10.07.2002

Organise to win

The largest strike of local government workers in 23 years has been jointly called by the TGWU, GMB and Unison for July 17. Up to 1.2 million workers could be involved. The timing nicely coincides with Gordon Brown's spending review and could prove embarrassing for the government. This is the latest in a growing number of disputes across several unions. Media pundits at the BBC and in papers such as The Guardian and The Times are referring back to the last national strike by council workers during the 'winter of discontent' that helped to destabilise the Labour government in 1978-79. Whilst the historical context is different and the proposed action has at this stage neither the depth nor breadth of what occurred then, it is nevertheless a highly significant event. The one-day action is over a national pay claim and London weighting allowance. Despite votes in all three unions for a strike - overwhelming in the case of the TGWU - there is little active participation by the rank and file. There are undoubted rumblings, but workers remain largely passive, still following behind their bureaucratic leaderships. So, in the absence of any significant rank and file militancy, the initiative for this dispute is almost entirely top-down. For the BBC we have 'moderate' union bureaucrats "looking over their shoulders at the left wing". Peter Mandelson too blames the unions' left wing for becoming too uppity. A number of election successes for the left, moves to democratise the political funds and question the relationship between unions and New Labour - all this and agitation for action are said to be exerting pressure on normally 'sensible' trade union leaders. Well, there is some truth here, but not the whole truth. This narrow and mechanical analysis - the left builds up pressure and the right pulls the whistle to let off steam - is mirrored amongst many on the left with their equally narrow and mechanical analysis: left advance, right counter-offensive. Reality is much more complex and dynamic. The characterisations, 'left' and 'right', can be useful, but they do not reveal all we need to know. However, for now let us look at the right wing. Yes, we have seen a counteroffensive - bureaucratic manoeuvring at union conferences, TUC interference in elections, closure of branches, stifling and delaying of debate, refusals to act on democratic decisions, anti-democratic coups and so on. But there is also a subtler side to the counteroffensive - initiating actions in order to control them and constrain the left, posing militant to fool the workers (and some on the left) or undermine left influence, incorporating the left into the union bureaucracy - in the 60s this was an art form. In addition to this counter-action against the left, the right has sought to run the unions as businesses, hoping in this way for survival and growth. Facing up to reality though, it has become very clear that interminable leaflets offering cheap loans do not recruit members. Following the success of the move away from a service to an organising culture in unions in the USA and Australia, the TUC here began to research a return to an organising approach to trade unionism. Then there are the pleadings, threats and actions even of the likes of Monks against an aggressive anti-working class, pro-big business Blairite agenda, a hankering after the good old days when unions had influence on Labour policy. On the left we have a number of individuals with no strong allegiance to a party or group who have got themselves elected to prominent positions. Some remain worthy of support, continuing to fight for workers; others have succumbed to the pressures of office and the needs of the bureaucracy. Then there are broad left formations, whose orientation has largely been to influence policy through resolutions at branches, regions and national conferences; get delegates to promote these resolutions; act as an election machine for getting 'lefts' into positions in the bureaucracy; and tail spontaneous struggles in the manner of cheerleaders. Mired in the unthinking, undemocratic tradition of most left groups, they have been largely preoccupied with the machinery of the unions and its existing structures. To a large extent the successes of the left have been over the heads of the rank and file - and so are partial, fragile and prone to rightwing counter-attack. Left activists who are brought up to follow 'the line' substitute for the rank and file until something happens that actually involves the masses. Then most are at a loss as to how to engage with ordinary workers - who do not just follow 'the line'. Here the inexperience, lack of strategic foresight and tactical inability of a left with no real roots in the class opens the door to serious blunders. One such blunder was the recent series of strikes by London Unison over London weighting. The damage done is reflected in the ballot results for national strike action - the 'yes' in Unison only just scraped through with 56.4%, compared to 66% for the GMB and 80% for the TGWU. Under normal circumstances you might have expected the largest majority in Unison. I do not have a regional breakdown of the result, but I suspect that the Unison vote in London collapsed. Even now many on the left in Unison are still trying to say, 'We showed the way'. A line too far, I think. The London action petered out because Unison - to hearty left cheers - rushed into hasty action unilaterally, without winning the support of other public sector unions for a united fight. The rank and file, though stirring, remain largely passive, fragmented and lacking in confidence. Militancy is tentative. Our strategy must take account of this reality and overcome weaknesses by building unity and confidence in practice. We must ensure that July 17 is a success and work carefully to build up support for the necessary escalation in order to win the dispute. The struggle must be politicised: despite Blair's 'nothing to do with us' attitude, it is clear that we are not just taking on the local authorities, with their pitiful three percent 'offer', but the government with its spending limits. We have the opportunity once again to pose the question of the union political funds - why should we automatically fund a party whose leaders will be working - at first behind the scenes, later openly - to defeat our claim. Rank and file movements across unions have to be built, and broad lefts must subordinate left unity to working class unity. Struggles need to be coordinated, analysed and generalised, lessons learned. Long, patient work that requires discipline, programmatic vision and organisation. The June 29 Socialist Alliance trade union conference voted to set up SA networks in every union. This must now be made a reality, but is especially urgent in the three unions concerned. Alan Stevens