31.01.2002
Socialist Alliance leadership needed
South West Trains are flexing their muscles. The retraining of 100 managers and recruitment of new staff to replace their striking guards is clearly aimed at breaking the RMT's monopoly. Other rail companies have already indicated that they will be watching the current dispute closely. A dangerous precedent could be set - not just for the rail industry, but other industries as well. The left and the trade unions have to rethink their strategies. On January 28-29, during the third of four two-day strikes, SWT was already able to run 600 of the company's 1,700 services. By the time of the next scheduled walkout, February 12 and 13, the company could have trained so many new guards that the strike will go by without any disruption - and without anybody noticing it. The current recruitment drive by SWT ("£19,750 per year. And you're expected to work hard") is of course not aimed at replacing all the RMT strikers - despite reports by a hyped up press. As this is a completely legal and official strike, SWT cannot just sack a big proportion of their employees. Also, the management will not be building a full 'second team' of staff - a kind of 'reserve army' in case another strike breaks out (especially not on £19,750 a year). Far more likely is that SWT will employ a small number of new people and retrain a proportion of their 2,500 other workers as guards-in-waiting. However, this is a new and - from an employer's point of view - actually quite clever campaign. Masterminded by SWT's ultra-reactionary head, Brian Souter, who also led the multi-million-pound battle to keep the homophobic section 28 in Scotland, it could kill quite a few birds with one stone. First, it distances passengers from rail workers - at least to a degree. It shows that strikes can be broken, that 'something can be done' against the mighty RMT. Disputes that seem to be winning are the ones that attract support. Second, it spreads fear among strikers, who quite naturally will presume their jobs are on the line. The potential for scabbing grows. Third, it dramatically weakens the bargaining power of the union. If a strike can be sidestepped easily, a union loses its main bargaining weapon. Fourth, it creates an ideal opportunity to get rid of the biggest troublemakers in the union. Greg Tucker might well be only the first of many trade unionists to be victimised. For a minor speeding incident he has recently been degraded from driver to 'non-essential staff'. The tactics of the ruling class constantly change - in labour disputes as in all other spheres of society. Unfortunately, the left and the union bureaucracy are more conservative. Instead of looking to new, progressive methods, they hope the same old answers will be good enough for an ever-changing world. "A return to the 1970s"¦ if only," The Socialist muses (January 18). The 'winter of discontent' undoubtedly shook Britain, but still ultimately lost, of course. Naturally, SWT management attacks the union leaders for their apparent lack of democracy - a common tactic. "This dispute is not about the pay of the normal workers. It's about raising the profile of some of the RMT's members," claimed SWT managing director Andrew Haines (The Times January 28). He is hinting at the current election for general secretary of the union. Bob Crow is poised to replace Jimmy Knapp, who died last August. Greg Tucker has good chances of becoming assistant general secretary under Crow. Of course, Haines has got a point. Strike action always helps to build a hard left profile. It is surely no accident that the ballot papers have to be returned to the RMT by February 13, the day of the next strike. But so what? An overwhelming majority of members voted for the strike action. Even Crow's opponent, the right-winger Phil Bialyk, had to come out supporting the action. However, things become less clear-cut when democracy inside the union is considered. The RMT has not balloted its members over the pay rise package offered by SWT management. The union, which demands 7.6%, argued that this rise was only worth just over four percent, as payment is staggered. SWT has now 'imposed' the rise - which would probably have been accepted by most RMT members. Ballots are of course very time-consuming and expensive in the middle of a dispute. It is certainly not a principle to call for a ballot whenever an employer makes a new offer. Often, they can be used to undermine a left union leader. Margaret Thatcher was famously able to manipulate public opinion against the miners' strike of 1984-85 when Arthur Scargill refused to ballot his members. However, democracy must always be the basis of working class organisation. In trade unions, which generally reflect the most basic level of class struggle and are mostly defensive, democracy is best ensured by constant pressure and control from the membership. Sure, some union leaders will be to the left of their membership. But they generally exercise a pull to the right. Without constant monitoring from below, the union leadership will make bad compromises. Of course we stand with socialist comrades like Bob Crow and