduct the class struggle in unity.
And is it not hilarious no to see John Haylett’s and the Morning Star unceremoniously dumping the SP because it is backing Gerry Hicks whose crime was to criticise the ‘leadership; whilst supporting the strike (see Monday’s MS). The MS are now giving their unalloyed backing to Simpson against Hicks as the wait for it…..the ‘left-progressive candidate!!! A few weeks ago he was an absolute right wing traitor but in the meantime he backed the Bj4Bw strike and SPONSORED THE MORNING STAR AS THE DAILY PAPER OF THE LEFT. Poor old Bill Mullins, after quoting the MS line so religiously during the affair to be stabbed in the back line this – never trust a Stalinist, particularly if you call yourself a Trotskyist, however spuriously. And where does it all leave the prospects for the new united Unite Broad Left which was conceived as led by Woodley, the left winger against Simpson, the right winger with the support of the SP AND the SWP? The world really has changed after these strikes.
LikeLike
I’m not clear how we fudged the matter Gerry. I think our position was quite clear. You didn’t agree with it, fair enough, but that’s not the same thing.
LikeLike
Gerry.
I’m glad to hear the bus workers took that attitude to the slogan BJ4BW. I hope you explained the position of the striking workers though.
LikeLike
On second thoughts I sort of hope you haven’t, given your failure to get to the kernel of this dispute.
LikeLike
Paul V, what was the kernal of the dispute? What was the position of the striking workers?
Was it
a) BJ4BW?
Or b) that subcontractors should comply with the terms of the NAECI agreement regardless of the nationality of the workforce?
If IREM is complying with NAECI, then b) makes no sense.
If it is a) then the strike effectively becomes a strike against the NAECI agreement. This is a trajectory with a certain number of inherent dangers for the workers and unions.
It therefore becomes very important to know whether IREM is complying with NAECI.
LikeLike
Firm A gets massive contract. Works with firm B to sub contract areas of the project to firm C. Firm C. has won contract on the basis of being the most attractive to firm B. Firm C just happens to be a non-union firm who happen to be based in a country that has lower wages t/c’s than either A,B or the country where the work is carried out,country D. This nicely circumvents national agreements in country D . Country D has opted out of the meagre protection offered by the EU (with the acquiescence of the TU leadership).The only constraint on firm C is the market and the minimum wage in country D.
I believe negotiations had taken place between IREM and the union but no commitment had been made to paying NAECI rates. They knew EU judgements were going in their favour.
They did agree to the British tea-break though!
A bit complicated but fortunately the rank and file spotted it.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what the wages are on average in the country of Firm C. What matters is the terms agreed by Firm C for the particular job, and whether they do indeed circumvent the national agreements of country D. The only legally-binding constraint on Firm C is the market and the minimum wage in country D. However, Firm C may, in fact, comply with NAECI agreement (despite not being legally obliged to do so) and in this case have repeatedly claimed to have done so. UK firms are also not *legally* obliged to comply with NAECI agreement, but choose to do so.
LikeLike
Jodley.
If you hire labour in a country with lower average pay and conditions it’s likely that’s what was being paid in this case. What other reason would there be for doing it, they are non union and refused to hire any local (unionised) labour. Excluded them from even applying
.
The rest of what you say I agree with.
So, your reason for giving the strike less than 100% support hinges on whether the IREM workers were breaking NAECI agreements. You chose to believe the company and the media rather than the strikers and later on the IREM workers themselves.
LikeLike
OK Jodley your beef is not really about this particular dispute. It’s about BJ4BW and economic nationalism in general.
You are right, these ideas key in very well with this dispute and must be combated, but as far as I can see this is being done by the strikers themselves. Coming in with denunciations and half hearted support is no help at all.
LikeLike
I use the present tense because I don’t think the dispute is really over yet.
LikeLike
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Andy newman Cancel reply