WeeklyWorker

11.07.1996

Real debate in the SSA

At July’s meeting of the National Council of the Scottish Socialist Alliance there were two main items to be discussed: the Job Seekers Allowance and sections of the SSA’s draft programme, Charter for Socialist Change.

After an introduction from Janice Goodrich, chair of the CPSA employment section, on the JSA and the position of the CPSA union, the meeting went on to look at the SSA’s response to its proposed introduction.

Although the JSA will directly attack and harass the unemployed, it is an attack on all workers. As the unemployed are forced to take jobs, no matter what the wage rate, so those in work will feel the squeeze on their pay. Why should any profit-loving boss offer better wages when the job centre will force people to work for less?

Another effect will be privatisation and the dismantling of the welfare system. JSA will mean lower benefit rates as workers’ national insurance contributions actually increase. Those who can afford it will look towards private unemployment insurance which will undoubtedly have a negative impact on staff in the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. A campaign is already underway from the unions, but this inevitably focuses in on the effect of the JSA on their members. Industrial action has already come onto the agenda where JSA trials have been proposed.

In response to all this the SSA committed itself to launching a serious campaign in Scotland, in conjunction with the CPSA. There were two aspects to this campaign: information and action. SSA branches should hold public meetings in their areas in August and target job centres with a leaflet highlighting the attacks that the JSA will bring. As the JSA launch date approaches in October, it was agreed that demonstrations and direct actions would be organised. The importance of a joint campaign between the workers in the offices and the unemployed was stressed.

Appropriately the meeting then went on to discuss the sections in the Charter for socialist change on unemployment and the minimum wage.

The unanimity of response which had existed in the earlier part of the meeting gave way to pointed disagreements on sections of the SSA Charter. Comrades from the CPGB put forward amendments to sections on unemployment, the minimum wage and trade unions.

Our proposals on unemployment were:

“Unemployment occurs because capitalism cannot employ all workers profitably. Those who are unprofitable are thrown on the scrapheap. Unemployment is used to drive down wages of those in jobs. We aim to organise the unemployed alongside the employed.

We want an end to unemployment by fighting for:

On the minimum wage:

“Our starting point must be what is the basic required for a decent life in Britain today. On that basis we should fight for a minimum wage of £275 per week.”

On trade unions and workers’ rights, we wanted to add:

“For the democratic rank and file control of trade unions. Trade union officials to be elected and recallable and paid the average wage of their members.”

This amendment on trade union accountability was unanimously agreed. Many of the points on the unemployment amendment were accepted, although the preamble laying the cause of unemployment firmly at the door of the capitalist system was lost, along with the demand for benefit to be set at the level of the minimum wage. However, positive demands were added: an end to casual labour and zero-hour contracts, retirement at 55 and a 4-day working week. There was an interesting side argument when Tommy Sheridan, Scottish Militant Labour councillor, argued in favour of replacing the term ‘capitalism’ with ‘so-called free market’.

However, the most contentious debate was over the level of minimum wage that the SSA was prepared to publicly advocate. A minimum income of £275 per week was proposed by our amendment. The majority however deemed this to be unacceptable because, they claimed, the horizons of workers are too low. Instead they advocated the European Union ‘decency threshold’ of £6 per hour, which was seen as “realistic and as fitting in with the position adopted by ‘forward’ sections of the trade union movement”.

In proposing the amendment, I argued that on the minimum wage we must, as socialists, start from a minimum position of what workers need to reproduce themselves physically, technologically and culturally. The point was made that £275 was not plucked out of the air but was calculated using figures from the Retail Price Index. Mary Ward argued that we should be setting a minimum wage that was not based on any bosses’ calculation, including those running the European Union, and that benefits should also be set at the level of the minimum wage.

Tommy Sheridan (SML) thought that pensions, but not unemployment benefits, should be at the level of the minimum wage, as that could discourage people from getting involved in “useful work under socialism”. Richie Venton (SML) seemed to accept all of the arguments for the amendments, but thought it was inopportune to have the conclusions in a charter. He thought that benefits should be “linked” to the level of the minimum wage, and that way we could actually mean ‘set at’ without saying it.

As the SSA’s political platform, the Charter should be based around demands and an action programme for what workers need today rather than what the bosses and their system say they can afford.

The SSA is a forum where open and comradely debate does take place, but, as discussions on the Charter progress, it will be inevitable that some of these debates will become sharp. This is no bad thing. Because the Alliance contains many organisations and individuals from different traditions of the working class movement, it is only natural there will be differences on policy. It is not only healthy, but essential, that these differences are debated openly and fully so that ideas can be clarified.

Nick Clarke