Socialist Party goes against PCS members, votes against strike action

[Sam_b]

The CWI said this last month about the action within the PCS over pensions:

Continuing the pensions battle: PCS consultative ballot

Members of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) are voting in a consultation over the next steps in fighting the government's assault on public sector pensions (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Pensions). Over 250,000 workers will be voting in a ballot which closes on 16 March, asking whether they reject the government's pensions proposals and whether they support the joint union campaign for fair pensions for all.
The result will be considered at a special meeting of the union's national executive on 19 March.
The union's executive has unanimously rejected the government's latest offer and is discussing with unions representing members of the civil service (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Civil_Service), education and health pension schemes about taking joint strike action on 28 March.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/campaign/Workplace_and_TU_campaigns/PCS/14059


This is fine. Results today show over 90% of PCS members voted against the Government's final offer, over 70% of which favour more action on the dispute. (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/40E319D9-6ECC-487F-87884F102B1551F2)

Yet what I hear today from a PCS comrade is that Socialist Party members of the NEC voted against taking action on the 28th, and have gone against militant members of the union. From what I hear, even the SWP on the NEC voted for action. So i'd really like to hear what SP members have to say on this, especially in light of this (via Facebook)(I am aware this is an AWL member, but I think it's interesting):



‎"All Socialist Party members of the PCS NEC today voted AGAINST action on the 28th, and the NEC as a whole have failed to deliver any strategy at all for the past year. They have noone to blame but themselves for the failure of the pensions dispute, and it would be cowardly (but hardly surprising) if they were to blame the other unions for them pulling out ('it's not our fault, we can't act alone..., blah blah').

The SP-led PCS leadership presents itself as a left wing one, but refuses to present a real winning programme of action. United action is great, but cannot be achieved all the time. Other types of action were not just useful but IMPERATIVE for this campaign to win.

They will tell you that members want to wait for other unions to join in. From the ground, I will tell you what members have been saying to me today and for the last year - we want PCS to take a fighting lead, to act with its feet and be the militant union it pretends to be. They have been willing to take action and to set up strike funds for the entire length of this campaign and the NEC have ignored their views.

If you are in the Socialist Party and you disagree with what has happened today (as several of you have already intimated to me), use whatever internal networks you have to raise your views. In Workers Liberty we encourage internal disagreement and debate and publish minority views on our website and in our paper - I hope The Socialist will be doing the same over this matter."


Without clarification, this is pretty scandalous. Especially accusations that the SP-controlled NEC has failed members in the dispute.

[Martin Blank]

If this is accurate (and I suspect it is), I have to say that I'm not surprised.

What should you expect from business union socialists but ... business unionism?

[daft punk]

I read the article but I don't know any more than what it says, that they put back the date to try to get a bigger action. It's only 8 days away, sounds like they just need a bit more time to get everyone acting at the same time.

[dodger]

Why don't you all mind your own business and leave union members to conduct union business? I am sure they are more than capable. It's not rocket science, is it?

[piet11111]

Why don't you all mind your own business and leave union members to conduct union business? I am sure they are more than capable. It's not rocket science, is it?

Because the leadership opposes strike action while the rank and file are 70% in favor of it ?

With union leaders like that who needs enemy's.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Below is a statement I have seen on the internet by a PCS member about the 28th March action. I am not a member of the PCS leadership, or the PCS itself, so I do not know who voted what way on the tactical step back from the 28th March action as a means to stop the PCs and its members being isolated by the ConDem government. It seems over the past few days that the leaderships of the NUT and the EIS had taken a step back from a co-ordinated action strike action for whatever reason. I expect that is the reason why the action has been put back to April. The PCS leadership do not want to be like the first world war Generals and lead their member s over the barracks to be slaughtered by the enemy, that being the ConDems. With all due respect the question is not action, action, action now but careful analysis of the social terrain to work out one’s strategy for victory. Just has it is not revolution, revolution, revolution now as some ‘socialists would like to think.

Nevertheless, I find it a bit ironic that a former, young, student with, I would say, no active experience in the trade union movement, and of course I would be corrected if I am wrong, should start to criticise a Union, and a certain section of that Union, who have been in the depth of the industrial struggle against the Government without first learning the ABC of trade unionism. But hey ho who am I, but an old trade union dinosaur, with a ‘little bit’ of strategic, political and tactical experience in trade unions; so what would I know.

Anyway here is the statement: “PCS has shown a lead all the way - on J30, N30. After the GMB and UNISON et all signed the heads of agreement, PCS has been central to building the coalition of the willing before N30 and the coalition of the rejectionists afterwards. We've been given a massive mandate by our members, which shows the union was correct to have a consultative ballot. Unfortunately, the decision by the NUT exec last week has meant PCS would've had to go it alone nationally on the 28th. No-one in PCS is happy to have to deal with this scenario but to ensure that the PCS is not isolated, and to maximise a united front against the pensions attacks, its right to make a tactical decision on that basis with a strong, clear message that the fight is far from over and we intend to take strike action before the end of April with as many other unions as possible”

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Statement by the PCS:

NEC agrees next phase in national campaign: building for joint union action in April


19 March 2012

The national executive met today to consider the excellent consultative ballot result and the next steps in our pensions campaign, including working towards a co-ordinated national strike in April.

PCS members voted by 90.5% to reject the government's 'final offer' on pensions and by 72.1% to support a programme of further action with other unions - the highest vote for action we have ever had.
This excellent result represents an overwhelming rejection of the government's plans to force civil and public servants to pay more and work longer for less pension, and a clear mandate for action.

We obtained the result in the face of continuing attacks from the government, and during the pay freeze when many people are suffering personal financial hardship.
It is a testament to our reps who have worked so hard to build our union, and to members' resolve in the face of ongoing attacks from their employer.

We will be formally writing to the government to reject the pensions offer and seek urgent talks on a negotiated settlement.

On the question of industrial action, our general secretary reported that the National Union of Teachers had decided not to take national strike action on 28 March, as previously discussed by a group of unions. Other teachers' unions had also decided not to take action on that date.

Under these circumstances, the NEC agreed that PCS will work with other unions to build for co-ordinated national industrial action to take place at the earliest opportunity and before the end of April if possible. The NUT's annual conference runs from 6 to 10 April at which decisions are expected on further action.
Members of the NUT and the University and College Union in London will be taking action on 28 March and the NEC agreed to offer all practical support and solidarity.

To build support for national strike action at the end of April, including public support for the campaign, the NEC agreed to organise mass constituency lobbying of MPs during the Easter parliamentary recess, including targeted protests at cabinet ministers' constituencies in conjunction with other unions.

PCS branches and regions are also being urged to support and organise other local protests and campaign events against government attacks on jobs, pay and public services.

The NEC's decisions have been based on two key considerations. First, since the government's policy has been applied across the whole public sector, national coordinated action by as many unions as possible has been necessary to win concessions.

Secondly a strategy to win a fair settlement to the dispute must involve a programme of action involving joint national strike action with other unions; joint national, regional and local protests; lobbying of ministers, MPs and other politicians; and co-ordinated targeted industrial action in some sectors.

In the absence of any positive engagement by the employer in genuine negotiations we want to proceed to national joint action as soon as possible.

However, action on 28 March in conjunction with NUT members in London and UCU in colleges and universities, would not constitute the national co-ordinated strike action across pension schemes which we have agreed is necessary and which members have voted for.

The NEC agreed to work tirelessly to build for a national co-ordinated strike later in April.

The NEC thanks members and reps for their support for the campaign so far. We now need to work with other unions to build the action that will be necessary to win a fair settlement on pensions and to face the challenges of pay and job cuts that this brutal government is inflicting on the public sector.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/40E319D9-6ECC-487F-87884F102B1551F2 (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/40E319D9-6ECC-487F-87884F102B1551F2)

[dodger]

Because the leadership opposes strike action while the rank and file are 70% in favor of it ?

