Log in

View Full Version : The return of workers’ blacklists



Vanguard1917
4th August 2009, 15:24
Article discussing the PCS trade union's use of anti-trade union tactics in its 'campaign' against the BNP.

-----------------

Tuesday 4 August 2009
The return of workers’ blacklists
By calling for far-right people to be sacked from the civil service, the PCS union is adopting anti-union tactics.
Paul Thomas


Recently on spiked, Frank Furedi highlighted the campaign by the UK teachers’ union, the NASUWT, to ban members of the far-right British National Party (BNP) from the teaching profession (1). However, my union, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), has already stolen a march on the NASUWT when it comes to illiberal campaigning against the far right.

The PCS, the main UK Civil Service union, passed a motion at its 2008 annual conference agreeing ‘to campaign against the employment of members of fascist political parties in the civil service’ (2). In addition, following the decision in the Potter v Prison Service (2006) employment tribunal case, which endorsed the prison service’s policy of refusing employment to members of racist organisations, the PCS is asking the Cabinet Office ‘to reconsider its approach to employing members of racist and fascist organisations, and ban them, in line with policy’ (3) — a call which was repeated by PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka at this year’s annual conference (4).

In other words, a major British trade union is calling on the government to discriminate against, and refuse employment to, people based on their political views. Why would any union willingly hand such a power to the employer, and especially when the employer is the state?

For the PCS, the far right ‘are a danger to all our members’, as they ‘threaten to divide our workplaces and communities’ through their divisive, bigoted and anti-democratic politics (5). However, I would argue that the PCS campaign actually poses a greater threat to the democratic interests of PCS members, and, in fact, to all government employees, than the views of those far-right supporters who work amongst us. The PCS obviously believes that such a policy would only be used against those with whose politics the union at present disagrees. However, once in place, it would effectively give those in power the authority to sack or bar from employment anyone with dodgy political views.

Maybe the PCS has forgotten that generally (as has recently been brought to light in the construction industry) it has been trade unionists and their supporters on the left who have been the main victims of employers’ blacklists (6). However, for a union to beg the government to impose some sort of right-on blacklist not only demonstrates a disturbing level of historical amnesia, it also smacks of political cowardice — both in its willingness to undermine the fundamental democratic rights of freedom of thought and association in the hope that the powers-that-be will protect us from the views of a few, and in its abdication of responsibility for dealing with instances of harassment, bigotry and inequality within the workplace.

If the likes of the BNP represent the threat that the PCS believes they do, then you would think that a robust critique of their politics would be made a priority. Unfortunately, the PCS’s criticism of the far right generally amounts to little more than making comparisons to the Nazis and allusions to the Holocaust and 1930s fascism, as if that alone should be enough to win any argument (7). If the PCS’s criticism ever does extend beyond such crude ahistoricism, it is to point out either the violent criminal convictions of many BNP members or their renowned ineffectiveness when they do win electoral seats (8) – neither of which is an effective argument against the BNP’s politics.

But then the PCS’s whole approach could be described as anti-political. For example, in the run-up to the 4 June European and local elections in the UK, through its Make Your Vote Count campaign the PCS urged us to vote precisely to stop the far right from winning seats. However, the PCS was keen to emphasise that it was not recommending which parties or candidates we [I]should vote for, nor did it explain how the policies of those anonymous parties differ significantly from those of the BNP. Rather, for the PCS, any notion of political contestation is reduced to a simplistic formula of the far right versus all the rest (9). Worse still, by urging us to vote for anyone-but-the-BNP, the PCS is effectively giving uncritical endorsement to the policies of those other parties, no matter how reactionary they may be.

The attempt to ban members of far-right organisations from employment in the civil service is not just illiberal and cowardly; it also betrays a deeply patronising attitude by the PCS towards its own membership and the wider workforce. The PCS’s campaign, like those of many other anti-fascist organisations, shows that it views us as vulnerable and gullible individuals in need of protection from the nasty views of a few petty-minded, flag-waving nationalists.

Why else would the PCS issue a letter to all members just prior to the recent European elections in which it stated in bold capitals ‘DO NOT VOTE FOR THE BNP’ (10)? Ironically, without campaigns like those of the PCS and Unite Against Fascism, to which the PCS is affiliated, the BNP would struggle to get the publicity and achieve the level of notoriety that it currently enjoys.

