Sunday, March 11, 2007

SWP Councillors DisRespect Trade Unions?


"I do not Believe it!" Not one of the 3 SWP/"Respect" Councillors in Newham, East London are members of Trade Unions. How on earth can an organisation which calls itself the Party of "socialism" and "trade unionism" have all their elected representatives against joining trade unions? This is not just in Newham, but also in the only other London borough that has SWP/Respect councillors, where there are only 3 out of 12 (25%) are members of trade unions. Many of these people also actually work in sectors that are well organised by recognised trade unions. This is not just a "snub" but a deliberate signal that SWP/Respect does not support and "Disrespect's" trade union's. The SWP/Respect manifesto claims that:-

"Respect believes that trade unions, democratically controlled by their members, are crucial to a democratic and just society. They are the essential bulwark against exploitation and abuse."

Yet none of the 3 Newham SWP/Respect Councillors are members of trade unions (you can check the "register of interests" on the Newham Website) and only 25% of other London Councillors.

How can you "organise fighting trade unionists" if nearly of your elected reps are not members of a trade union?

Bizarrely, one SWP/Respect Councillor who is NOT a trade union member, instead proudly points out that he is a holder of the "British Empire Medal" (Google BEM and check this website, which is hosted by the Vietnam Veterans Association - I kid you not). Again, you can confirm this on their register of interests declaration.

Why on earth are any serious "trade union socialists" supporting SWP/Respect?

17 comments:

Tom Powdrill said...

Surely this is the fault of the unions themselves. If they spent less time on the trivia of pay and pensions, and more time passing resolutions criticising the neo-con agenda of the Bush/Blair imperialist crusade then Respect members would be rushing to join.

John Gray said...

good post Tom and it does raise the question, do we actually want them to join the union? Let them stay away and continue to play politics and leave us with the job of orgainsing in the real interests of our members? Discuss?

Anonymous said...

Interesting post but a bit desperate isn't it. Looking at Labour councillors in Newham I find that the first threee councillors listed aren't members of trade unions either. Perhaps this has more to do with characteristics of the Asian community with a high concentration of small, family owned businesses that are unlikely to be unionised.

John Gray said...

Hang on Anon, The “T” of disRespect is supposed to be about “trade unionism”? Tomorrow there is a SWP/disRespect “organising fighting trade unionist “conference in Birmingham. Again, how on earth can they “organise” if practically none of them believe in trade unions. Remember out of the 3 SWP/disRespect Councillors in Newham, one is a former bus driver (who should be in the T&G), one is really a shop assistant (who should be USDAW) and another is a slum landlord (who should be in …..). There is only one of this motley crew who actually “claims” to be some sort revolutionary Marxist (but he apparently thinks that Marx use to be a partner of Spencer’s). Out of the 1st 3 Labour councillors just mentioned, one is unemployed, one is UNISON (this is in wrong box) and one is self employed. However, the majority of eligible Labour Councillors are in trade unions, some do need reminding, but they are members of TUC affiliated unions such as UNISON, GMB, T&G, AMICUS, FBU, TSSA etc. Remember that every single member Labour party Councillor of the only other London borough with SWP/disRespect councillors was a TU member while only a quarter of SWP/disRespect where.

Andrew Berry said...

I sorry John, but you criticised me for calling “New Labour” a Parasitic group in our party as you considered it offensive, I am no fan of Respect, indeed I have written articles criticising them, but please call them by their name “Respect” and stop being childish.

John Gray said...

Andrew

You are entitled to you views (not of course, if SWP/disRespect ever got in power). But I think even you surely recognise that there is a difference in being deliberately offensive by calling people "Parasites" (members of your own Party and your own trade union branch) just because you do not agree with them, compared to being "childish" (your words)? I would admit however to being rather disRespectful.

What articles? I'm amazed! Send me link or email.

Tom Powdrill said...

wot John said

if they are going to make a big thing about trade unions (the T in respecT) surely they should make sure their elected representatives actually join? or does that divert attention away from the struggle against the Bush/Blair neo-con imperialist agenda or whatever?

Anonymous said...

Well John
I have just gone through the register in Newham and out of the 16 Labour councillors who are of an Asian background, just 3 are in trade unions which seems to back up my original point.

John Gray said...

Anon
I thought I was the only sado who spent his life doing that sort of thing. However, I think your figures are wrong. I'll double check. But your assumption that Asians don't join trade is pretty iffy. Remember all the Asian Labour Councillors in Tower Hamlets are trade union members. Also, as Tom points out, if TU are so important to SWP/disRespect why didn't they even ask them to join!

Anonymous said...

I have been looking at Tower Hamlets register of interests and clicking at random 6 Labour councillors, they are all members of the GMB (even though three of them are not in employment). What a strange coincidence!

John Gray said...