With union leaders like that who needs enemy's.

Why don't you answer my question? Sure the members don't need your views on the subject. After all they are on the spot and livelihoods are at stake. Future pension.Struggle will ebb and flow many of their elected leaders are seasoned veterans . Loyally serving members. Don't suppose members are going to get wrapped up in tendency shit or attacking their own leadership in these trying times.

[bricolage]

Don't suppose members are going to get wrapped up in tendency shit or attacking their own leadership in these trying times.
I don't see why not, in periods of heightened struggle workers are far more likely to reject the sell outs that union bureaucracies give them. In the 60s and 70s when the world economy fell apart in a similar way to present but when workers still had some way to resist capital onslaught, nearly 90% or something of strikes in the UK were wildcats. these were all predominantly union members whose livelihood was on the line, but when faced with the inherent weaknesses of the trade union model they were forced to seek over options. the fact that union leaders today are 'seasoned veterans' just means they know how the work bureaucracies, what they can put across as radical now in a time of, still, very low class conflict, will be shown up when the shit really hits the fan. it's not tendency wards but how workers are actually able to defend their interests which will undoubtedly involve going against their own leadership. to be honest though members attack the union leaders all the time, I suppose seeing as you are in RMT were bob crow has managed to keep pushing some kind of militancy then it might not be the case for the people you work with, but speak to on the ground memebers of unison, unite, pcs and so forth and you'd be surprised.

[dodger]

YOU MAKE FAIR POINTS Bricolage...at the end of the day it is a process. The members have to exercise authority whilst maintaining unity of action. Personally I have always ignored knee jerk reactions to bureaucrats that I put in. At the end of the day members get what they deserve. I certainly ignored outside calls to replace one tendency with another, no matter what twerp was doing the shrieking.....I always voted for the man(woman) for the job....thanks your point about the struggle heating up, it is well taken...it will separate the chaff or men from the boys as was oft'said.

[Sam_b]

Nevertheless, I find it a bit ironic that a former, young, student with, I would say, no active experience in the trade union movement, and of course I would be corrected if I am wrong, should start to criticise a Union, and a certain section of that Union, who have been in the depth of the industrial struggle against the Government without first learning the ABC of trade unionism. But hey ho who am I, but an old trade union dinosaur, with a ‘little bit’ of strategic, political and tactical experience in trade unions; so what would I know.

Any time I raise something good ol' Jimmy comes in which a bunch of ignorant ageist nonsense, none of which has anything to do with the fact I have been active within the GMB for the past four and a half years at my workplace. All you do is keep showing up time and time again you know nothing about what I do or what I am involved in. As if age at q time where young trade unionists are pushing the question to the bureaucracy is a reason for derision anyway. Strawmen arguments from a strawman poster.

I'd like to hear more about how your 'strategic and tactical' experience has affected your comrades down south with going against the rank-and-file grassroots and shop stewards who have been agitating for action for the past month or so. I don't think the PCS statement, which I in fact linked in my OP, reflects on this in any way.


Sure the members don't need your views on the subject. After all they are on the spot and livelihoods are at stake. Future pension.Struggle will ebb and flow many of their elected leaders are seasoned veterans


Except we're not talking about rank-and-file members here. As I said, 90% rejected the deal and over 70% advocate action. Voting against action is not their decision - it is the decision that has been taken on the NEC, by members of a socialist organisation no less. Until I see otherwise, it does look like these militant members, who apparently were already in the process of setting up strike funds, have been sold out.

[Sam_b]

Why don't you all mind your own business and leave union members to conduct union business? I am sure they are more than capable. It's not rocket science, is it?

You should really start thinking before you open your mouth. Union members voted to take action, and the bureaucracy went against them. So how are they able to 'conduct union business'?

'Union business' is a strongman in itself. As a TU member, am I not allowed to have any opinion in the wider union movement because I am GMB and not PCS? It's like saying PCS members shouldn't have argued with Unison members to join the walkouts last year.

[piet11111]

many of their elected leaders are seasoned veterans . Loyally serving members.

With 90% rejecting the deal and over 70% voting for further strike action and the union leaders still rejecting to take action then i am going to have to ask the question of who they are loyally serving.

Unions have become a vehicle for careerists into corporate power and wealth the biggest unions only serve to strangle any working class action before they get out of hand.

Unions have become one of the most critical pillars of capitalist stability and without their betrayals we never would have been piling on defeat after defeat.

Its their support for austerity measures that will cost us our meager wages and bare bones social safety net.

I am a member of the dutch union ABVAKABO for several years but i do not hold any illusions into the treacherous nature of its leadership.
As a worker in the social workplaces i am at great risk of losing my job soon with the government attempting to cut over 70% of the positions available.

If they really wanted to do something they wouldn't hold an impotent 1 day strike on thursday but thats what they excel at doing meaningless stuff to act like they did something meaningful call it a day and all back to work the next day like nothing happened.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Below is a statement I have seen on the internet by a PCS member about the 28th March action. I am not a member of the PCS leadership, or the PCS itself, so I do not know who voted what way on the tactical step back from the 28th March action as a means to stop the PCs and its members being isolated by the ConDem government. It seems over the past few days that the leaderships of the NUT and the EIS had taken a step back from a co-ordinated action strike action for whatever reason. I expect that is the reason why the action has been put back to April. The PCS leadership do not want to be like the first world war Generals and lead their member s over the barracks to be slaughtered by the enemy, that being the ConDems. With all due respect the question is not action, action, action now but careful analysis of the social terrain to work out one’s strategy for victory. Just has it is not revolution, revolution, revolution now as some ‘socialists would like to think.

Nevertheless, I find it a bit ironic that a former, young, student with, I would say, no active experience in the trade union movement, and of course I would be corrected if I am wrong, should start to criticise a Union, and a certain section of that Union, who have been in the depth of the industrial struggle against the Government without first learning the ABC of trade unionism. But hey ho who am I, but an old trade union dinosaur, with a ‘little bit’ of strategic, political and tactical experience in trade unions; so what would I know.

Anyway here is the statement: “PCS has shown a lead all the way - on J30, N30. After the GMB and UNISON et all signed the heads of agreement, PCS has been central to building the coalition of the willing before N30 and the coalition of the rejectionists afterwards. We've been given a massive mandate by our members, which shows the union was correct to have a consultative ballot. Unfortunately, the decision by the NUT exec last week has meant PCS would've had to go it alone nationally on the 28th. No-one in PCS is happy to have to deal with this scenario but to ensure that the PCS is not isolated, and to maximise a united front against the pensions attacks, its right to make a tactical decision on that basis with a strong, clear message that the fight is far from over and we intend to take strike action before the end of April with as many other unions as possible”

Ah, apologism for pro-Capitalist, bureaucratic Trade Union leaderships.

Well, as long as they've been there 'fighting' the government before, who are we revolutionary Socialists to point out that voting against strike action is a shitty thing to do.

So basically, the PCS leadership are worried about getting egg on their faces, and would rather sit at home and let the Capitalists have a free run, rather than putting up at least some resistance.

Wasn't the spark for the Tunisian uprising the self-immolation of one man? Wasn't the start of the Occupy movement a few dozen people living in tents for a bit?

[robbo203]

Why don't you all mind your own business and leave union members to conduct union business? I am sure they are more than capable. It's not rocket science, is it?


Hear Hear!. Turning the industrial struggle into a battleground for leftist sects to opportunistically recruit and sloganise is deeply damaging to the workers' cause and workers' unity

[bricolage]

Hear Hear!. Turning the industrial struggle into a battleground for leftist sects to opportunistically recruit and sloganise is deeply damaging to the workers' cause and workers' unity
i'm not denying that's what a lot of groups do but it's certainly possible to intervene in workers struggles without just using it to 'recruit and sloganise'.

