09.07.1998

Campaign struggles for momentum

Simon Harvey of the SLP

Following the release of Fairness at work, the lightly sugar-coated, yet draconian white paper on workers’ rights, delegates once again assembled under the auspices of the United Campaign to Repeal the Anti-Trade Union Laws. Meeting for the second time since the successful launch of the Socialist Labour Party-initiated Reclaim Our Rights conference on March 28, around 60 delegates gathered from a variety of unions and union campaigns at the South Camden Community School in north London. This was half the number assembled at the first recall meeting on April 18.

Billed to confirm the allegedly ‘interim’ structure set up at the first recall conference, this meeting did not change the overall orientation of the campaign, which is aimed at shifting the trade union bureaucracy to the left. In the words of the Reclaim Our Rights pamphlet by the United Campaign’s chair, Bob Crow, and one of the two joint secretaries, John Hendy, the “campaign can only succeed if led by the TUC”.

So far, the campaign has had all the hallmarks of a stitch-up of the left wing of the trade union bureaucracy. The active leftwing bodies in the unions, such as the Campaign for a Fighting and Democratic Unison (CFDU), were excluded from direct affiliation. Underlining the bureaucratic approach of the UC’s committee, John Hendy said that the affiliation of ‘broad lefts’ to the campaign would act as deterrent to national trade unions. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, endorsing the existing structure, attempted to give this strategy revolutionary respectability.

Despite the potential the turnout for the meeting can only be considered disappointing. Notwithstanding Bob Crow’s opening remarks that he has heard “plenty of fighting talk, yet not seen much fighting”, this meeting, lasting over three hours, seemed to do plenty of the former. Perhaps the agenda, including an address by Aslef general secretary-elect Dave Rix, was not the most inspiring for comrades to mobilise around.

Even so, signalling its relatively open, non-sectarian nature and the relative importance of the campaign, a small number of Socialist Workers Party members dragged themselves away from the first day of Marxism 98 to make their clumsy interventions. It seems they are not quite sure how to react. So far, their only purpose seems to be to ensure it supports their own mobilisation at the Labour Party conference.

Typical of the United Campaign’s culture, nobody mentions their political affiliation, yet most people know what the euphemisms mean. UCLH Unison means SWP, Free the Trade Unions Campaign means AWL, Reclaim our Rights usually means SLP, Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions means Communist Party of Britain, and the CFDU means the Socialist Party. Yet mention of party affiliation seems taboo, with the conference on July 4 explicitly excluding the affiliation of political organisations to the campaign.

The agenda, only slightly different to that advertised, included the joint secretaries’ reports - on organisation and finance from Lol Duffy (AWL/FTUC), and on activities from John Hendy (SLP); discussion and decision on the constitutional arrangements of the campaign; the address by Dave Rix; reports on union activities; and a debate on Fairness at work.

The only vaguely contentious item was that on the constitutional arrangements. Frankly, the rest of the agenda was a combination of repeating what we already know: tangential and obscure point-scoring and information-sharing on the white paper and various campaigns.

John Hendy reported on a number of regional meetings that had occurred (in Durham, Manchester and Glasgow) and said that meetings were being organised for the Midlands, Wales, London and two in Yorkshire. These meetings are to establish regional committees. A fringe meeting at the TUC conference has been organised for Monday September 14.

The United Campaign is to go ahead with its plans to organise a mass demonstration against the anti-trade union laws for May 1 1999. It is proposed to do this in association with the Greater London Area Trades Councils. Further, there is a proposal to dub this Union Rights Day and hold further demonstrations on May 1 2000 (a Sunday) and May 1 2001 (a bank holiday).

SLPer Dave Rix gave a fairly polished, strongly left-leaning speech. He pointed out that the careerists and bureaucrats in the movement were the real ‘entryists’ and that they used the anti-trade union laws to police members. The comrade referred to the contradictory mood in workplaces. There was an awakening to the truth of Blairism alongside general apathy toward political activity. Yet when asked by SWPer and Islington firefighter Neil Williams about bureaucrats being more concerned with defending union funds than defending members, comrade Rix said that it was important for unions to have funds and that sequestering has destroyed a union’s ability to organise in the past.

Discussion on the ‘constitution’ was fairly limited in range. John Hendy’s draft structure was more like guidelines and notes than a document where every dot and comma was debated. Positively, all national unions (or regions in the absence of the higher body affiliating) have automatic representation. Likewise, regional committees of the campaign and of the TUC have automatic representation. An amendment from the Central London Engineering branch of the CWU, which was accepted by comrade Hendy, allows for automatic representation of affiliating county associations of Trades Union Councils.

Point one of the ‘notes for the constitution’ drew the most disagreement and discussion. It reads: “Supporters/affiliates: only bona fide trade union organisations”. A comrade from Workers Fight asked whether the CFDU counted as a “bona fide trade union organisation”. This was answered in the negative from the platform. Lol Duffy from the Alliance from Workers’ Liberty and its front, the FTUC, said that there were two or three ‘broad lefts’ in some unions and argued that we could not have every small group which called itself a ‘union campaign’ affiliating. Comrade Duffy said that point seven of the ‘notes’ was one way that allowed such campaigns to ‘unofficially’ affiliate. It reads: “10 branches or more of a union who are affiliated to the Campaign and are not supported nationally or regionally have one seat” on the committee.

Greg Tucker from the RMT executive and the South East Region TUC pointed out that it was questionable that Mark Sandell from the FTUC was representing a “bona fide trade union organisation” on the United Campaign’s committee. Along the lines of argument presented at the meeting, it is indeed questionable whether the FTUC or, for that matter, Reclaim Our Rights and the LCDTU are “bona fide” if the CFDU is not.

Comrade Duffy argued that any campaign in a union that could not organise 10 branches to affiliate were not real campaigns anyway. He said that the United Campaign should have “real affiliations that mean something”. This statement is somewhat ironic, given that regional TUCs, which the meeting recognised as being largely inactive, now have automatic representation on the committee. Surely, activists already in rank and file campaigns will be the initial motor firing any successful movement against the anti-union laws? Surely, the CFDU or Socialist Caucus of the PCSU would be “real affiliations that mean something”.

It is positive that the United Campaign is open to all trade unionists. This alone is a step forward for the labour movement. However, it is not enough. Disunity in the face of a resolute and united enemy produces its own spontaneous necessity. Yet the method being used is a typically reflex bureaucratic attempt to win over left general secretaries in order to change the policy of the TUC, which remains slavishly loyal to Blairism. The left is in danger of acting as mere foot-soldiers for the bureaucrats.

Yet within the United Campaign are elements active in ‘broad lefts’ and left minority campaigns within the unions. These forces are part of the potential for building a cross-sectional, militant movement our class needs. Unlike the suffocating bureaucracy of its SLP parent, there is space within the United Campaign to agitate for what is necessary, against the current strategy of relying upon the TUC to “lead the campaign”.

With or without the TUC, smash the anti-trade union laws. Build a militant minority movement in the unions against reformism, against economism and against bureaucracy.

London SLP

Information has been brought to my attention which will no doubt be of concern to the SLP leadership, but will come as no surprise to those who have observed the witch hunts, bureaucracy and inertia within our party.

The SLP London committee is ruling over a rump of what it once was. In the lead-up to the SLP’s second congress last December, the SLP in London had 600 members. That has now plummeted to 120.