The PCS, and other unions, obviously need reminding that they should always be defending the interests of all their members, regardless of their political views and affiliations, and all employees against victimisation by the employer. Unions should be defenders of freedom of speech, thought and association, without which they themselves cannot exist as independent organisations. And a union should never be asking an employer to sack or bar anyone for their views.

One of the PCS’s mottos in its recent Make Your Vote Count campaign was ‘When trade union members vote – the far right lose’. If its policy to get the Cabinet Office to discriminate in its employment practices against people with certain political views is not challenged, then it won’t just be the far right losing, it will be any employee whose views don’t accord with elite opinion.

Paul Thomas is a civil servant working in Leeds. He is co-organiser of Leeds Salon (http://www.leedssalon.org.uk/), a new debating forum which hosts open and lively debates around contemporary political, cultural and scientific issues. He is also a member of his local PCS Branch Executive Committee. Paul will be speaking at ‘Recession-Proofing: from union militancy to reskilling’ at the Battle of Ideas (http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/) festival on Sunday 1 November at the Royal College of Art in London.


(1) People should not be punished for their beliefs (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7070/), by Frank Furedi, 23 July 2009

(2) View, July/August 2008
(3) PCS Informed Leaflet, January 2009. See also Employment Appeal Tribunal No. UKEAT/0457/06/DM
(4) View, July/August 2009
(5) PCS Leaflet ‘Unite to Stop the Far Right: Make Your Vote Count’, issued May/June 2009, and ‘Antifascist focus on May Day’ and ‘Stop them at the ballot box’, View, June 2009.
(6) Secret data on workers ‘sold” to building companies, The Times (London), 7 March 2009
(7) Stop them at the ballot box, View, June 2009.
(8) View, June 2009; and Same old boot-boys under the suits (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/pcs_comment_archive.cfm/id/EB935FD1-7FFA-4F59-A1574C0AB9FCBFF2), PCS Comment, 30 January 2009
(9) Stop them at the ballot box, View, June 2009
(10) Letter to all members: “European Elections – USE YOUR VOTE”, ref: 0170573/B201031/12558.



reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7225/

Holden Caulfield
6th August 2009, 20:53
I'll kick off some dicussion then come back to it laters (im a busy man you see)


based on their political views

this is liberal bullshit. its the same kind of thing as your, and capitalist, criticism of 'no-platform', the attack being it censors people soley on what they think and express. This sounds fair enough but when what they do, or what political party they are in shows racist, anti-working class sentiments then the working class should remove them from our organisations and deney them a platform from which to try to convert, divide and weaken us.

communard resolution
6th August 2009, 23:00
Well, the point is that they're calling for the government to ban these people. Now the government is hardly the working class, is it?
I don't think it's 'liberal bullshit' at all to oppose collaboration with the government to introduce regulations against people who hold 'extremist' opinions.

I don't understand why everybody so readily drops all principles the moment the word BNP is uttered.

bricolage
7th August 2009, 19:01
I don't think it's 'liberal bullshit' at all to oppose collaboration with the government to introduce regulations against people who hold 'extremist' opinions.

I agree and I think this is the same problem that has come from utilising bureaucratic hierarchical bodies like the NUS to do the same thing. Not only does it mean working through the very same structures that we oppose but in supporting this today we are making it more likely that such measures will be used against ourselves in the future.

Zurdito
7th August 2009, 21:03
Why else would the PCS issue a letter to all members just prior to the recent European elections in which it stated in bold capitals ‘DO NOT VOTE FOR THE BNP’ (10)? Ironically, without campaigns like those of the PCS and Unite Against Fascism, to which the PCS is affiliated, the BNP would struggle to get the publicity and achieve the level of notoriety that it currently enjoys.


Is there any proof of this?

Vanguard1917
7th August 2009, 21:25
this is liberal bullshit. its the same kind of thing as your, and capitalist, criticism of 'no-platform', the attack being it censors people soley on what they think and express. This sounds fair enough but when what they do, or what political party they are in shows racist, anti-working class sentiments then the working class should remove them from our organisations and deney them a platform from which to try to convert, divide and weaken us.

So you would support the employer and the state being granted rights to sack workers for the politics? And you would oppose the position, upheld by people like Lenin and Trotsky, that the trade union should be open to all workers regardless of their political views?

