16.09.1999

Informer Metcalf’s infantile disorder

Steve Hedley replies to Mark Metcalf (Weekly Worker August 26), who argued that comrade Hedley’s dismissal from the railways could have been prevented, and that he had now “turned his back” on his supporters by accepting a union official’s job with Ucatt

In an article in your paper, M Metcalf performs what is described by you as a “Steve Hedley autopsy”. First let me use the obvious cliché that reports of my death are somewhat premature. Secondly I question the validity of publishing a personal attack from an individual (who has no party or group) which is fundamentally incorrect and contains sensitive information. Your paper has degenerated into a lefty gossip column.

In a long, rambling article virtually devoid of politics, Metcalf airs his hurt feelings and disappointment at the outcome of the strike following my dismissal from the rail infrastructure company, GTRM. He also criticises me for becoming a “bureaucrat”. It is probably easier to deal with this concoction of lies and half-truths as they arise in his diatribe.

Firstly Metcalf claims: “It is no surprise to anyone that Steve Hedley has taken such a job to gain status and an improvement in personal conditions.” Let me point out that in my previous job as a railworker the pay was £20,000 a year plus benefits, and I now receive £17,000 a year as a union official. Hardly an improvement in either salary or status! Further, after the infrastructure dispute a railworker’s salary for my job has risen to £24,000 plus benefits. M Metcalf’s reasoning does beg the question: what constitutes a union bureaucrat? Surely he does not mean anyone who works for a union, because he himself enjoyed appointed positions in the TUC as a lecturer, as a worker in the Trade Union Support Unit and in Newham Unison.

Perhaps he would like to point out any instance where I behaved in a bureaucratic manner. Indeed the evidence (such as victories in the Bouyges building workers’ strike, which involved breaking anti-trade union laws) proves the exact opposite.

Next Metcalf attempts to finger me as a “key man” who was secretly working with the Mirror newspaper exposing health and safety issues at Euston. If these allegations are true, Metcalf has degenerated into nothing more than a ‘grass’ who is alerting management to my alleged activities, even while he acknowledges that the union is still seeking my reinstatement.

Then Metcalf claims that George Brumwell (general secretary of Ucatt) appointed me, when in fact I was appointed by the union’s NEC, which did include Brumwell. My decision to accept this job was a political one. No serious communist is going to turn down the chance of organising thousands of building workers for fear of offending anyone.

Metcalf names Bob North as an RMT executive committee member. This is sadly typical of his article. There is in fact no Bob North. I think he is referring to Bob Law, who was on the executive at that time.

Not content with fictional characters, Metcalf claims that the signalworkers at Euston were prepared not to cross a picket line. This was a rumour spread by ourselves in order to panic management, as Metcalf is well aware. With reference to the Watford workers, after a long discussion they were persuaded to go on strike, but they insisted it was only for a day unless the union made it official.

At no time was Metcalf or Terry Dunn prevented from speaking to anyone. Terry will confirm this. It does however cast some light on Metcalf’s psyche that he believes that a few wise words from him would have drastically altered the situation. Bear in mind that he was a complete stranger to these workers whom I had known for over 10 years. I believe this indicates that Metcalf is prone to delusions of grandeur bordering on megalomania.

Metcalf then turns his fire on to the “left bureaucrats”. In fact Mick Atherton and Greg Tucker did attend unofficial picket lines and urged workers to come out in support of me.

Next he says that I remained silent on the issue of stepping up the picketing. In fact I organised the flying picket from Euston the next day. We went to Watford, where workers walked straight across the picket line, as they had promised to do if the strike remained unofficial. Meanwhile people at Stonebridge had been intimidated back to work, leaving only 17 staff at Euston and Jamie from Stonebridge still on strike. The RMT meanwhile repudiated the unofficial action - a decision taken by Knapp and then defended publicly by Crow. This practically killed off any possibility to reignite the strike at the other depots. However, the Euston workers visited these depots pleading for support, but none was forthcoming.

We were now in a situation where a strike of over 100 people was reduced to 18 with no possibility of spreading it. As Metcalf knows, the leaders of an unofficial dispute can be singled out and sacked with no right to an industrial tribunal. With this in mind, and after a full discussion, the Euston staff agreed that they should end their unofficial dispute and have an official ballot. In fact none of these staff actually returned to work in the interim because they were all sick. Ballots at all the other depots were lost.

Metcalf then complains that we did not exclude all SWP members because he believed one of them to be a disgrace. This is truly the logic of a lunatic. In fact some SWPers were helpful in spreading propaganda and fly-posting, etc.

He then attacked my interview with The Big Issue on the Strike Support Group. The group’s purpose is to give practical aid to workers in struggle and it forbids sectarian remarks between the groups that are involved, showing that we put the interests of the class before the interests of any groups. Something which Metcalf is unable to understand. In fact he did turn up to a recent meeting of the Strike Support Group where he aired his views in an emotional and somewhat incoherent way, but was quite free to do so, as we do not stifle debate.

Metcalf descends into complete fantasy-land when he claims to have discovered, after the event, that areas in England and Scotland were ready to come to our aid, and that we could have pushed on to Milton Keynes and Northampton. In both Milton Keynes and Northampton whole depots were already scabbing on the national dispute and when I attended the RMT grade conference no one claimed that their depot had been ready to come to our aid.

Whilst Metcalf was demanding heroics from the Euston staff, he was ensconced in his management job in a creche in Kilburn. I have known him for four years and during this period he has never been on strike, either official or unofficial. Despite this he thinks he can parachute into every dispute and persuade a workforce to abide by his wishes. This is an anti-materialist view, which results in the likes of Metcalf becoming disappointed with workers: hence his year-long absence from politics during the dispute.

Hypocrisy can be added to his list of crimes, because he advised me, when I was sacked, to get an education or I would end up like Brian Higgins, whom he described as isolated in the union movement with no real base of support except the two other workers in the Building Workers Group, which claims to be a rank and file organisation. Nevertheless Metcalf is now trying to bring Higgins and co into this to give him some credibility with building workers.

I think it is the height of cynicism to condemn me for continuing to play a part in the workers’ movement instead of opting for full-time education and a comfortable middle class lifestyle like Metcalf’s.

If Metcalf is so interested in benefiting rail and building workers with his self-proclaimed organising abilities, then he should get a job on a site or a rail station. Of course this would mean leaving the cosy creche in Kilburn. However, I am challenging him to do this. Perhaps then his criticisms of those who are trying to organise these workers will have some validity.

Meanwhile could I recommend to him Lenin’s Leftwing communism, an infantile disorder? This book shows how the correct method is always to be with the workers through their learning curve (brought about mostly by experience and not leaflets and speeches) on the path to revolution.

Contrast this to Metcalf’s method of working on hurt feelings, lashing out and falling into depressions when workers do not follow him. He is now a member of no group and is akin to a crazed individual, standing on a corner shouting ‘bastard’ to anyone who passes. I know which method I will endeavour to follow and it is certainly not his.