[piet11111]

Hear Hear!. Turning the industrial struggle into a battleground for leftist sects to opportunistically recruit and sloganise is deeply damaging to the workers' cause and workers' unity

Please point out to what sect i am currently recruiting.

And explain how being pissed about a union leadership ignoring a 90% rejection rate and a 70% rate for strike action is sectarian bickering.

Or do you think that is proper democratic procedure ?

[robbo203]

Please point out to what sect i am currently recruiting.

And explain how being pissed about a union leadership ignoring a 90% rejection rate and a 70% rate for strike action is sectarian bickering.

Or do you think that is proper democratic procedure ?


I think you are under a misapprehension. I wasn't having dig at you. I was merely taking up Dodger's general point about the need to keep political sectarianism out of the industrial struggle

[Aurora]

I'm not seeing what the problem is tbh, the membership voted against the governments plan and for more action in the dispute.

The SP members in the PCS no doubt voted with the majority of the membership on both counts against the governments plan and for more action and put out a statement saying it was a great result.

A motion went through the NEC about calling a strike on the 28th March and was rejected by the SP members, but they pledged support for strike action in April.

Obviously the SP members on the NEC thought it was a bad tactical choice to have a strike on the 28th without other union support.

And for this choice people in this thread are calling them 'bureaucrats' 'careerists' etc? you've got to be fucking kidding me, delaying a strike for a couple days to a month in order to get a better turn out and have better organisation is not even that interesting or out of the ordinary let alone a break in principles.

Hypothetically, if the SP members had called a strike for 1st April would this be a betrayal? Of course not! it's only moving a strike by 4 days!

[The Idler]

The whole point of leadership is that leaders don't have to carry out the wishes of members. If you don't like it, join an organisation where a privileged sections such as this don't exist.

Also, generalised slurs like "Any time I raise something good ol' Jimmy comes in which a bunch of ignorant ageist nonsense," in response to "I find it a bit ironic that a former, young, student with, I would say, no active experience in the trade union movement, and of course I would be corrected if I am wrong, should start to criticise a Union" are a bit rich from the original author of "Thus the sectarianism of the dinosaurs of the left come out so easy.". Are these ageist comments or about experience? I seem to recall you saying of me "I guess if you're not active you miss a lot of things." So Jimmy is too experienced, I'm not enough, and Sam_b like the little bear has porridge that is jussssst right. I guess throw enough mud and some will stick, eh?

[Aurora]

Because the leadership opposes strike action


The NEC agreed to work tirelessly to build for a national co-ordinated strike later in April. -PCS statement

Did you even read the OP or did you just see the title and start frothing at the mouth?

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Sam b~~~~”Any time I raise something good ol' Jimmy comes in which a bunch of ignorant ageist nonsense, none of which has anything to do with the fact I have been active within the GMB for the past four and a half years at my workplace. All you do is keep showing up time and time again you know nothing about what I do or what I am involved in. As if age at q time where young trade unionists are pushing the question to the bureaucracy is a reason for derision anyway. Strawmen arguments from a strawman poster”
Point taken Sam b, Mea Culpa!



However this is what you put in your original post:
“Yet what I hear today from a PCS comrade is that Socialist Party members of the NEC voted against taking action on the 28th, and have gone against militant members of the union. From what I hear, even the SWP on the NEC voted for action. So i'd really like to hear what SP members have to say on this, especially in light of this (via Facebook)(I am aware this is an AWL member, but I think it's interesting):


“Quote:
‎"All Socialist Party members of the PCS NEC today voted AGAINST action on the 28th, and the NEC as a whole have failed to deliver any strategy at all for the past year. They have noone to blame but themselves for the failure of the pensions dispute, and it would be cowardly (but hardly surprising) if they were to blame the other unions for them pulling out ('it's not our fault, we can't act alone..., blah blah').

The SP-led PCS leadership presents itself as a left wing one, but refuses to present a real winning programme of action. United action is great, but cannot be achieved all the time. Other types of action were not just useful but IMPERATIVE for this campaign to win.

They will tell you that members want to wait for other unions to join in. From the ground, I will tell you what members have been saying to me today and for the last year - we want PCS to take a fighting lead, to act with its feet and be the militant union it pretends to be. They have been willing to take action and to set up strike funds for the entire length of this campaign and the NEC have ignored their views.

If you are in the Socialist Party and you disagree with what has happened today (as several of you have already intimated to me), use whatever internal networks you have to raise your views. In Workers Liberty we encourage internal disagreement and debate and publish minority views on our website and in our paper - I hope The Socialist will be doing the same over this matter."

“Without clarification, this is pretty scandalous. Especially accusations that the SP-controlled NEC has failed members in the dispute.”


Now who is creating Straw-People here? As you said “without clarification” you immediately drew conclusions that the “SP-controlled has failed members in the dispute”. Now obviously you can correct me if I am wrong but the Socialist Party do not control the PCS NEC; they certainly have members on it just there is other Left political tendencies on the NEC and other trade union bodies but not the majority. But of course you will correct me if I am wrong.

So I can only presuppose that your comments about the Socialist Party was a sectarian taunt to create not a genuine debate about the strategy and tactics of the fight against the ConDem government, but to create a straw-person because I presume your organisation does not have a concrete political strategy on the complex pension issue. On top of that in your original post you did post the PCS statement on why the NEC were not going ahead with the 28th March action. But you made no reference to it or analysed the contents which gave the reasons. Again you only wanted to create a straw-person.

In your second post you said “I'd like to hear more about how your 'strategic and tactical' experience has affected your comrades down south with going against the rank-and-file grassroots and shop stewards who have been agitating for action for the past month or so. I don't think the PCS statement, which I in fact linked in my OP, reflects on this in any way.”

To be honest after reading this several times it does need to be explained to me would you actually mean? But I think you are trying to create a straw-person here once again, however, because of the concrete situation that has developed over the past few weeks and days in relation specifically with the NUT/EIS in Scotland to build a public sector coalition for the 28th March meant the PCS NEC had to take the tactical step back from the action as a means to build amongst the public sector unions for further action in a few weeks’ time. That is what my experience is telling me… but that is not what you want hear comrade. Just on a side note, I presume that you think that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were tactically wrong to stop the insurrectionary movement that had developed in Petrograd in June 1917 because the majority of the Petrograd workers wanted it, but the rest of the country was not at that consciousness yet to see the need for an insurrection. Just a thought and no doubt you will say I am building a strawman here as well, so be it.

Anyway I post a commentary from a PCS NEC member who is also a Socialist Party member on the issues that we have been discussing:

Build a strategy to win on pensions
John McInally, PCS vice-president, personal capacity


Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) members have voted by huge majorities to reject the government's final offer on pensions which is intended to make us pay more, get less and work longer.

Members also voted for national coordinated action with other unions to win a fair settlement.

90% voted to reject the offer and 72% for further action. This is the best vote achieved in PCS and under the most difficult circumstances.

Our members are determined not to allow the government to get away with stealing their pensions.

PCS has been at the forefront of the pensions campaign, arguing that the only way to stop the attack completely or win concessions would be to build the widest possible trade union alliance.

The government intend to roll out pensions 'reform' across the public sector. Coordinated national action was always the best way to challenge it.

PCS showed it was possible to fight back while many other union leaders and the TUC stood back from the type of effective campaigning, including industrial action, that could challenge the attack.

30 June strike
On 30 June last year PCS members, along with members of the education unions, including the biggest teaching union NUT, went on strike, demonstrating that workers are prepared to struggle.

It was the example shown on 30 June, along with the government's intransigence, that directly led to 30 November (N30), the biggest strike in many decades.

Had the unions pressed home the advantage then there is little doubt concessions would have been possible.

But the TUC and other union leaders, particularly in Unison, the biggest public sector union, bowed down to an ultimatum by the government.

