03.11.2005
Turmoil over pensions
The SWP has disciplined two of their leading members on the executive of the Public and Commercial Services Union, who voted for the government's plan on pensions. That disciplinary action was long overdue, says Lee Rock (national secretary, PCSU Socialist Caucus), but why won't the SWP criticise PCSU general secretary Mark Serwotka?
The Socialist Workers Party has decided to discipline its leading member within the largest civil service union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, for his failure to vote against the pension deal agreed with New Labour. Twelve out of 13 public service unions representing civil servants, NHS and education workers signed an agreement that raises the age of retirement for new entrants from 60 to 65 in exchange for a (no doubt temporary) truce in the assault on current workers' pension rights. The one union that declined to accept the deal immediately was the GMB (see Weekly Worker October 20). Chris Bambery, editor of Socialist Worker, put out the SWP line in a statement on its website on Tuesday October 18 - the day the agreement was signed, and three days before the PCSU executive met to rubber-stamp it. In this statement, titled 'We must throw out this shabby pensions deal', comrade Bambery attacked the two-tier proposals for all the right reasons and called on "trade unionists to meet immediately to organise resistance" (www.swp.org.uk/pensions). Comrade Bambery must have assumed that at the very least his own comrades on the executive of the PCSU would vote against the proposals. Unfortunately the two SWP members on the EC - Martin John and Sue Bond - refused to accept the discipline of their own organisation and voted to support the pension sell-out. When the government proposals from trade and industry secretary Alan Johnson were put to the union, the SWP organised a quick meeting between its two NEC members, the SWP industrial organiser and another leading comrade in the civil service. At this meeting all the comrades were very clear as to the position of the SWP - no to selling out future workers. Despite many years membership of the SWP, both Martin John and Sue Bond stated they thought it was a good deal and they would vote for it. John also stated they were aware of the possible consequences. At the October 21 meeting of the PCSU executive, comrades John and Bond went ahead and voted - alongside the other 'revolutionary Marxists' from the Socialist Party and Scottish Socialist Party, who together make up a majority on the EC - for the pensions deal. Only the two Socialist Caucus members refused to vote for it. As a result of this the SWP within the PCSU is in crisis. Chris Bambery is said to be "incandescent", whilst national organiser Martin Smith is "furious". They only have themselves to blame, of course. Martin John has argued against SWP positions on the PCSU NEC and at union conference for the last couple of years. As I have previously reported in the Weekly Worker, he has moved to the right in his search for a full-time post. The political positions he adopts are ones that enable him to keep in with the Socialist Party, while sucking up to Mark Serwotka. None of this is new to readers of this paper or activists within the union. So why has the SWP let this go on for so long? It was only a matter of time until this member let them down so publicly. Unfortunately it appears that the leadership of the SWP also feared losing influence with Mark Serwotka (the only union general secretary to support Respect) - hence the Bambery article attacks Brendan Barber of the TUC, but makes no mention of the PCSU general secretary, who negotiated the deal on behalf of the civil service unions. The SWP leadership was also reluctant to bring its members to book because it did not wish to lose the little influence it thought it had on the union NEC. It has at last become apparent that its two comrades have not been acting as SWP members, but as supporters of whatever line the Socialist Party puts. Despite the clear breaking of party discipline no decisive action has been taken by the SWP central committee. The CC has referred the matter to the SWP civil service fraction with a recommendation that Martin John should not be put forward for any union positions this year. If the fraction committee accepts the recommendation and comrade John nevertheless stands as an 'independent' - ie, is supported by the Socialist Party - only then, I am told, will the central committee expel him. There will be no penalty for Sue Bond, who, it appears, has apologised, admitting she was in the wrong, and a letter to this effect is on its way. Why the issue had to be put to the fraction committee to decide is unclear. The action of Martin John and Sue Bond does not impact only upon one small group of comrades, and the central committee should have simply taken the appropriate action - which for comrade John should be expulsion. In all likelihood the fraction committee will endorse the recommendations, but they have a number of very weak comrades that have over the last couple of years consistently failed to stand up to John when he has previously acted in a similarly