Greg Tucker. But we should only support them to the extent that they support and advance the struggles of the working class. Another serious problem in the current struggle is that workers on the railways are represented by three different unions: The TSSA (white collar employees) and, most importantly, the RMT and Aslef. Whereas the RMT organises most of the 'non-essential staff' (ie, everyone but drivers), Aslef has from its foundation in 1880 represented most train drivers in Britain. The privatisation of the rail industry in the early 1990s widened this split. Hundreds of train drivers were sacked to save money, which led to a serious driver shortage. "Drivers were, for example, able to net a 12% increase in wages over the last 18 months, whereas non-essential staff were lucky if their pay rises covered inflation," explained Alex Gordon, member of the national executive of the RMT, at a meeting of the SWT strike support group on January 23. For the management it is relatively easy to play these three unions against each other. According to The Sunday Telegraph, the leadership of Aslef has officially agreed to work with the scabbing SWT manager-guards, although we were not able to get a comment from the union to this effect. Also, there are currently seven disputes either being fought, prepared or balloted on: On Arriva Trains Northern, ScotRail, London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, Connex South East, Silverlink and South West Trains. Most of them are over pay and all three unions are involved. Since the Conservatives introduced their anti-trade union laws (kept in place by New Labour) it is illegal for workers not directly involved to strike in support of others. However, the leaderships of all three unions have so far failed even to coordinate and sychronize their seperate disputes. Neither have they put the fight against the anti-union laws on the top of their agenda - just as they have failed to push for the unification of their unions. With only one union representing all railworkers it would be much easier to coordinate these disputes and fight effectively against the anti-trade union laws. A one-day strike of all employees on the railways would have a much greater impact than the current disputes. Rank and file members of these separate unions must demand unity in one organisation for all railworkers. Practically, joint rank and file committees across union lines can start to provide the basis for a democratic merger from below, as opposed to a bureaucratic stitch-up from above. But that is not enough. There are many Socialist Alliance members in the RMT and Aslef and other trade unions. We should start to organise and unite the various struggles. We have to build SA branches in every union - and close down the dozen or so left campaigns that are still being run by organisations which are now part of the Socialist Alliance. Not only is the SA in a position to potentially unite and organise thousands of socialist trade union members in one organisation; it has the opportunity to raise these labour disputes from a purely economic to a political level. Our programme People before profit says: "Public services should be publicly owned, publicly funded and democratically funded by those who work in and use them" - ie, workers' and passengers' control over the railways. Unfortunately, neither Bob Crow nor Greg Tucker have tried to give the Socialist Alliance - or the politics it represents - any prominence in this dispute. Interviewed last week on Johnny Vaughan Tonight, comrade Crow cut a less than inspiring figure. There was no mentioning of the need to nationalise the railways (let alone under workers and passengers control). "Weren't you a member of the Socialist Worker Labour Party?" asked a not very well informed Vaughan. "Socialist Labour Party, yes", replied comrade Crow. That was it. No mentioning of the Socialist Alliance - despite his support for SA candidate Louise Christian in the last general election and being labelled "a prominent member of the SA" by the red-baiting press (The Times January 28). Greg Tucker, SA general election for Stretham, was just as tight-lipped when interviewed on the BBC's Dispatch Box. Presenter Andrew Neil tried in vain to get comrade Tucker to talk about the alliance. The comrade missed various opportunities to promote our organisation. All he would say was: "This dispute is about low pay." (BBC2, January 28). That might be right. But surely as a member of the SA, the comrade has some higher aspirations than purely trade union struggles? At the recent meeting of the SWT strike support group the comrade was asked four times by members of the audience to comment on the role of the Socialist Alliance. But again, the magic words did not cross his lips. It seems Greg Tucker and Bob Crow (along with many other comrades) are trade unionists first and politicians second. The SA conference on March 16 must ensure that this starts to change. The SA should give political leadership to trade union militants, so they can fight as socialists in the trade unions - not trade unionists who happen to be socialists. Tina Becker
Worker