This was designed to divide and rule, to call off the industrial action campaign to "consider" a so-called Heads of Agreement that offered no concessions whatsoever on the core issues millions struck against - paying more, getting less and working longer.


PCS played a key role in rebuilding a coalition of unions willing to continue the fight, particularly via the emergency 7 January conference called by Left Unity in PCS.

In order to succeed the PCS national executive (NEC) has agreed that action had to take place in more than one pensions sector, the civil service and education being the most likely.

Defining battle
This is a defining battle and failure to stand up to the attack would give the government the green light to step up their attacks on jobs, pay, privatisation and terms and conditions.

PCS members were clear, the government offer was overwhelmingly rejected and they would be prepared to take action to defend their pensions.

This result was achieved in the context of major unions dropping out of the N30 coalition, continuing attacks from the government and a pay freeze that is hitting our low-paid members very hard.

It was also won on the clear understanding that, as set out in the ballot insert, NUT, UCU and Unite would be part of the alliance that could deliver a "strong campaign". The campaign was due to be re-launched with a one-day strike on 28 March.

Unfortunately at their meeting last week the teachers' union NUT voted not to take national action on 28 March.

NUT conference in a few week's time will debate whether or not to continue in the alliance with nationally coordinated action.

The lecturers' union UCU said it would take action in further education colleges and post-92 higher education colleges, which are part of the teacher's pension scheme. This means they would not be taking action in Scotland.

Unite
Unite has now decided to ballot its members in the civil service before taking action.

In these circumstances and despite the fact the Northern Ireland Public Services Association (NIPSA) would almost certainly have taken action, the PCS NEC has agreed not to take action on 28 March.

To go ahead in such circumstances would mean in significant parts of the country only PCS members would be taking action effectively on their own.

This is precisely what we told members we would not do, take action on our own or without a coalition of unions capable of pressurising the government into returning to the negotiating table.

Given these developments, the NEC agreed that PCS must continue to work with other unions to build for national coordinated action at the earliest possible opportunity and before the end of April if possible.

It was also agreed to organise mass constituency lobbying of MPs during the Easter recess, including cabinet minister's constituencies.

PCS branches will support and organise local protests and campaign events against the government's cuts programme, including their latest vicious plans for regional and local pay.

Action with a strengthened coalition is entirely possible
We must honestly recognise that the NUT decision not to take national action on 28 March is a setback.

But if its conference in a few weeks decides to build for national coordinated action then action before the end of April with a strengthened coalition is entirely possible and certainly what PCS will work for.

While regrouping the union alliance cannot be solely contingent on a decision at the NUT conference, a positive decision would be an extremely significant boost to putting together a credible alliance to win concessions.

NUT and UCU are to take action in London only on 28 March and PCS will offer whatever support and solidarity it can.

But we will not join that action because it is simply not the type of industrial action response we consulted our members on - large-scale and effective national coordinated action across at least two sectors.

PCS reps have worked hard to win the ballot and build for 28 March and there will clearly be disappointment.

However we must always treat our members with respect: they have repeatedly shown they are prepared to follow the NEC's call for action, but to ask them to take action on 28 March when the coalition we worked so hard to put together to win concessions is clearly not properly in place would be an abrogation of responsibility to low-paid members whose loyalty and determination has been a beacon to the movement.

The NEC is absolutely confident that the best way to proceed is to recognise we must now re-group. In the coming weeks we must put together the type of coalition we told members in the ballot was required if we are to win on pensions.

PCS will continue to work for the widest possible trade union alliance that recognises the fight against the pensions robbery as part of a broader fight against the government's austerity agenda. PCS will now do all it can to build for effective action in April.

[daft punk]

The fucking ignorant childish sectarianism on this thread is really disheartening.

The PCS has probably got some of the best leaders in the UK, and the sects start whining just because they sensibly delay an action a few weeks. No reasoned debate on tactics, just fucking bollocks:

"a vehicle for careerists into corporate power and wealth"

"sold out"

"With union leaders like that who needs enemy's. "

"What should you expect from business union socialists but ... business unionism"

This is a union led by Marxists, dedicated ones, serious socialists, not bedroom internet anarchists.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Mark Serwotka update on the national campaign

The PCS national executive (NEC) unanimously agreed on 19 March to continue to pursue a joint union campaign against the government's cuts to pensions, including a co-ordinated national strike in April. General secretary Mark Serwotka explains the decisions made at the NEC and the future plans for the campaign in a little more detail here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dRl7F1nzgqA

[Martin Blank]

Before I get into my comments below, I'd like to establish my credentials for this discussion. I do this because it has already been made clear that such things are required in order to have a serious conversation. I am currently 39 years old; I will be 40 in November.

I held my first union job at 16, when I worked as lead stagehand at my high school and was a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers. At the age of 20, I became a member of AFSCME after moving to Detroit and being hired by the Public Library. Two years later, after moving from Detroit to Ypsilanti, I became a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and remained a member of that union until the end of 1997, when I moved back to Detroit and switched jobs, becoming a fueller at the airport and a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I was laid off in early 2000 and went to work at the Canadian Pacific Railroad terminal in Detroit as a member of the National Production Workers Union. I was laid off in 2006 and retired due to disability a year later.

During all of those 17-18 years, I also helped organize two workplaces into unions (one as UFCW and one as Teamsters), organized several membership caucuses, sat on one bargaining committee, one safety committee and two strike committees, and led one successful wildcat strike. I've been an elected shop steward, local executive board member, trustee, organizer and committee chairman. I turned down offers to be a local president and secretary-treasurer. I've also been threatened (by both bosses and union officials), shot at, beaten, arrested and jailed for union activity. There were times when I carried a loaded .45 automatic to work because of the threats and attacks.

So, as you can see, I've earned the right to comment on union issues, even if they are happening outside of the country in which I live.


Why don't you all mind your own business and leave union members to conduct union business? I am sure they are more than capable. It's not rocket science, is it?

No, it's not rocket science. But if you believe what's printed on the box, the union officials are supposed to take their cues from the membership, not the other way around. The membership voted in overwhelming numbers to reject the government's deal and organize a strike ... regardless of whether the NUT or UCU joined them. For the PCS union officials to unilaterally say they're going to wait and see if the other unions will join them a month from now is a cynical betrayal and slap in the face to the members of PCS. Not only is it going against the wishes of the membership, but it is also telling them they can't win by going on strike themselves. I've seen this dozens of times with the business unions here, and it is always a prelude to defeat.


Below is a statement I have seen on the internet by a PCS member about the 28th March action. I am not a member of the PCS leadership, or the PCS itself, so I do not know who voted what way on the tactical step back from the 28th March action as a means to stop the PCs and its members being isolated by the ConDem government. It seems over the past few days that the leaderships of the NUT and the EIS had taken a step back from a co-ordinated action strike action for whatever reason. I expect that is the reason why the action has been put back to April. The PCS leadership do not want to be like the first world war Generals and lead their members over the barracks to be slaughtered by the enemy, that being the ConDems. With all due respect the question is not action, action, action now but careful analysis of the social terrain to work out one’s strategy for victory. Just as it is not revolution, revolution, revolution now as some ‘socialists would like to think.

If this was the case, then why didn't the PCS officials explain this to the membership in advance of the vote? For that matter, why didn't they integrate the delay into the ballot options? OK, I understand you're not in PCS, but these are questions that need to be answered.