Hi Anon, I’m not really sure what you are really going on about? But last year in my role as UNISON Labour Link officer I found that GMB was indeed the majority trade union in Tower Hamlets (this is a matter of public record), however the other Councillors were members of Amicus, MU, NUJ, UCU, TG&WU and my own union UNISON (3). These figures are unrepresentative of most councils. If you want my own personal views why the GMB is so well representative then you are welcome to contact me (if you send me a comment marked “not for publication” with your email address I will tell you). There is actually no mystery why.

Anonymous said...

John
I know you are not fond of the SWP and obviously I also have doubts about them, but I am wondering what we achieve as a labour movement or as socialists by this approach? After all, our own party described Trade Union membership as ‘optional’ on the membership form (see the Labour Party Web site) – a point that I have taken up with the NEC, to no avail.

John Gray said...

Hi
I must admit that I am a bit "bitter and twisted" after being a non-Trotsky trade union activist in a SWP dominated branch for many years (and the physical threats, abuse and intimidation I experienced in the 2005 general election and even the 2006 local one, from their supporters). The stick that Labour Party trade unionists have taken from Respect supporters about "trade unions" is also a sore point for many of us.

However, I do genuinely believe that there is no place in the Labour movement for the SWP (funny enough I normally get on with SP, SU, Workers Liberty et al). The SWP are just beyond the pail. But at a local level we must deal with them.

Where does it say that membership was optional? https://www.labour.org.uk/joinbydirectdebit/ ? I thought that Labour Party rules stated you should join a TUC affiliated trade union if "applicable" (whatever that means). If it says optional, (where?) we can try to do something via TULO/other means.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your reply. The attached form, downloaded from the party web site says ‘optional’. (Interestingly the online version of the form doesn’t say this – this may be new.

I’m sorry you say you have been intimidated by SWP people – there is no excuse for intimidation by anybody. My position is that I feel it is important to work alongside a range of socialists and non-socialists like Quakers or greens, depending upon the issue, in the trade unions, CND, Stop the War etc. Personally I have a friendly relationship with a Stop the War worker who is I believe in the SWP, so I haven’t had the same experience as you. I therefore don’t see them as all ‘beyond the pail’. Also Respect – obviously our electoral opponents – are not simply the SWP either and I believe there are good people in there, some of whom have left the Labour Party for principled reasons. There are also good LibDems and, yes, good Tories – I have great respect for Douglas Hurd and Ken Clarke’s stance on Iraq for example.

This might sound wishy-washy to some, but when the mainstream parties all avoid ideology, except perhaps neo-conservative ideology, and all compete for the same ground, it can necessitate other kinds of alliances on particular issues. If I were French, no doubt I would have voted for Chirac in preference to Le Pen last time around. If I were American I would have voted for Kerry against Bush.

John Gray said...

I think there is a fundamental difference between working with other people or Parties who still believe in Parliamentary democracy (for all its faults) and those who believe/want "Revolution Now" by "any means possible". The SWP is also in my view still the Party of "“wreckers and splitters”, just look at the barmy and divisive motion we had on our branch AGM. Ironically I have always thought that it was the incompetence of the SWP "officers" who dominate STW, that has helped Tony Blair keep his job for so long, despite the fall out from Iraq.

There are many people who have joined "Respect" for principled positions, however, they must ask themselves this - what are they doing in a coalition of, on the one hand extremists, who will "sell out" any cause if they thought it would advance the Revolution and on the other hand, religious extremists and self seeking community politicians?

It may be helpful to look at the website "Why we left the SWP" http://www.sue.be/politics/swp/sue_afterthoughts.html

Tom Powdrill said...

"I have great respect for Douglas Hurd and Ken Clarke’s stance on Iraq for example."

I don't, because I doubt that it's based on the same ideas as most of the Left's criticisms of the war. Douglas Hurd has a pretty dodgy track record.

This to me is the key problem with trying to work with people like Respect - they make opposition to the war the over-riding principle. Hence they wind up with some very strange bedfellows, and you end up with people on the Left supporting the Iraqi 'resistance' which consists primarily of religious extremists and Ba'athists, neither of which have any scruples about bumping off democratic lefties and trade unionists.

I'm not even convinced, give that Iraq is Respect's one big draw, that they actually have anything at all useful about how to sort the mess that we have created out. They were calling for 'troops out' at a stage when that clearly would have led to geater chaos. It strikes me their 'positions' on the war are purely defined in opposition to what we or the US say is the right approach.

w*nkers!

John Gray said...

Andrew never replied to my comment, so I posted this on his "union futures" blog.

He responded on his blog

"I did go to the event.

As for your second point maybe when you can at least start calling them by their name. Alternatively learn to Google"

so I have replied

Hi Andrew
I googled “Andrew Berry” and got:-
Andrew berry – jewellery
Andrew Berry - Reasons for being nice and having sex
Andrew Berry – Ugly Baby
I then googled “Andrew Berry Respect”
“Workers Action” (who on earth are they?) Article about “Abolish faith schools” is that it? You never actually mention what you disagree with disRespect about?
The “Should Berry Be Executed?
Respect the Dignity of His Choice” was I assume not about you?
Come on, stand up for your convictions, send me your true views about disRespect or are you concerned that they may no longer vote for you?