WeeklyWorker

20.11.2003

Confusion reigns over union bosses' pay

At a meeting of 40 Public and Civil Service Union London Left Unity members on November 11, Socialist Workers Party comrades voted against their organisation’s position with regards to the pay of rank and file candidates when elected as full-time trade union officials.

At a meeting of 40 Public and Civil Service Union London Left Unity members on November 11, Socialist Workers Party comrades voted against their organisation’s position with regards to the pay of rank and file candidates when elected as full-time trade union officials.

The 10 SWP members present voted against a motion from the Socialist Caucus (moved by myself), which read as follows:

“This conference notes the following - that:

“Taking all the above into account, this conference agrees that Left Unity policy should be that staff taking up the elected post of DGS and AGS should not have a gross wage higher than the average pay maximum of executive officers in central London.”

This would have meant a wage of about £25,000. Hardly a poverty salary, as Alliance for Workers’ Liberty member John Moloney claimed when he moved a separate motion. This began as above, up to and including the bullet points. It concluded:

“The general secretary’s real take home pay is approx £38,000 per year. Clearly the DGS and AGS should not earn more than him.

“Taking all the above into account, this conference agrees that Left Unity policy should be that staff taking up the elected post of DGS should not have a gross wage higher than the average pay maximum of HEOs in central London.

“This conference further agrees that Left Unity policy should be that staff taking up the elected post of AGS should not have a gross wage higher than the average pay minimum of HEOs in central London.”

The AWL members present were split on the issue, with their rank and file activists voting for the Socialist Caucus motion and those on higher wages voting for the official AWL motion. It was a motion that differentiated between the officials: approximately £25,000 for the AGS; £30,000 for the DGS; and at least £50,000 for the general secretary.

The supporters of this motion never explained why they, as revolutionary socialists, felt the need to have pay differentials for elected rank and file trade union officials working from the same HQ offices in London.

The SWP members present were united in support of the second motion. The position of the SWP was confusing, in that they were also selling the new SWP pamphlet The awkward squad - New Labour and the rank and file, written by central committee member and industrial organiser Martin Smith.

In the pamphlet comrade Smith restates the position that the SWP has held for decades. Comrade Smith not only deals with this important issue of wages, which is constantly referred to throughout the pamphlet, but specifically links it to the PCSU:

“When elected, a rank and file trade union official is expected to take home the average wage of the workers he or she represents, and will be accountable to the members. For example, both Mark Serwotka of the PCS and the rank and file candidate in the postal industry take home the average pay of their members” (p26).

Putting aside the fact that Martin is wrong about Serwotka taking home the average pay of members - I wish we were taking home an average of £38,000 per year! - the SWP position is put quite clearly. Why then did the organisation’s members vote for elected officers to be paid a salary higher than the average member; and, secondly, why did they vote for successful candidates to be paid according to different scales? Nowhere has it been SWP policy to differentiate wages between the union posts, which is exactly what the motion they voted for actually does.

A number of SWP members were questioned about their decision to vote against their party policy immediately after the meeting. Despite the unity the SWP showed in voting together, when questioned, the comrades all gave different reasons: Phil Pardoe was of the view that quite simply the second motion was better; Jon Gamble felt the first motion was too abstract, compared to the second one; Joel Hirsch thought that full-timers should be earning £30,000 to £35,000 (though to his credit, when parts of the pamphlet the SWP was selling were read out to him, he alone accepted that the SWP members had voted against their own policy); Anna Owens was unable to give any comment; Keith Crane was just lost for words, when the pamphlet was read out to him, and seemed more concerned with what Martin Smith and Dave Hayes might have to say about such a position being taken by a group of very experienced SWP members whilst they were selling a pamphlet that clearly outlined the SWP policy that contradicted that position.

I accept that sometimes a union meeting can throw up issues that have not been properly considered, and therefore the best activist can on occasion vote the wrong way. This is much more likely with comrades who are inexperienced. But to have all 10 SWP members voting the same way in the same meeting (and with most of the 10 being very experienced union members, and long-standing members of the SWP to boot), this was clearly something more than a silly mistake.

The SWP members in the PCSU must have collectively decided to oppose the position being put forward by Martin Smith and the SWP leaders. These PCSU members have decided to break with decades of SWP tradition and the writings of Tony Cliff. We can only hope that the SWP leadership can rewin these comrades to a socialist and rank and file perspective - a perspective that comrade Smith attempts to outline in the new SWP pamphlet. I urge all CPGB, AWL and SWP members to read the pamphlet and, where there are differences between groups (or, in the case of the SWP and AWL, within groups), take the opportunity to debate them out.