Anyway here is the statement: “PCS has shown a lead all the way - on J30, N30. After the GMB and UNISON et all signed the heads of agreement, PCS has been central to building the coalition of the willing before N30 and the coalition of the rejectionists afterwards. We've been given a massive mandate by our members, which shows the union was correct to have a consultative ballot. Unfortunately, the decision by the NUT exec last week has meant PCS would've had to go it alone nationally on the 28th. No-one in PCS is happy to have to deal with this scenario but to ensure that the PCS is not isolated, and to maximise a united front against the pensions attacks, its right to make a tactical decision on that basis with a strong, clear message that the fight is far from over and we intend to take strike action before the end of April with as many other unions as possible”

and


On the question of industrial action, our general secretary reported that the National Union of Teachers had decided not to take national strike action on 28 March, as previously discussed by a group of unions. Other teachers' unions had also decided not to take action on that date.

Under these circumstances, the NEC agreed that PCS will work with other unions to build for co-ordinated national industrial action to take place at the earliest opportunity and before the end of April if possible. The NUT's annual conference runs from 6 to 10 April at which decisions are expected on further action.

I have seen enough situations like this to know the outcome already. This happens a lot with workers in school districts here in the U.S., too. I'll use Detroit as an example, since I'm most familiar with its particular structure. There exists in Detroit the Coalition of DPS Unions, which is an umbrella for all of the unions with members working for the school district: teachers, support/maintenance staff, drivers/haulers, physical plant workers, construction, etc. There have been times in the past when one or two of these unions will vote to reject a contract and organize a strike, but the others either haven't taken a vote yet, or have rejected taking strike action now and continuing negotiations. The officials of the unions whose members have voted to strike declare they will begin pressuring the other CDPSU unions to join with them. They don't. The end result is that the unions whose members voted to strike are then pushed by the officials to swallow the contract they rejected ... or worse.

My questions are these:

1) What makes the PCS leadership believe they can change the minds of the NUT executive?

2) What makes the PCS leadership believe the NUT executive will let the membership overrule their decision to not strike?

3) What will PCS do if/when the NUT says at their conference that they won't strike?


The NEC's decisions have been based on two key considerations. First, since the government's policy has been applied across the whole public sector, national coordinated action by as many unions as possible has been necessary to win concessions.

Secondly a strategy to win a fair settlement to the dispute must involve a programme of action involving joint national strike action with other unions; joint national, regional and local protests; lobbying of ministers, MPs and other politicians; and co-ordinated targeted industrial action in some sectors.

Wow, this really does sound like something out of the AFL-CIO or CTW playbook. This "strategy" of protests, lobbying politicians and "showcase" strikes is, has been and always will be a recipe for failure. I've lost count of how many times this has been tried and failed, but I can account for the amount of times it has succeeded: none.


The fucking ignorant childish sectarianism on this thread is really disheartening.

The PCS has probably got some of the best leaders in the UK, and the sects start whining just because they sensibly delay an action a few weeks. No reasoned debate on tactics, just fucking bollocks:

Do you even know what sectarianism is? Seriously, do you know what it means? I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't mean being critical from the left.


"What should you expect from business union socialists but ... business unionism"

This is a union led by Marxists, dedicated ones, serious socialists, not bedroom internet anarchists.

You're welcome to peruse my credentials, presented at the top of this post.

[A Marxist Historian]

Why don't you all mind your own business and leave union members to conduct union business? I am sure they are more than capable. It's not rocket science, is it?

Ah yes, all union leaders everywhere are just great, and anybody who criticizes any one of them is a bosses tool.

Especially here in these here United States, where all our leaders are just wunnerful.

As for the Brits, no doubt they are so, so much better, especially if they call themselves "socialist."

The Irish have a song about that, "the patriot's game"

-M.H.-

"And methinks that our leaders are mostly to blame..."

[Sam_b]

Also, generalised slurs like "Any time I raise something good ol' Jimmy comes in which a bunch of ignorant ageist nonsense," in response to "I find it a bit ironic that a former, young, student with, I would say, no active experience in the trade union movement, and of course I would be corrected if I am wrong, should start to criticise a Union" are a bit rich from the original author of "Thus the sectarianism of the dinosaurs of the left come out so easy.". Are these ageist comments or about experience? I seem to recall you saying of me "I guess if you're not active you miss a lot of things." So Jimmy is too experienced, I'm not enough, and Sam_b like the little bear has porridge that is jussssst right. I guess throw enough mud and some will stick, eh?

May I ask why you didn't quote Jimmy's post which I made a response to by calling him a 'dinosaur', where he yet again attacked me due to my age?

Why do you have a record of selective quoting on this website?

[Sam_b]

The fucking ignorant childish sectarianism on this thread is really disheartening.

So why don't you answer to theaccusations politically? To my knowledge Marxists don't sell out the working class rank-and-file membership.

[daft punk]

Because I trust the PCS leadership do do what they think is best. To hear this thread you would think they are like the right wing union leaders we are all so familiar with, but they are all revolutionaries, Marxists. They made a tactical decision. The people slagging them sound very sectarian. At least Cthulhu did put a proper post together with some logical suggestions, but my feeling is that none of us know enough detail to comment.

The members voted for action and they are gonna get action. Just in a few weeks instead of next week.

[Sam_b]

Because I trust the PCS leadership do do what they think is best

Why do you trust the union bureaucracy over rank-and-file members?


They made a tactical decision

A decision that goes against the workers of the union.

[The Idler]

May I ask why you didn't quote Jimmy's post which I made a response to by calling him a 'dinosaur', where he yet again attacked me due to my age?
I will if I you can point me to where Jimmy attacked you due to your age.

Why do you have a record of selective quoting on this website?
This is the kind of generalised unsubstantiated slurs I am talking about.

[daft punk]

Why do you trust the union bureaucracy over rank-and-file members?

Why do you think that? The members voted for action. Did they vote for action on a specific day, and only that day? Not that I know of, do you? Do you know what was on the ballot paper?



A decision that goes against the workers of the union.
see above. How does it go against them to put the date back?

The only people who might be bothered that I can think of is the unions still going ahead next week, but I don't know enough detail. The CWI are publicising that anyway.

Tell the Con-Dem government: NO CUTS!

Support 28 March pension strike

Martin Powell-Davies NUT teachers' union executive, personal capacity


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/14164/21-03-2012/tell-con-dem-government-no-cuts


According to the BBC:

"The PCS said the outcome of the vote should be enough to bring the government back to the negotiating table. "Ministers must now seriously engage in negotiations on the core issues if they want a settlement," said PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.
"The vote shows we remain committed to resisting this government's attacks on pensions, jobs and pay, and to working with other unions to build further co-ordinated industrial action."
The union's national executive committee will meet on Monday to decide what to do next."

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Cthuilhu~~~~I would like to say that your experience far outweighs mine and I take my hat off to you. I have done many things in my years of political/trade union activity which also includes going to prison for a political ‘offence’, but it is nothing to what you have done.

To your questions: “1) What makes the PCS leadership believe they can change the minds of the NUT executive?
“2) What makes the PCS leadership believe the NUT executive will let the membership overrule their decision to not strike?

“3) What will PCS do if/when the NUT says at their conference that they won't strike?”
I really cannot answer them because I am not a PCS member or involved in the PCS NEC. I have posted above the PCS NEC position and a commentary from a Socialist Party member on the PCS NEC so you have to take what is read and develop it to the concrete political situation in Britain today. Which I would like to say is very fluid due the impact of the economic crisis and the political representatives of the bourgeoisie on the one hand, and their working class and their leadership on the other.

Sam b started this thread off as a sectarian criticism of the Socialist Party/CWI members on the PCS specifically and the PSC leadership in general. But quite honestly it is not the leadership of the PCS who has let the British public sector workers, and the rest of the British working class, down. But the pusillanimous role of the right wing trade union leaders such as Unison’s Dave Prentis, who is the General Secretary of the biggest public sector union, and the TUC’s Brendon Barber, and others, who immediately went to the ConDem government after the brilliant Public Sector Strike on 30th November and accepted the very same deal that was on offer before the strike. They are the ones who need to be brought to book for their actions against their members.

