07.02.2008

Rank and filism beckons

Alan Stevens reports on the Organising For Fighting Unions London day school

The Socialist Workers Party’s Organising For Fighting Unions (Offu) held the second of two day schools on Saturday February 2. Hosted at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the University of London and titled ‘How can we build fighting unions’, it had a rather poor attendance of about 80 - most of whom were SWP members. Originally five workshops were planned after the usual plenary session of top-table speakers, but the number was trimmed to two general topics: ‘Effective trade unionism’ and ‘The state of the economy’.

Though ostensibly a Respect initiative (its official address is still the Club Row headquarters of the Galloway wing), Offu was always an SWP front and this was abundantly clear at this day school - Respect (either variety) was nowhere in evidence. In view of the fact that the SWP’s version is supposedly gearing up for the Greater London Authority elections, it is very telling that no SWP member thought this worth even a passing mention.

The atmosphere was somewhat more relaxed and friendly than the usual control-freakery exercised by the SWP at other events. This may have been because it was small, most of those present were SWP union activists and guests, and none of the SWP top bosses were present. I suspect as well that, with Respect a dead duck, most of these SWPers are more comfortable as trade union activists.

Despite the cosier feel the typical format prevailed: a rally of the faithful that must first be inspired by a plenary session of platform speakers talking about this or that horror story, and this or that success or example in combating it. With the mood set, workshops follow to share personal experiences. Then a final rousing send-off by the top-table speakers. No real analysis, depth or coherence, nothing theorised, no real alternative political perspectives and definitely no real debate. The organisation that flows from this is necessarily that of the sect.

However, despite the typically shallow and superficial nature of the event reality can sometimes intrude and cause people to start to think a little. There was some evidence of that. It is also possible to glean interesting snippets from the eclectic hotchpotch of contributions and get a sense of the scale of attacks and fightback.

POA lessons

In the plenary session Peter McParlin of the Prison Officers Association gave a run-down of the history of the POA’s union and bargaining rights. He went on to explain the lead-up to its recent defiance of a high court judge who had threatened the POA executive with fines, sequestration of union funds and prison sentences if they went on strike. On the first three occasions the POA retreated; on the fourth it called a strike and the government retreated.

Comrade McParlin described this as the “perfect way of treating the anti-union laws”. This was music to the ears of the audience, but I am not sure they all appreciated the need to weigh up the balance of forces when taking such an action. Well and good for a strong section that catches an employer or the government unprepared - or for a large enough group of workers - but it could be costly for other unions or groups of workers in the absence of a general movement in the class.

Comrade McParlin related a meeting with Jack Straw following the government climbdown. Straw threatened: “I’m coming for you”, “I have a cell for you”, “You will never be allowed to embarrass us again”. This is no idle threat. The government may not want a head-on clash with the POA near an election (unless it were certain of victory). They are already making their moves to neuter the POA by re-imposing the strike ban.

The POA leaders are not stupid. They are attempting to build links with the rest of the trade union movement and are obviously concerned about how they are perceived. Comrade McParlin referred to the mixed reaction the POA has received in the past - often accused of being rightwing, even fascist. Not so, he said. He reminded the audience that the union had thrown out a member of the BNP, declared that the POA “don’t and won’t give money to the Labour Party” (this got a cheer) and added: “So please don’t have any misconceptions”.

The leftward movement of the POA, its militant struggle with the government and its new-found relation with other unions and workers cannot hide the fact that prison officers are part of the coercive arm of the state. However, the current trajectory of the POA is positive for the working class and its members are part of that class. Prison officers fighting as organised workers against a reactionary state and engaging, perhaps uniting in struggle, with other workers helps strengthen our class and weaken the state.

For most of the current generation of left activists with virtually no experience of militant class actions, unions like the POA, RMT and CWU can provide some useful lessons if analysed intelligently. Unfortunately, this type of event with personal sound bites and un-theorised anecdotal experiences are more conducive to bouts of ‘religious’ faith. Comrade McParlin gave a lesson of how easy it was to organise a successful strike: The utmost secrecy was maintained with ‘orders’ issued at 5.30am on the day by a few officers with tick boards and a phone. Each prison got a phone call - and they were out. They could do it because they had a committee in each prison. Simple as that!

Almost all the unspoken material circumstances that underlay this are absent in, say, local government. So, the real lessons for an audience of overwhelmingly white-collar workers - council, education, health, etc - are beneath the surface. Of course, anyone with experience or who actually tries to think it through will see beyond the surface appearance to some of the differences that make it relatively difficult to organise elsewhere.

The high union density of the POA compares with less than 30% in local government; the prison officers have a military command-like structure and a high level of discipline - they can maintain secrecy and act instantly through committees connected directly to the rank and file. Nothing like this exists in, say, the PCS or Unison. Prison officers, being an essential part of the coercive state apparatus, have far greater industrial power and can achieve in a day what would take local government workers months of sustained action. And, lastly, notwithstanding the military-style organisation, the greater connection to the rank and file in the POA is more democratic than the shop stewards and left grouplets in Unison, for example. A similar comparison, but based on long militant traditions, can be made with the RMT, CWU, etc. The POA is much closer to an old-style industrial union.

