PCS: A dispute in a mess

PCS is currently running a series of strikes over pensions, pay and conditions of service. This has led to one day of action (albeit by less than half its' members) and on Friday a half-day strike which to say the least, has been fraught with problems is an understatement.

In fact the half-day strike was trumpeted as a "weekend of action" by the PCS, except it turned into a wee bit of a farce thanks to poor planning by the Serwotka/Socialist Party leadership.  For "practical" reasons (ie the computer systems were not working on Friday), the HMRC strike was delayed until Monday afternoon. That in itself took a large chunk of members out of the equation as it is the second largest section of the union.

The Home Office dispute ran into trouble over Management threats to deduct a whole days pay from strikers for half a days strike which forced the union to call a whole days strike. Except they didn't. PCS issued a statement to reps on Friday stating they were calling off the strike in the UK Border Agency due to a "legal challenge", though failing to tell us what that actually was.

In fact their decision to change the nature of the dispute meant they failed to notify Management within the seven day notice required by the current set of Trade Union Laws. Apparently the "comrades" are fuming about this, but should have had enough nouse to know that this would be the case. Since they are so keen on organising "coordinated strike action", then they should bloody well know how to coordinate!

Not to be outdone Mark Serwotka has gone a bit "Kim Jong-un" and declared to the BBC:

"We warned the Home Office and UKBA that their belligerent approach would only serve to escalate the dispute and we are now planning a longer series of strikes that will cause even more disruption.

Or as one Home Office rep, Owen Dodd describes it as simply "losing the plot". 

The other department that was also seemingly subject to "legal challenge" was the Met Police (civilian staff) group. No explanation given, but similar to the Home Office would be an intelligent guess.

So how did the dispute actually go on Friday? According to PCS "tens of thousands". According to Management 40,000 or so. Socialist Worker however claims 180,000! Actually comrades the figure you quote is the number of members eligible to strike and the real figure is likely closer to the one given by Management.

PCS figures are always "bloated" and the reason for this was "given away" during the pensions dispute when an e-mail arrived telling me to include as "on strike" anyone "who wasn't at work for any reason". Great we don't even get to tell each other the truth!

Fridays action would have seen less members available because it is the Easter half-term and thousands of members were away for that reason. "Simples" as they say these days.

The current strike has fallen flat on its face and the people to blame are the PCS leaders. That's Mark Serwotka, Socialist Party "fixer" John McInally and the "comrades of the far-left. Well done. Yet at the same time these people keep prattling on about the need for "co-ordinated strike action (a general strike to you & me).
  

If they can't get it together in the one union they control how on earth do they expect anyone to believe they can organise a "general strike"? 

The far-left were ill-advised to launch this dispute in the first place, but they couldn't be told. Now they have made a complete mess of it. 

This is what happens when the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party insist on putting their interests before that of the members.

PCS needs to be be returned to what it was intended to be. A Trade Union. Pure & "simple"!

McCluskey's "general strike" maddness

The BBC reported that Len McCluskey, General Secretary of the largest union Unite has called for a "general strike" against "austerity measures. The Unite union has submitted a document to the TUC General Council meeting due to be held later this month. They claim that:

"would be a landmark in our movement's recovery of its morale, strength and capacity to play a leading part in a society crying out for credible and honourable leadership".

However they also admit that such a dispute would be open to legal challenge. They are seeking to call the strike via "human rights" legislation" as it would be "political" rather than "industrial". The BBC quotes Marc Meryon of the Eversheds law firm:

"Unions can only organise strike action if certain conditions are satisfied. For example, there must be a live dispute between the striking workers and their employer over an issue such as terms and conditions of employment or working arrangements.

"As such, a general strike held to protest about government policy or a political matter, which is not directly related to the striking workers' employment, risks being unlawful and runs the risk of being challenged by any employer affected."

This places McCluskey in the same "camp" as Mark Serwotka, the PCS General Secretary, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party.