If it was not for the small left public sector Unions such as the PCS, NUT and UCU who organised a Left Unity conference at the beginning of the year as a means to generate and mobilise the resistance from below to the sell-out by the right-wing trade union leaders there would have been a complete collapse in resistance against the ConDem government.

The point is that seems to evade the Sam b’s of this world is that this is not a sell-out, because the PCS leadership is saying openly to its members and the other public sector trade union members that because of not wanting to whole isolate themselves the action will not take place at the end of March but in April when they have engendered more support. I have post above statements and a video from PCS spoke persons on this issue.

One thing is clear and that is the prevailing feature of the state of affairs in Britain over the past year has been the re-emergence of the working class as the most decisive force in society, characterised by the three great events of the brilliant nearly three quarter million march in London on the 26 March, the limited public sector action on 30th June and the full public sector strike on 30th November. This came after a period of relative social stability and arises from the devastating economic crisis of world capitalism that began in 2007. The general resistance to the austerity programme of the ConDem government is summed up by the immense pension struggle.

The point is yes it is a slight step back from the action that the PCS that was planned, but it is not a retreat from the struggle by the PCS leadership and other smaller public sector Unions; as that has happened with the leadership of the bigger public sector trade unions such as Prentis, et al. So the criticism should be on the right-wing trade union leaders not the PCS left leadership.

I post an editorial from this week’s Socialist on the development of building a Left trade union leadership in all Unions:


Editorial of The Socialist

Prepare for future struggle - build the trade union left
Unending misery - that's what this government has in store for us. NHS chiefs have been warned they will need to find a further £20 billion in 'savings' once the current target of £20 billion of cuts has been met!


If any of the trade union leaders had any doubt about the full character of the onslaught facing the working class and the trade union movement, it should be dismissed now.


In fact, the inevitable outrage that will follow the budget, put forward by a government of the rich for the rich, should be mobilised by the TUC in a national weekend demonstration to defend pay and pensions, the NHS and the welfare state as part of a programme of protest and strike action to end austerity.


The budget also puts into sharp focus the responsibility of Unison, GMB and others who moved so quickly to sign the government's Heads of Agreement pension non-offer before Christmas. This squandered the huge momentum built up by the historic 30 November (N30) public sector strike.


All the way through this struggle PCS, particularly Left Unity, the broad left in PCS, and the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), has acted as a lever to push for action. It is no coincidence that the TUC called the N30 strike the day after the NSSN mobilised trade unionists to lobby its meeting in London last September.


On 7 January Left Unity, in which Socialist Party members play a leading role, organised an open conference which attracted over 500 union activists. This was a rallying call for all those who wanted to reject the pre-Christmas sell-out and put pressure on the right-wing union leaders to reverse their decision. From this, over ten 'rejectionist' unions met independently of the TUC's Public Sector Liaison Group to consider further coordinated strike action on a significant, albeit smaller, scale than N30.


Ultimately, however as the 1 April increased pension contributions near, only PCS, NUT and UCU on an all-Britain basis, along with Nipsa in Northern Ireland and EIS and UCAC in Scotland and Wales respectively, were willing to consider striking on 28 March.


Unfortunately, the NUT executive (NEC) last week voted against a national strike. We believe that this was a serious mistake and Socialist Party NEC member Martin Powell-Davies opposed this decision along with others. We believe however that the London strike, now joined by UCU in post-1992 universities and further education in London on the same day, presents a platform for NUT activists to fight for the NEC's decision against national action to be reversed at the union's Easter conference.


This was the complicated and frustrating position that confronted the PCS NEC on 19 March. There was an overwhelming vote in their consultative ballot to reject the pension deal and provide a mandate for further national strike action, coordinated with other unions. The fact that PCS is organised more on a group basis made London-only action more difficult.


After the NUT decision, the PCS leadership was faced with the prospect of the union striking nationally on 28 March, effectively on its own outside London.


While the UCU vote is welcomed, the absence of the NUT is a serious blow to effective national action. Teachers have significant economic power when they strike, as parents often have to take a day off work to look after their children. The NUT can also be a lever on the other main teaching union, the NASUWT which is currently only operating a work to rule.


While it is understandable that some may be concerned that PCS is not now taking action on 28 March, the broad mass of the membership will welcome the rejection of the pension deal and the intention of the NEC to use the mandate to plan further national strike action with other unions as soon as possible, hopefully before the end of April.


Other unions
This not only potentially includes NUT and UCU, but also Unite and the firefighters' union FBU who will be voting shortly on final offers. Rejection of these deals should be the starting point of coming together with the PCS and the others to strike together. A fresh appeal to Unison, GMB, NASUWT etc who themselves have to vote on offers should also be made.


The PCS NEC correctly has to consider very carefully the effect on morale of its own members in taking action on its own and to guard against the union being isolated. Every activist and rep prefers to fight on the front foot but this isn't always possible.


The NUT decision has changed the situation, at least as far as 28 March is concerned. The PCS leadership has always weighed up carefully when to engage its members, who have taken both national and group action many times over the last decade and particularly over the last 18 months and on-going as they face a broad offensive in the civil service. In this concrete set of circumstances, the PCS NEC is justified in delaying the necessary national action.


Three national unions, PCS, NUT and UCU have decisively rejected the pension deal and reinforced their mandate for strike action. Activists in all other public sector unions should fight for their unions to do the same to force this government back on pensions, which would act as a warning about the rest of their attacks.


The numbers who joined Unison, for example, in the run-up to N30 shows that there is a mood to take action. After 1 April - when the effects of the right-wing union leaders' sell-out is clear in the pay packets - members of all public sector unions will demand a serious and determined strategy to beat the government back.


If a fighting strategy is to be implemented it is essential that decisions on the struggle are not left in the hands of these national trade union leaders. The Socialist Party has demanded that trade union members have democratic control of the negotiations at every stage.


Within the trade unions we need to begin to build fighting left organisations that struggle to ensure the trade unions fight in their members' interests. One demand of such organisations should be for regular elections of full-time officials and for them to be paid no more than a workers' wage.

The National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) also has an important role to play in bringing together militant trade unionists. It will be giving its full backing to the 28 March action and continuing to play a vital role in pushing ahead for further coordinated strikes. The sixth NSSN conference is on 9 June. See www.shopstewards.net (http://www.shopstewards.net)

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

To Prole Art Threat~~~~ Sorry comrade I honestly did not think the text was to big. The text I am using at the moment I think is too small. I will try and work out a happy medium. Apologies again. :)

[Sam_b]

Why do you think that?

Because you said "I trust the PCS leadership do do what they think is best". This NEC decision has been opposed by rank-and-file who were wanting action. So I think that because you made it clear as day.


Did they vote for action on a specific day, and only that day?

The ballot was widely seen as advocating action on the 28th. Your own organisation's website, quoted in the OP, even alluded to this. Members who voted on action to be taken were as a rule voting in support of a strike on the 28th.


Not that I know of, do you?

Most people around PCS did. We were considering how to support the PCS on strike action on that day at a recent ISG meeting. Judging from the CWI website, your organisation was aware of it too.


How does it go against them to put the date back?

Because trade union activists were all getting ready to take action on the day, and the NEC voted against a clear mandate by the workers.


The CWI are publicising that anyway.


This is good, but then it begs the question that if the CWI support and will likely build and back the strike, why did their own members not support it on the NEC?

[The Idler]

In general, people throw around accusations of sectarianism too quickly when political criticism is raised.

[Martin Blank]

Cthulhu~~~~I would like to say that your experience far outweighs mine and I take my hat off to you. I have done many things in my years of political/trade union activity which also includes going to prison for a political ‘offence’, but it is nothing to what you have done.

As I said, the only reason I included that information was because it appeared as if it was necessary for having a solid, comradely discussion. I understand the impulse to dismiss comments about union activity from those who have no union experience whatsoever. At the same time, I do find some value in the comments of such comrades, since there are times when they can see something that those of us too close to the issue cannot.


