29.03.2006

Show of union militancy

Pensions dispute points to lack of politics, says Alan Stevens

Across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in excess of one million - possibly 1.5 million - workers in 11 unions struck in defence of pension rights on Tuesday March 28. All the reports indicate massive support. The local government pensions strike has been commonly touted as the biggest single dispute since the General Strike of 1926.

Certainly for the current period it is uniquely promising, but we should not get carried away by the euphoria of at last seeing some militant action. We need a sober assessment of weaknesses and strengths.

It is possible to make a favourable comparison with the General Strike or with the big disputes of the 1970s, but only quantitatively - these are all disputes with a lot of unions and a lot of strikers. This has some propaganda value in demonstrating that a lot of workers are seriously pissed off with the government and the employers. And there is one area where today's struggle represents something new: 75% of members of the Local Government Pension Scheme are women - and this makes Tuesday's strike the biggest ever by women.

However, the comparison really ends with the numbers. If we compare the quality of these disputes then it is pretty obvious that 1926 and the disputes of the 1970s were struggles on a much higher plane - politically and organisationally. And it is for this reason that the ruling class treated those struggles as serious threats.

It is important to emphasise that, whilst I think there are serious weaknesses and that none of them are being adequately addressed, the pensions dispute is pregnant with possibility - who knows what may spontaneously erupt? The question is, will there be a leadership that is up to the task?

Where is the strategy to win?

Over the past two years we can safely say that the defining characteristic of the union leaderships has been to delay, limit and strictly control the dispute in line with a very narrow set of objectives: not to damage or embarrass the Labour government; to accept the most minuscule of crumbs in return for big concessions; to negotiate or retreat rather than fight; and to maintain membership by talking and acting tougher than they are.

This sort of balancing act to negotiate the terms of exploitation within the capitalist system is the traditional role of the union bureaucrat. From their point of view they have a coherent strategy - it is just not a strategy that advances the independent interests of the working class. This is where revolutionaries and rank and file movements have their role.

Union bureaucrats can to some extent be pushed into adopting a tougher stance by rank and file pressure. It is also the case that union leaderships can negotiate from a position of greater strength when there is a militant base. It is clear from this that the timidity of the current batch of leaders reflects in part a weakness amongst the rank and file and most of all in revolutionary organisation.

The unions kept quiet on Iraq at the 2004 TUC in return for the puny Warwick agreement that they thought - pretended to think - included a commitment on pension rights. Then in 2005 Unison pulled the plug on strike action, and other unions quickly followed suit, so as not to embarrass the Labour election campaign. And last October we had the supposed victory of securing the pension rights of current workers - really a sell-out of future members, and one that isolated local government workers and set a precedent for a two-tier system.

It now appears that the union tops have suddenly got tougher - but is it only skin deep?

A joint union campaign has been set up with a website at www.prot-ectourpensions.org.uk. Most union leaderships involved in the strike have been actively promoting the day's action through leaflets, circulars, emails and union websites - they definitely wanted a huge turnout. But it was only a one-day action. What they propose next is a rolling programme of selective actions over two weeks in April, culminating in a two-day strike in May to coincide with the local elections. Most activists regard this as inadequate to win the dispute. They want much more extensive strike action, together with regional marches.

However, it was clear from the London rally held in Westminster Hall on the day of the strike that the union tops' limited 'strategy' is related to their limited aims and ambitions. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis gave a decent agitational speech designed to win support for the campaign and apply pressure on the government and employers: "Those in government who think this is a one-day wonder, think again." But it was clear the aim of the campaign is to get a deal whereby existing members get protection at the expense of future recruits. Despite hot air about equality and fairness, it sounded like the same dodgy deal which the civil service, NHS and education were sold. He nevertheless got a standing ovation.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said the unions are "not against reform but are against diktat and no negotiations". Talking of the government trying to open up a divide between private and public pensions, he demanded "equality by raising up the private sector" - but there was not a hint of how that could be done. Diana Holland, national organiser of TGWU, did say there should be "solidarity between the generations", but, of course, the same leaders have already given away that principle for civil servants, health and education workers. PCSU general secretary Mark Serwotka leaned a bit more to the left and commented that "strikes can win". However, last October he hailed the agreement that increased the retirement age for future members.

So despite a lot of hot air and vague references to equality and fairness, the union tops are using limited action to bring about talks. They have already shown how weak they are in such talks.

All of the left groups see weakness at the top and the need for pressure from below - by the end of the rally large sections of the audience were chanting, "Give us a march, give us a march" - but on the process of bringing this about, how it is led and consolidated into something effective and lasting, they all seem utterly clueless.

The real counter to weakness at the top is strength from below, and this has to be organised and led. In the current period, after years of defeat and demoralisation and with large numbers of new workers lacking experience of struggle, this is a difficult and slow process. This is where it is necessary for revolutionaries to play their traditional role as educators, agitators and organisers.

Most of the left do not see their own weakness, do not recognise that they are not only part of the solution but also, while they perform so ineffectually, part of the problem. We see this most clearly in the Socialist Workers Party.

SWP searches for answers

The SWP's nicely timed pamphlet Pensions, profits and resistance, written by Charlie Kimber, is worth looking at. By page 9 comrade Kimber has already made a decent agitational case. He then deals with some of the problems with the leadership of the current public sector pensions dispute. I could pick holes, but the real point is this: having laid out the workers' case and some problems in pursuing it, the question crying out for an answer is, what is to be done? On this comrade Kimber is silent. Instead we get another 20 pages of informational and agitational fare. The "and resistance" of his title is missing! Does this not leave the workers, indeed the SWP's own activists, disarmed?

However, Alex Callinicos attempts to address this very problem in his article, 'The politics of the new rank and file' (Socialist Worker March 25). Comrade Callinicos contrasts the militancy of rank and file organisation in the former vanguard industries of the 70s with the lack of rank and file initiatives today. He puts it all down to the Thatcherite attacks that defeated some of the best organised sections of workers and undermined rank and file confidence generally. He neglects at this stage to mention the liquidation of the Communist Party as a factor, although he later acknowledges that the "rising shop stewards movement (of the 1930s and 1940s) was knit together by the Communist Party".

He says the defeats tilted the balance of power in the unions decisively in favour of the full-time officials (in fact this process was already underway before the Thatcher attacks) and this made it easier for the trade union leaderships to "cut deals with the government and the employers".

Comrade Callinicos lays all the blame for the current demoralisation on the union leaders' "refusal to fight". But what about the responsibility of the left to organise? He says there were "key moments when the situation could have been turned round" - for example, the miners' and dockers' strikes, "had the entire working class movement rallied". This again misses a vital factor - the declining influence and power of the force that "knit together" the shop stewards' movement - the Communist Party. He also neglects to mention the National Minority Movement and the Unemployed Workers Movement, for example. A critical appraisal of both would provide many valuable lessons.

Finally comrade Callinicos mentions the Communist Party in the 1920s and says that the strategy of the "radical and revolutionary left in Britain has always been to try to group together the best and most consistent trade union militants". He says that this strategy "made perfect sense at times of great class confrontation" (my emphasis). In fact he is specific: "from the lead-up to the General Strike to the epic battles of the 1970s and 1980s". So he fails to draw the obvious conclusion - what history has proved is that we need a Communist Party right now.