Realism

The usually wildly exaggerated claims and assessments to the point of self-delusion were not so bad at this event. Michael Gavan, sacked Unison activist, did lapse into “There is a massive groundswell on pay” - I have heard this from other SWPers. There is no doubt pay is an issue, but ballot results prove there is nothing like a “groundswell” for action. Comrade Gavan recovered his senses somewhat with a more sober “There is a lot of talk about struggle - but it’s only likely with the PCS or maybe the NUT.”

There was a little time for discussion after the plenary and Jeremy Dewar of Workers Power quickly offered his lessons of last year: “The CWU had the government in real trouble last year but were stopped by ‘left’ leaders.” However, “In the NHS and local government we failed to get any action”. Therefore, “The CWU and to a lesser extent PCS are on their own”. He listed some requirements: we need “committees of action”, “elected strike committees in every workplace” and “indefinite strike action - that’s what put Royal Mail on the back foot”. I could pick holes, but it is difficult to explain a strategy in three minutes and these were the only practical organisational suggestions made on the day.

Comrade Dewar added: “We should not just stop funding Labour, but need an alternative - and it’s not Respect.” At this point the chair stopped him, as he had overrun his three minutes. There was no other mention of Respect.

A number of short contributions focused on the need to build up shop stewards networks and on having a realistic assessment of the class and its different sections. An aerospace worker referred to the growing confidence of skilled workers in the private sector who are doing better on pay, and contrasted this to the public sector - arguing a mixed picture. A teacher, continuing the realism theme, added that attitudes to unions and industrial action, especially amongst the young, was mixed and volatile.

Summing up the discussion, Michael Gavan decided to provide an SWP antidote to what he obviously thought were uninspiring references to realism: “Yes realism - but what we know is there’s massive anger out there!”

Effective

I attended the workshop on ‘Effective trade unionism’. Given that this event was organised by a revolutionary group talking mostly to itself, a few other revolutionaries and some sympathetic trade unionists, perhaps this title was misconceived. The comrades’ notion of what constitutes ‘effective trade unionism’ ought to go beyond union politics, to educating, agitating and organising for what could be. The proper role of a revolutionary is not to be a good trade unionist, but to carry out revolutionary work within, around and outside of their union activity. It is not to become, as so many left activists are, union bureaucrats.

The organisation of this session mirrored that of the plenary: introductory speakers, a few three-minute sound bites from the audience and a top-table summary. More talk-shop than workshop.

Paul Brandon from Unite, a Metronet worker, gave a sort of mini-lecture on the skills required of a union representative. He drew a chart linking good leadership with communication skills, listening and meeting needs - even trivial ones - to build trust and respect and so forth. It was like one of those official trade union introductory courses. However, despite the very low-level pragmatism on offer, he did display a basic connection to ordinary workers that most of the left do not have.

Elane Heffernan was something of a mild surprise on this occasion. The SWP can usually rely on her to parrot all sorts of rubbish when it suits them. However, in the absence of a clear party line comrade Heffernan was both calmer and more reflective. It may also be that her recent experiences of being witch-hunted in Unison have led her to be a bit more thoughtful about methods and tactics.

Elane, in common with several others, wanted more discussion on the meaning of ‘effective trade unionism’ - this at least represents a desire to do it better. She indicated the problem with low union density in local government as compared to a bus garage and spoke about representing what members actually want, whilst pushing up the level of consciousness and confidence.

She hinted at the poor connection between workers and reps and the difficulty of knowing how confident workers are. She mentioned an unexpected walkout she had experienced which was handled badly, opening the door to victimisation. She posed the question of how to develop the confidence of workers to “do it for themselves”. Adding that we need an understanding of trade union history, she argued that, while the powerful shop stewards movement in the 70s could get people out, they ultimately lacked politics.

It is possible that, with the official death of Respect looming, the SWP may be preparing a turn back to rank and filism. Anyway, although Elane Heffernan’s contribution was hardly earth-shattering, it did at least display some basic thinking.

Politics

Another comrade made a few decent, if very basic, points and ended with: “You can’t be a rep today if you ain’t political.” The problem, of course, is what politics. We have faced an uninterrupted onslaught against the working class for decades and it is set to get worse. There are several disputes on the horizon, but there is still no general upsurge, and the class is largely atomised, demoralised and politically disenfranchised. Despite relatively strong actions by the RMT, CWU, POA and little blips here and there, the class struggle barely registers. There are clear signs that union activists generally see the need to prepare for defensive battles and the left seem to want any action on any pretext just to get something moving.

There has been a substantial shift in the working class to white collar public services and it is precisely here where it is difficult to organise along the old lines. The smaller industrial unions like the RMT, CWU, etc know they cannot stand alone for long - and support from the likes of Unison will be extremely difficult to organise, when those unions cannot even organise to fight their own battles.

The objective conditions are crying out for a working class political struggle - but this is being held back by a left that is hopelessly backward, sectarian and subservient to a very low level of spontaneity. There are little glimmers of individuals starting to think at the most basic level - but what a bloody long way we have to go.