undisciplined way. This has been a problem for the left within the union, as Martin John has acted as left cover for the Socialist Party on issue after issue. Readers need to be aware that the actions of the Socialist Party within this union are far to the right of their members elsewhere (although the SP leadership has proudly trumpeted a union 'victory' delivered by militant socialists). Perhaps the SWP central committee hopes that by forcing the fraction committee to take the action it might toughen it up against any possible repeats. SWP comrades in London have already started to take action against their two 'comrades'. At the London Left Unity meeting of October 24 the SWP members, with an unusually large number in attendance, and chaperoned by the industrial organiser, successfully put a motion opposing the deal and supported a successful motion from the Socialist Caucus criticising the NEC. They also withdrew their nominations for Martin John and Sue Bond for any posts on the executive. The position of the SWP elsewhere is unclear. In Sheffield Left Unity Martin John continues to argue his corner - as did Sue Bond at the Manchester Left Unity meeting, held three days after the NEC meeting. She voted against a motion criticising the executive for accepting the deal on pensions. In Sheffield the Socialist Caucus motion criticising the NEC and opposing the deal was defeated due to the SWP members either voting against or abstaining. This was despite them knowing the position of Chris Bambery and that their own comrades in London had voted to oppose the deal. Martin John has also gained the support of Dave Owens in Liverpool who, despite privately disagreeing with Martin John over some of his previous actions (eg, recommending support on the exec for a poor three-year pay deal that the SWP itself was opposed to), has this time come out in support of John. That said, with the heat coming from the central committee, comrade Owens might well make a hasty retreat. At the time of going to press it is still unclear as to which group is going to come out on top. The SWP civil service fraction committee meets in the next couple of weeks. It must be hoped that the Bambery/Smith line wins out and Martin John resigns or is expelled. Anything less and the SWP in the union might as well pack up and go home. As for the Socialist Party, it has no such disciplinary problems, since the SP itself has welcomed the pensions deal. In its version of events the militant PCSU, under socialist leadership, put some backbone into the other union tops and forced the government to step back by mobilising the members and threatening to strike. The Socialist points to the anger of the establishment and is happy to quote The Financial Times, which slams the government for its "abject retreat" (October 27). It is true that Johnson retreated - previously the government had hoped to rewrite existing contracts to force current members to work until 65, for lower pensions - but the unions were so pleased that Johnson had agreed to hold off - for the moment - that they signed up future members to an extra five years of wage-slavery. The Socialist is hiding behind the fig leaf that nothing has yet been given away - only an outline agreement, which must now be fine-tuned department by department, has been struck and the PCSU has agreed to put the final deal to a ballot. But what about future members and the "anxieties amongst workers and activists "¦ who correctly see the dangers of a two-tier scheme"? Having posed the question, The Socialist comes up with the response: "Much detail still needs resolving in the negotiations before any union should sign on the dotted line." But new members should not hold their breath, as the unsigned article explains: "For the PCS, along with other unions, to reject the deal now means going back to the members to argue for strike action to defend future new starters in the civil service. Sometimes it's necessary to put down a marker for the future and go to the membership even if you expect to lose. But in this case most members would say, 'We hear what you say about future members, but to ask us to take strike action now when we have kept our arrangements intact seems a step too far.'" A clear case of weak generals blaming the rank and file for their own incompetence and cowardice - after all, the pension fight had not really even started. Surely it is the duty of 'revolutionaries' to fight to overcome the natural tendency to narrow sectionalism and put the interests of the whole class, including future workers, over and above the short-term interests of a particular group. The SP does not see it that way: ""¦ to be defeated in a ballot would have consequences, including giving a weapon to the right wing in the unions - especially those in the PCS who are waiting to see the leadership rejected by the membership". One could be excused for wondering what the point is of trying to keep out the right wing when the 'left' is capable of behaving in an identical manner. With bold leadership there is every reason to believe that workers would vote to protect not only their own interests, but those of their children too.
Worker