To your questions:... I really cannot answer them because I am not a PCS member or involved in the PCS NEC. I have posted above the PCS NEC position and a commentary from a Socialist Party member on the PCS NEC so you have to take what is read and develop it to the concrete political situation in Britain today. Which I would like to say is very fluid due the impact of the economic crisis and the political representatives of the bourgeoisie on the one hand, and their working class and their leadership on the other.

I do understand what you're saying here, and I know you're not a PCS member. I would think, though, that as a member of the CWI you have the right to ask the comrades involved in the PCS NEC those questions. I'm not interested in a tendency war; my first concern is for my brother and sister workers in PCS, and the fate of their vote to strike.


... But quite honestly it is not the leadership of the PCS who has let the British public sector workers, and the rest of the British working class, down. But the pusillanimous role of the right wing trade union leaders such as Unison’s Dave Prentis, who is the General Secretary of the biggest public sector union, and the TUC’s Brendon Barber, and others, who immediately went to the ConDem government after the brilliant Public Sector Strike on 30th November and accepted the very same deal that was on offer before the strike. They are the ones who need to be brought to book for their actions against their members.

No doubt about Prentis and Barber. Their actions are tantamount to company unionism. I think the concern with PCS, especially among self-described socialists and communists, is that it may be going the same way as UNISON ... with the apparent help of the SP. Some may be looking to score points off of this, but that kind of political unseriousness is often times more harmful than a betrayal, since it gives workers the impression that a lot of the left is just there to attack other leftists.


If it was not for the small left public sector Unions such as the PCS, NUT and UCU who organised a Left Unity conference at the beginning of the year as a means to generate and mobilise the resistance from below to the sell-out by the right-wing trade union leaders there would have been a complete collapse in resistance against the ConDem government.

The point is that seems to evade the Sam b’s of this world is that this is not a sell-out, because the PCS leadership is saying openly to its members and the other public sector trade union members that because of not wanting to whole isolate themselves the action will not take place at the end of March but in April when they have engendered more support. I have post above statements and a video from PCS spoke persons on this issue.

I have to admit, this begs the question: If there was a concern about NUT and UCU joining PCS on strike on March 28, why was this not made clear to the membership, and why was this not integrated into the ballot (e.g., a statement alongside the pro-strike option that the strike is contingent on agreement with NUT and UCU on a joint strike)?


The point is yes it is a slight step back from the action that the PCS that was planned, but it is not a retreat from the struggle by the PCS leadership and other smaller public sector Unions; as that has happened with the leadership of the bigger public sector trade unions such as Prentis, et al. So the criticism should be on the right-wing trade union leaders not the PCS left leadership.

Again, I understand what you're saying here. But I feel the need to point out that a "left leadership" in a union or other self-described workers' organizations is and should be held to a higher standard. I mean, there's no question that the reactionary officials need to be run out of the unions on a rail, but that would create a vacuum into which "left leadership" will attempt to step. That makes the quality of that "left leadership" much more important. Why? If that "leadership" is lacking -- is open to making "compromises" with the ruling classes at the expense of the membership -- then that will make any attempt at developing a class-struggle leadership within those unions much more difficult.

I'll have to return to the SP Editorial later.

[NoPasaran1936]

It was obvious this thread was started for a sectarian barrage...

[A Marxist Historian]

Because I trust the PCS leadership do do what they think is best. To hear this thread you would think they are like the right wing union leaders we are all so familiar with, but they are all revolutionaries, Marxists. They made a tactical decision. The people slagging them sound very sectarian. At least Cthulhu did put a proper post together with some logical suggestions, but my feeling is that none of us know enough detail to comment.

The members voted for action and they are gonna get action. Just in a few weeks instead of next week.

Well, we shall see.

I, though I'm not in the mood for a boast fest, do have some 20 years of trade union experience, including holding a variety of low level posts in my old union, some elected, some not.

And this is what I know. When union leadres want to put a stop to rank and file action, they use a variety of techniques, and putting off an action till after the energy has cooled a bit so it flops is classic.

It seems unlikely on the face of it that the unions who have rejected endorsing this action are going to turn around and change their mind in a few weeks. Though if they do of course and you have a big united mass labor strike, that's another matter, and I for one will be delighted to eat my words.

In general, a mass of unionists out on the streets and picketing is a much, much better way to get other unionists to join them, dragging their bureaucrats behind them, than negotiations behind closed doors.

So we'll see. If the pro-Socialist Party officials can produce a mass labor action a month from now, I was wrong. If the action ends up being called off altogether, or turns out to be a flop, which is what I suspect will happen... then, that's another matter.

As for how great these union leaders are, isn't this the same "left" union leaders that just a few years ago were signing off on concession after concession?

According to the British Spartacists,

"The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party tail Serwotka and promote him as a supposed focus of resistance to the pensions sell-out. But to present Serwotka — or themselves — as intransigent fighters against the pensions sell-out requires some chutzpah and memory loss. In 2005, when the then Labour government hatched a plan to increase the pension age from 60 to 65, PCS members voted to strike. Rather than call effective strike action, which would have brought the union into conflict with Labour in office, Serwotka agreed a rotten compromise under which new entrants to the civil service would have to work five more years to earn their entitlement to a pension. This deal was backed by the Socialist Party, whose supporters hold positions in the PCS leadership."

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wh/217/Pensions.html

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

They got it wrong

The PCS leadership should have gone for a strike on the 28 March. Instead PCS hopes to take action with the NUT, late in April.

Now in their explanation of that decision the union states:

The NEC’s decisions have been based on two key considerations. First, since the government’s policy has been applied across the whole public sector, national coordinated action by as many unions as possible has been necessary to win concessions.

Of course we are not let into the secret to as to how “many unions” are need to win concessions. Of the major unions only the NUT, the UCU and PCS, are (we hope) in the “market” at the moment for further action (our great friend and radical Len McCluskey is notable by his absence)- but is this enough to win concessions? On the 28 March we could have had UCU, the London region of NUT plus possibly the Northern Ireland public sector union, NIPSA, out alongside the PCS; the NEC deemed this was not enough so obviously the NUT must be the magic ingredient that changes things.

Now the PCS statement says of NUT:

The NUT’s annual conference runs from 6 to 10 April at which decisions are expected on further action.

This is coded language for NUT activists – please overturn your leadership.

Even if NUT join in with one day of strike action in late April will this be enough to win? No right thinking person can believe that this will be the case. The Government can ride out one day strikes with months in of inaction in between, very easily. So what do PCS have to say about a strategy to win? Well:

Secondly a strategy to win a fair settlement to the dispute must involve a programme of action involving joint national strike action with other unions; joint national, regional and local protests; lobbying of ministers, MPs and other politicians; and co-ordinated targeted industrial action in some sectors.

We are not told what “a programme of action involving joint national strike action with other unions” means; is it a strike once a month; once every four months – what? We agree that there should be “joint national, regional and local protests; lobbying of ministers, MPs and other politicians” – but that is not going to win either. Lastly we have “co-ordinated targeted industrial action in some sectors”; what does that mean? In PCS we have a number of departmental and local disputes ongoing: are they part of co-ordinated targeted industrial? Who knows; we don’t think the PCS leadership know either.

So what do we say in reply to this waffle? Our starting point is that part of the PCS statement which says:

PCS members voted by 90.5% to reject the government’s ‘final offer’ on pensions and by 72.1% to support a programme of further action with other unions – the highest vote for action we have ever had.

We think that the “highest vote for action we have ever had” means something and that if members have democratically voted to continue the fight then that fight must go on. Members voted in the knowledge that the 28 March was to be the next day (this was explicit in voting material) and we should honour member’s wishes.

