23.04.1998

Reclaim Our Rights delegate recall conference

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Over 100 delegates from a broad cross section of unions and political organisations participated in the Reclaim Our Rights recall meeting on April 18 in London. The main business on the agenda was to elect an interim committee and officers and begin planning a programme of activities aimed at achieving the repeal of the anti-trade union laws.

This initiative of the SLP has a good chance of success in instigating a mass movement. Blair supports existing anti-union legislation and is committed to only the smallest concessions - that is why Morris and Edmonds are talking tough. However, ROR is no 1920s-type Militant Minority Movement. So far, it has all the hallmarks of a lash-up of leftwing bureaucrats and various leftwing campaigns.

The meeting was chaired by SLP NEC member and RMT assistant general secretary Bob Crow. John Hendy, also an SLP NEC member, gave the secretary’s report. SLP supremo Arthur Scargill played his favourite role as a populist demagogue from the floor.

The meeting was squeezed into two hours. Comrade Crow - formerly of the CPB and its Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions - successfully kept things within the narrow scope intended by the organisers: to establish the interim committee and pass one motion on organising a mass demonstration to ‘reclaim our rights’. All other business, including motions moved from the floor, was bureaucratically sidelined.

The initial proposals from the platform prompted a tortuous debate about the composition of the committee. Despite its interim nature, the political balance will determine the trajectory of the campaign, before a conference in the summer elects a full committee and considers a constitution.

What was finally agreed was for a chair, two joint secretaries, two representatives from the existing campaigns (the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty-sponsored Free Trade Union Campaign; the Communications Workers Union campaign and the CPB-led LCDTU), one representative from each of the major, current or recent industrial disputes (Liverpool dockers, Critchley, Magnet and Hillingdon), and one representative from each affiliated national union. A dispute arose when delegates from the Campaign for a Fighting and Democratic Unison pointed out that such a structure excludes the militant minorities in the unions - affiliated or otherwise. The CFDU cannot affiliate, but if Unison does, the representative will be Bickerstaffe or some loyal crony, they said.

Clearly the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty had done a deal with the SLP. The AWL-backed FTUC has a guaranteed position. Scargill spoke against the comrades from CFDU, arguing that ROR should not be seen to be meddling in the internal affairs and divisions of unions. He was backed by Mark Sandell of AWL/FTUC, who urged delegates: “Let’s not worry too much about seats” - with the comforting knowledge that he had already secured himself one

Without any concrete solutions coming from the CFDU as to how it should be included on the committee, the suggestion from the platform passed unanimously. Lee Rock - ex-SWP, ex-RDG, ex-RWT, ex-SLP and now Socialist Perspectives - nevertheless urged that the campaign’s constitution make provision for the inclusion of the militant rank and file.

Bob Crow was elected unopposed as chair. The nominations for the joint secretaries, John Hendy and Lol Duffy of the FTUC, were also unopposed, further underlining the deal done between the ROR organisers and the Workers’ Liberty-backed FTUC.

The meeting then moved on to activities. Bob Crow recommended a national demonstration for March 27 1999. There was an amendment from the floor for the demonstration to be on May 1 1999. CWU activist and AWL/FTUC partisan Mark Sandell also spoke to a written proposal of four complementary actions: a lobby of the special TUC conference on May 6, which will be discussing the government white paper on union recognition; a lobby of parliament on the white paper; support for the second March for Social Justice on May 30, initiated by the Merseyside Port Shop Stewards Committee; and organising regional conferences along the lines of the ROR conference held on March 28.

The other concrete suggestion came from SWP members Brian Butterworth (Brent Unison) and Candy Udwin (secretary UCLH Unison). Comrade Udwin moved a motion that the campaign agree to lobby the Labour Party conference on September 27.

This highlighted a strategic tension within the conference. A number spoke in favour of pressurising Labour, including SWP comrades, Martin Wicks of Socialist Perspectives and a comrade from the Workers International League. Without directly addressing the issue, comrades from the SLP downplayed the idea of engaging with the Labour Party (incidentally no one referred to their political affiliations - you had to be in the know).

Another tension emerged around the issue of the TUC. Speaking from the floor, Arthur Scargill disagreed with the line of John Hendy and Bob Crow. They have been arguing, particularly in their pamphlet Reclaim Our Rights, that the campaign to repeal the anti-trade union laws can only be successful with the support of the TUC. Scargill, “speaking from bitter personal experience”, warned of the dangers of putting faith in the TUC. He argued more along the lines of ‘with or without the TUC’.

Scargill also spoke stridently against suggestions that there were those in the room who only wished to follow official channels and were not prepared to break the law. Despite comrade Hendy’s legalistic overtones, there was a general mood that in order to win, demonstrations were not enough and that illegal solidarity action would be required.

With just over half the agenda completed, comrade Crow began to wind the meeting up. He suggested that all outstanding business be considered by the committee after a vote be taken on the national demonstration. Many delegates were unhappy. There were calls for all proposals to be voted on, including those from comrades Sandell, Butterworth and Udwin. They were brushed aside. There was, as it turned out, unanimous support for a national demonstration on May 1 1998. Amidst considerable confusion and hubbub the chair then moved that all outstanding business be referred. This passed by around three to one. Meeting safely sown up.

During John Hendy’s secretary report, the tense relationship between ROR and the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions came into the open. Comrade Hendy read a letter he sent to LCDTU secretary George Wake on April 2 inviting it to the ROR meeting on April 18, a clash of meetings notwithstanding. He reassured the Liaison Committee that he would be recommending that a seat be reserved for them (this was duly agreed).

However in reply, LCDTU chair Halpin complained that Bob Crow had known that the LCDTU would be meeting on the same day since early in the year. He claimed to see no reason why the Liaison Committee should not continue to perform the role it has been playing since 1969 and that the correct approach was to strengthen the LCDTU rather than launching something new.

To placate them comrade Jimmy Nolan of the Liverpool dockers was sent to the Liaison Committee meeting - held just around the corner, in order to urge them to affiliate to what is now a broader, more significant campaign. The LCDTU allowed comrade Nolan to speak but made no decision to affiliate.

The Liaison Committee is caught between a rock and a hard place. Should it subordinate itself to Scargill’s initiative or continue to operate as a go-it-alone shell? The relationship should become clearer after the CPB has dealt with its internal wranglings over the Morning Star dispute.

After the two meetings, the Lucas Arms on Gray’s Inn Road filled to the brim with participants from both Reclaim Our Rights and the Liaison Committee. Much to the disgust of Bob Crow, Mike Hicks - former general secretary of the CPB - was amongst those from the LCDTU. Hicks was a prime mover behind the factional sacking of Morning Star editor John Haylett - done under the cover of management’s right to manage. This hypocrisy was too much for comrade Crow (himself a dab hand at supporting the sacking of SLPers deemed to have fallen foul of Scargill’s factional constitution).

Inasmuch as Reclaim Our Rights aims to build a mass campaign against the anti-trade union laws, it deserves the active participation of trade union militants. However, as it stands, it is not the weapon union militants need in order to forge the sort of fighting unions we need. Essentially, at present ROR is an organisation subordinate to the leftwing union bureaucracy. Despite the relatively non-sectarian nature of its launch, it is being fashioned as a safe option for general secretaries. No wonder the organisers see rank and file militancy as something to be turned on and off like a tap.

Such an approach is one that suits Scargill. Whether the divisions emerging between Crow/Hendy and our party general secretary are real or stage-managed is so far unclear. Nevertheless, there is space in the campaign for the emergence of a rank and file movement.