Currently PCS is in the middle of a dispute over said austerity measures designed to promote a "general strike" but has thus far failed to get any takers. Even the National Union of Teachers, with a similar political make-up to the trotskyist run PCS has declined to join the longed for "co-ordinated action promoted by Socialist Party leaders such as John McInally.

However PCS is obviously incapable of running its own strikes let alone organising a general strike as their so-called "weekend of action" has demonstrated.* More than that the level of participation in the the dispute has clearly declined according to most reports with a distinct lack of enthusiasm amongst the majority of members.

The reality is that the conditions do not currently exist for any kind of general strike regardless of any legal pitfalls.  Left Futures published an interesting analysis of the prospects for such a strike back in January: (http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/01/general-strike-lets-not-sleepwalk-into-a-self-inflicted-defeat/)

People will not enter any industrial struggle unless they can envision what a victory would look like. The precondition for generalized industrial action to force a change of government economic policy is a widespread belief that an alternative policy is both feasible and available, which in the British context means the credible alternative of a Labour government advocating a different economic policy. Without this then industrial action will be limited by industrial reality to defensive and sectional actions.

As Labour Party conference showed, while the right wing in the party are on the back foot, they are far from beaten; and the left continues to exhibit organizational weakness. To win the ideological and political battle for a bold alternative within broader civil society requires that struggle to be waged within the Labour Party; and the structures of power and influence means that requires both a footprint within the PLP and shadow cabinet, but also the active participation of trade union leaders. Building a political alliance against austerity is a more urgent task for the unions than industrial action for which the preconditions have not yet been established.

There are real dangers of over-emphasising the prospect of a general strike. I am far from convinced that any of those trade union leaders calling for such action could actually deliver it. Any such industrial action called without a ballot would be highly problematic and prone to failure; and there is a real danger of any industrial action call demonstrating weakness not strength. What is more, many unions, including some who took action on November 30th 2011, would likely decline to participate, endangering the unity of the movement.

What is more, even the process of having a serious discussion about our preparedness for a general strike is premature, and itself risks showing weakness and division. (my emphasis)

Or as Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect calls it "a dangerous distraction". Prospect along with the teachers union the ATL and Shop-workers union USDAW all remain opposed to a general strike.

How far McCluskey and Serwotka will get at the TUC council remains to be see, but as Left Futures puts it, there is a strong possibility of a self-inflicted defeat that could push back even further the strength of the unions at a time when we could well do without it.

The trouble with Marxists is they forget that the last time there was a general strike, the unions lost. Nothing they say or do suggests any different outcome this time. These "comrades" spend far too much time reading books by dead Russians whose ideas ultimately failed anyway.

Now is the time to start re-thinking the way trade unions and the Labour Party conduct their affairs. The old days are over, time for new ideas.

SWP seek "ban" on feminist demonstrators

Just when you think things can't get worse for the Socialist Workers Party something happens that just beggars belief. The latest atrocity from the SWP (and their allies) is the following statement in which they attack feminist hecklers at the recent anti-bedroom tax demo in Glasgow and have the audacity to demand they are "banned" from future marches:

The West of Scotland Anti Bedroom Tax Federation condemns the actions of the people who tried to wreck Saturday's rally at George Square by attempting to heckle and silence an agreed speaker.

In doing so, they upset and endangered many of the general public who wished to hear the speaker especially children and disabled activists at the front of the rally.

We further condemn their false allegations against the stewards who responded in a professional and appropriate manner to help maintain a safe environment, a peaceful rally for all demonstrators.

We condemn the posting of video clips on social media, which endangers the personal safety of those involved in trying to maintain a peaceful protest.

The West of Scotland Anti- Bedroom Tax Federation strongly believes that any place where anti-bedroom tax campaigners come together to discuss, plan and protest against the bedroom tax must be a safe space for all people, free of harassment, bullying and intimidation. It is totally unacceptable to physically threaten or verbally abuse other activists, protesters and stewards.

Any individual or group that fails to uphold these basic standards of respectful behaviour will be asked not to attend future meeting and events, in order to ensure the safety of WoS Federation members and all those in attendance"

Would this be the same SWP that under orders from Martin Smith gate-crashed the airline pilots negotiations putting peoples jobs at risk if things went badly for their union? 