If you do, that's, of course, okay -- just because the aforesaid figures believed something, it does not necessarily make it correct. But at least be aware that, far from it being 'liberal bullshit' and 'capitalist' to criticise them, the tactics criticised by the article are alien to the Marxist tradition and have always been opposed by it.

genstrike
8th August 2009, 03:37
And you would oppose the position, upheld by... Trotsky, that the trade union should be open to all workers regardless of their political views?

Really? You're quoting Trotsky of all people to argue against unions agreeing to grant the state certain management rights?

Vanguard1917
8th August 2009, 12:02
Really?

Yep.



You're quoting Trotsky of all people to argue against unions agreeing to grant the state certain management rights?


I'm not sure what you're getting at.

genstrike
8th August 2009, 17:29
I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Oh, it just strikes me as odd that you're quoting Trotsky given his position on the trade union debate.

Manzil
8th August 2009, 18:49
Wait, the Spiked? As in ex-Revolutionary Communist Party lunatics, and (by way of that nasty bout of genocide denial) ex-Living Marxism, now effortlessly irrelevant, morally relativist, anti-enviromentalist, online rag of discredited old contrarians making money by red-baiting in the liberal media?

I understand there is an argument against the proscription of fascists. This is just part of the wider debate on 'no platform'. But beginning by quoting people like Furedi... Seriously, I should pay attention to these people why? That organisation is as credible from a socialist perspective as the News of the Screws.

Spiked - ensuring the people who arrest you, decide benefit applications and teach children can be headbanging racist, fascist scum, all for the benefit of the workers. Ha!

As to the wider issue, good on the PCS quite frankly. State functionaries are never going to be the best friends of democracy or the workers; their entire raison d'etre is to manage the mind-numbing bureaucracy which daily interferes and angers us, and I'm glad at least the English public sector has such a good tradition of political, militant trade unionism, lest the teachers and civil servants of Britain be driven entirely mad by their bullying, cost-cutting managers. But if we can make their working lives, and our relationship with the authorities, when receiving necessary public services, a little less likely to be riddled with outright members of hateful far-right groups, all the better. That ban would require government action matters less to me than the fact it would happen as a result of trade union pressure, and for reasons and on terms set by the same.

To those who oppose it, may I ask whether you support repealing the ban on BNP members serving in the police force, prison service and armed forces? Genuine question.

Vanguard1917
9th August 2009, 01:10
Oh, it just strikes me as odd that you're quoting Trotsky given his position on the trade union debate.


Odd in what sense?

genstrike
9th August 2009, 20:42
Odd in what sense?

I just find it odd that you're name-dropping such an anti-working class figure, one who demanded the militarization of the working class and depriving them of so many of their rights in order to defend what you see as the rights of workers. Of course, it is only defending the rights of certain racists in the civil service to poison their working environment with their presence, and arguing that stopping these racists is "illiberal" and that workers shouldn't be protected from racism in the workplace.

Holden Caulfield
9th August 2009, 20:45
If you kids are gonna argue over Trotsky and trade unions remember this is the anti-fascism forum so try to keep it relevant or let me know and I'll split you guys off from this thread and make you a shiney new one in an appropriate forum

genstrike
9th August 2009, 21:44
I'm sorry if it is off topic, but I think if name-dropping is such a large portion of someone's arguments, the people whose names are being dropped are relevant to the argument. It's an appeal to authority fallacy, and especially relevant when the authorities being appealed to are as anti-working class as Trotsky. If I were to argue in favour of a labour reform and name-drop Frederick Taylor on it, I would expect to be called out on it.

genstrike
9th August 2009, 21:50
I should add, that a similar thing happened upthread with Furedi as well - why is it that when someone bashes Furedi and Spiked who are the source of part of the argument it is okay, but when someone bashes Trotsky, who is being name-dropped as an authority figure to support the argument, it is not okay?

Holden Caulfield
9th August 2009, 23:01
I should add, that a similar thing happened upthread with Furedi as well - why is it that when someone bashes Furedi and Spiked who are the source of part of the argument it is okay, but when someone bashes Trotsky, who is being name-dropped as an authority figure to support the argument, it is not okay?

For starts its different because he, a Trotskyist, was stating to me, a Trotskyist, that my opinion was not that of Trotsky on the issue at hand.

But VG himself said the fact Trotsky said it isn't important, but he was simply stating a fact.

I'm not trying to stifle out Trotsky bashing or anything if that what you are implying.