Endanger who exactly anyway? Heckling is a way of life in politics and always has been. It happens comrades, get over yourselves.

The appearance of one of the SWP's "disciplinary committee" on the march in the shape of one Dave Sherry was asking for trouble given the recent controversies of the handling of rape allegations inside the SWP.

The over-reaction of the SWP stewards has been widely publicised with a video and commentaries from some of the women affected.

Writing on Harry's Place Sarah Higgins says:

This is what actually happened. Their response is completely disgusting, they were roughing people up (a response they jumped to without hesitation) and screaming abuse in people's faces while anti-rape activists did their best to keep their cool in the face of that, and managed very well given some of the threats directed at us. For them to claim WE were making that situation dangerous is beyond reproach.

They have stitched up this anti-bedroom tax Federation, forced out all the real community activists and the Committee is now solely run by SWP, CWI and Solidarity hacks. And they've banned non-Committee members from speaking at meetings, so you can't question any of their decisions.

I've had enough of being screamed down every time any woman even says the word rape. In Glasgow now it is clear that the CWI and Solidarity have re-emerged from years in the wilderness, galvanised by the opportunity to be complicit in the cover up of rape and the demonisation of women in the movement. This will not be allowed to continue.

While we are on the subject what is it with the SWP and their use of the term "feminist" as a term of abuse anyway?  I'm no expert on the various strands of thought within feminism but the women's movement is very broad with a variety of different outlooks that range across the political spectrum.

There will probably be times when I might take issue with one individual or another within terms of the general debate and possibly organised groups that I would not agree with. That's a normal part of political life. However I cannot foresee any circumstances where I would use the term "feminist" as a term of abuse. It doesn't make any logical sense. The SWP are just plain stupid.

The threat to "ban" certain women activists comes after some debate on various forums where the question of "no-platforming" the SWP came up. It wouldn't happen. Too impractical, but certainly people should stop appearing at any SWP (or their front organisations like Unite the Resistance) meetings.

The arrogance of the SWP and their allies in Solidarity & the CWI (Socialist Party) in hi-jacking the WaS anti bedroom tax campaign and issuing this ridiculous self-serving statement shows there is also a need for ordinary activists stopping these trotskyist cults from taking over campaigns like this.

The Socialist Workers Party (et al) demonstrate time and time again that their only interest is in themselves and their agendas. They will wreck the anti-bedroom tax campaign in the same way they wreck everything else they touch.

The women anti-rape protesters should be welcome on any march they choose to attend. Its the SWP that must be told where to go!

Defend Trade Union activists!

United Kingdom

Re-instate Lee Rock!

Lee Rock an activist in PCS Sheffield Branch has been dismissed by the Department of Work & Pensions for exceeding his "consideration point" of sick leave. To outsiders this may sound normal until you realise that this was just two days!

The precedent set by local DWP Managers represents a very real threat not only to Lee himself (who has paid the ultimate price) but also to other members struggling to survive a difficult (and sometimes dangerous job) in DWP Offices especially when they (like Lee) have serious underlying medical problems.

In particular Lee seems to have been singled out for his outspoken trade union activism. This is also of concern at a time when the Government are attacking trade union facilities in the civil service. People have a right to undertake trade union duties on behalf of their members and there is a further concern that this case may be the "tip of the iceberg" in an offensive against PCS Reps in the current climate.

All trade unionists should support Lee' campaign for re-instatement and are invited to support his campaign:

Please go to: http://pcsdwpsheffield.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/reinstate-lee-rock-victimised-trade-union-rep/ for further information.

Messages of support can be sent to: tombishell@yahoo.co.uk. Ask for a copy of the petition.

Thailand

Drop the charges against labour rights activist Andy Hall

A labour rights activist, Andy Hall, is facing the possibility of years in prison and a multi-million dollar fine because he helped write a report exposing rights violations, including the use of child labour, by a fruit processing company in Thailand.

The charge against him is that he broadcasted "false statements to the media" -- which is untrue.

Two global union federations have launched an online campaign through LabourStart to mobilize thousands of protest messages demanding that the charges be dropped.

Please take a moment to send off your message - click here.

PCS: How not to run a dispute (Updated already!)

The PCS union has been planning a half-day strike on April 5th for some time now. The general idea was that all members would walk out at 1:00pm in protest against the increase in Pensions contributions that will take effect this month. It is also part of the far-lefts overt desire to launch a "General Strike" utilising PCS members as their "shock troops".

As previously reported a whole range of problems have arisen. UPDATE:

PCS have had to call off the proposed action for all Home Office except IPS and PEO members on the 8th - not got details yet, but understand that a management global has already gone out to Border Force (all members at ports) saying PCS withdrawn all action between 5th and 8th.

Metropolitan Police Service workers will not be striking at all due to Management threatening to do the same as the Home Office and deduct a whole days pay. It is not known why the MPS members were not called out for the whole day like their counterparts in the UKBA.

It doesn't end there though. Most PCS members work "Flexi Time" which means some start work at 7:30 and will have more or less completed a full-days work by the time they are called out, but will also lose half days pay even though they may only actually be out for an hour or so.

So to summarise a National Strike is now taking place at different times in different Departments and for different periods of time and lose pay...differently? That's the gist of it. Farcical.

Now the union are taking legal advice about a number of issues relating to the Home Office and Met Police Service but are also awaiting further guidance on the pay issues in the DWP, with probably similar issues arising in other departments.

With all these issues now in play you'd think the comrades would sit back, think about what they are doing and perhaps re-arrange the dispute, say to being an hours walk out in the morning so everyone could walk out at the same time. If they want to. There's a distinct lack of enthusiasm across many offices.

PCS is in a mess because the leadership around Mark Serwotka, the Socialist Party and the SWP are not pursuing a trade union orientated strike. Its' quite clear from the propaganda that is produced in the pages of their newspapers what the real purpose of all this is. Socialist Party hack Paula Mitchell claims that:

Everyone I spoke to thinks there should be a one-day general strike and agreed with the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) lobby of the TUC general council on 24 April that has been called to urge the TUC to name the date for a general strike.

While PCS Vice President John McInally is (laughably) "interviewed" in his own this weeks paper where he states:


I strongly support the National Shop Stewards Network lobby of the TUC on 24 April, calling on it to name the day for a 24-hour general strike.

The TUC's policy for joint coordinated action was moved by the PCS, that's been our position for a number of years now.

An advert for the National Shop Stewards Movement (another name for the SP)lobby of the TUC on April 24th appears at the end of his article interview.

The last "lobby" attracted a grand total of under a hundred people who were entertained by PCS President Janice Godrich (also a member of the Socialist Party) ranting against the TUC leadership. Then as now the conditions do not exist for any kind of general Strike what-so-ever. The "comrades" probably realise that as well, but  recruitment opportunities like this cannot be missed, especially with the SWP disgraced and on the side-lines.

The artificially constructed dispute being foisted on PCS members could have been avoided a long time ago but the entrenchment of the far-left in the union has led to disaster. Mistakes like the pre-Olympic Games threat just backfired and continue to threaten the very existence of unions in the civil service, handing the Tories an excuse on a plate to go after us.

Its quite clear the current dispute will not achieve anything and the union looks even more foolish than when it started. Members will only take so much and that point can be seen lurking on the horizon.

One thing is clear, "the farce is strong" in Mark Serwotka and John McInally, but Jedi's are they not.

So-called "union representatives" in Cuba

Guest Post by Hubert Gieschen

Ever heard of Salvador Valdes Mesa or Carmen Rosa Lopez? The former spoke at the TUC Congress in 2009? Well, they are the former and current heads of CTC, the Cuban trade union federation. But should he have? Cuba, is a self-proclaimed country. So, the leader of the Cuban trade unions must be a very important men.  Clearly millions of Cuban workers would have voted for him. Well, actually that is not the way things are done in Castro's Cuba. A recent notice in Havana times shows differently:

Go to: http://www.havanatimes.org/? p=90118&cpage=1

"To replace Valdes Mesa on an interim basis until the next congress of the CTC, the Party chose Carmen Rosa Lopez, the deputy secretary of the union and also a member of the Council of State."

Wow, does that not say something about the role of the so-called Cuban trade unions a transmission belts of the party.  In Cuba only the Communist Party is legally allowed to exist. Its leadership and the leadership of the government are interchangeable. In other words, The government tells the so-called worker representation who to represent the workers when talking to the government. How convenient for Cuba's leaders to have a yellow union that does exactly as told. This is the same trade union that announced its support for government lay-offs in the public sector.

By the way Mr Salvador Valdes Mesa has gone on to become vice-president of Cuba, in which role he will now attend trade union meetings. Perhaps, next time the TUC invites a guest speaker from Cuba it should think twice before making the same mistake again.

PCS: Half-day strike turns into half day farce

The PCS civil service union is planning a half-day strike on Friday April 5th starting at 1:30 as part of it's on-going action. All well and good you'd think. Except a few problems have started to arise.

Last week it was "discovered" that the strike would have no effect what-so-ever in the second largest section of the union the HMRC. The reason being that the computer that members would need to do their jobs would be "down" that day. After some "debate" the PCS National Executive Committee has changed the date that HMRC staff go on strike to the following Monday.

There's still a problem with that though. For starters there remains the possibility that the computer systems may still not be up and running, nobody seems sure and certainly Management won't be in a hurry. The real dilemma lies in the simple fact that the strike will be divided. 

The rest of the unions members will still be striking on Friday, which will automatically lower the turnout (which has in any case been well under half of the PCS membership. The Monday strike will be likely be ignored as the numbers involved will be a comparative few.

Why the Socialist Party/Serwotka leadership didn't just postpone the strike until everyone could do it together? What they propose to do does not make any logical sense, especially as they know support for the dispute is much lower than they had hope for.

In other, related news problems have arisen in the Home Office which may have a further effect on the dispute. Management have taken a bizarre "turn" on who gets paid or not on a half day strike:

Staff in Home Office HQ (including Border Force) and all of the UK Border Agency (with the exception of the public enquiry offices) will not receive any pay for their shift/day if they take industrial action. This includes staff who take industrial action even though they work part of their shift.

Staff working in these areas will not be required to report to work if they intend to participate in the strike on 5 April and a full day’s pay will be deducted. Any further short strikes, of less than a full day’s duration, will also be managed in this manner in these areas.

Because of the different nature of their customer service offering, the Identity & Passport Office and the UK Border Agency public enquiry offices will accept partial performance on 5 April and each member of staff who participates in the strike action will have half a day’s pay deducted. If staff participate in the strike action, but work for more than half a day, they will still only be paid for half a day, as PCS has defined the duration of this strike as half a day.

The PCS describe this as a"lock-out" and are taking Legal Advice as well as engaging in political lobbying over this. How members will react in the circumstances is not clear at the time of writing. It certainly won't help with having the "national" strike divided over two days separated by a weekend.

A further problem has arisen for the Socialist Party strategy in PCS which is geared not to winning members demands, but towards building a General Strike for their own sectarian aggrandisement. The National Union of Teachers has rejected joining the wider strike Mark Serwotka & the SP/SWP have been pushing for June 26th. 

Socialist Worker claimed this was by a "narrow margin", but in fact was defeated by nearly two-thirds of delegates who wanted to maintain a level of unity with their moderate sister union the NASUWT. Their strategy of a rolling series of strikes, leading to a national one in the Autumn will leave PCS out on a limb. Again.

PCS members have been led into a industrial cul-de-sac by the far-left. Mark Serwotka is on record as saying that PCS cannot go it alone and win and yet that is what the sectarians of the Socialist Party/SWP have pushed us into. With the one day strike divided members need to scrutinise the decision of the PCS leadership over the next few days.

At the moment the dispute has become a farce. This is the fault of the current leadership who put their political interests before those of the members.