To repeat what we said in a previous posting “To the objection that the NUT is not taking national action on the 28th we say now, what we said in the past, each union has to fight for its own members – even when other unions will not. Unity with other unions is very important but not if that means unity of indecision and capitulation”.

Member’s confidence and morale maybe undermined by waiting even longer after the 30 November to take action. By late April the increase in pension contributions will be in place and we fear members will think that the fight is over.

We are on our own in the fight against job cuts and pay – at least in terms of having won a strike ballot over those issues (though our leadership has hardly mentioned these aspects of the ballot since the voting was concluded). Therefore the leadership’s logic that “First, since the government’s policy has been applied across the whole public sector, national coordinated action by as many unions as possible has been necessary to win concessions” must mean that the jobs and pay fight is already over as no other major union has balloted, or seems likely to ballot its members over jobs and pay. So have we given up on the fight over job losses and pay; our leadership should come clean on this.

When members were balloted last year they were not told that if only the NUT or some other specified unions took action with us, could we fight. Members voted yes in that ballot in the expectation that we would fight.

In contrast we have argued from day one that jobs and pay must take equal billing with pensions. In stark contrast to our leaders’ one strike at a time tactic we have argued that along with as much national action as we think members can bear, we want selective action as well, coupled with political and other actions.

It is not too late to rescue matters. We do hope that NUT activists over turn their leadership and that we fight together in late April. In PCS, what is needed is that activists and members overturn our leadership in the upcoming NEC election. That is why we are standing. Our position is clear; the fight goes on; vote Independent Left.http://pcsindependentleft.com/2012/03/19/they-got-it-wrong/

[daft punk]

new entrants to the civil service would have to work five more years to earn their entitlement to a pension.

Oh my, new entrants take a job, fully aware that they have to sit at their desks for the same number of years as the workers have to toil in their back breaking jobs. My heart bleeds for them.

Seriously, it's a sort of small defeat, but hardly the same as if it were for existing members which would be a huge kick in the teeth. Maybe it was necessary to make this concession to secure the rights of workers who spent their lives planning on retiring at 60 as per their agreement when they started.

[A Marxist Historian]

http://pcsindependentleft.com/2012/03/19/they-got-it-wrong/

According to this posting, if you wait till late April the pension cuts are already in place! So action in late April is a day late and a dollar short, just an excuse to avoid any real action at all.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh my, new entrants take a job, fully aware that they have to sit at their desks for the same number of years as the workers have to toil in their back breaking jobs. My heart bleeds for them.

Seriously, it's a sort of small defeat, but hardly the same as if it were for existing members which would be a huge kick in the teeth. Maybe it was necessary to make this concession to secure the rights of workers who spent their lives planning on retiring at 60 as per their agreement when they started.

So then, we have the creation of a two tier system, with the labor aristocrats with five years seniority, one suspects if England is anything like America a lot whiter than the new hires, on top, and the civil service proles on the bottom. And, of course, it's the new hires with the shittier job assignments, they have less seniority after all. So they're the ones breaking their backs, or rather getting carpal tunnel.

This is not a small defeat, but a huge defeat, and accepting that kind of divisive disaster without a fight does make it harder to visualize a successful rebellion against the latest assault.

If the new hires, and by now that means half a decade of new hires, are second class citizens, they will be sorely tempted to scab. Divide and rule is how the capitalists win.

-M.H.-

[Martin Blank]

So then, we have the creation of a two tier system, with the labor aristocrats with five years seniority, one suspects if England is anything like America a lot whiter than the new hires, on top, and the civil service proles on the bottom. And, of course, it's the new hires with the shittier job assignments, they have less seniority after all. So they're the ones breaking their backs, or rather getting carpal tunnel.

This is not a small defeat, but a huge defeat, and accepting that kind of divisive disaster without a fight does make it harder to visualize a successful rebellion against the latest assault.

If the new hires, and by now that means half a decade of new hires, are second class citizens, they will be sorely tempted to scab. Divide and rule is how the capitalists win.

I have to agree with AMH here. The implementation of a multi-tier system will be the death knell of solidarity. The newer hires will not be so supportive of the PCS officials, believing them to be willing to sacrifice new workers for the sake of the older ones. If this plays out like it has in the U.S., one of the concrete results will be that the newer workers will "punish" older ones when it comes to concessions on pensions. (Google "UAW retiree pensions" to see what I mean.)

If the Cameron government is allowed to implement the multi-tier system without so much as a whimper made beforehand, then PCS is doomed to backslide further, as younger and older workers are set against each other in a race to the bottom.

[A Marxist Historian]

I have to agree with AMH here. The implementation of a multi-tier system will be the death knell of solidarity. The newer hires will not be so supportive of the PCS officials, believing them to be willing to sacrifice new workers for the sake of the older ones. If this plays out like it has in the U.S., one of the concrete results will be that the newer workers will "punish" older ones when it comes to concessions on pensions. (Google "UAW retiree pensions" to see what I mean.)

If the Cameron government is allowed to implement the multi-tier system without so much as a whimper made beforehand, then PCS is doomed to backslide further, as younger and older workers are set against each other in a race to the bottom.

Unfortunately, this is already in place, implemented five years ago under Gordon Brown, with the support of Serwotka and the SP!

However, this is only a five year difference in retirement dates, and at least you don't have two tiers in wage rates--yet! But any sort of two tier system puts the camel's nose under the tent.

The current extreme two tier system in the UAW, with new hires getting literally half the wages of the graying older cohort, has taken years to come in, getting its start some 20 years ago is my impression, and seemingly quite temporary and reversible at first. I remember when the extreme wage differentials began in 2005 in the auto parts plants, there was widescale worker rebellion against this. I happened to visit Detroit at the time, and talked to some rank and file workers who were totally up in arms.

But now, when it has hit the main auto plants, the workers just sit there and take it, as the precedent was already established.

No doubt many of the new workers believe and hope that sooner or later, before they hit age 60, their union leaders will get them their retirement at 60 back. But the way Serwotka is running the union is I suspect steadily undermining that.

This by the way is a personal issue for me. My girlfriend had a low level civil service job, the sort that would make her a PCS member in England I think, and absolutely had to retire at 60 due to a condition similar to carpal tunnel due to bad working conditions. Thank goodness, she had a good workers comp attorney who managed to prove that it was work related, otherwise she would have been totally screwed.

-M.H.-

[dodger]

Same=o ...same=0....DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO UNDERMINE THE LEADERSHIP IN A SERIOUS DISPUTE. Drive a wedge between their leaders and members. To what purpose? As sure as the nose on yer face...it is to replace those leaders with their own tendency. That's how it is, that is how it is seen. When the members have had their fill of your nonsense...they can get rid of you.....if they have a mind to. Expose THEM...expose yourselves more like.....self serving wind bags!

[Threetune]

Comrades Amh and Cthulhu,
You are entirely correct to be paying attention and debating this particular old trades union struggle in the Britain right now. It is encouraging for all workers reading this that two of the most informed contributors to Revleft (from the US) should want to take up this matter with such passion.
You both still have much to say based on your union experience, so I am not going to intervene yet about my extensive union fighing. However, I will say that the so called ‘extraordinary’ but actually really ordinary crisis of capitalism is not being discussed or agitated about by the trades union leaders in any way at all.
All the agitating about pensions and tactics is knackered unless there is a leadership that can and will explain that capitalism and its trades union reforms are finished.
Are you up for it?

[Q]

The following is an interview that Tina Becker held with Lee Rock, assistant branch secretary, department for work and pensions in Sheffield, about the recent controversial decision. I thought I'd post it up for some more background info. Other comrades are of course free to add in.


Around 72% of PCS members voted for more strike action - that’s a higher percentage than the vote which led to the June 30 and November 30 walkouts. Why has the leadership decided not to go through with the planned action on March 28?

I can understand the decision, though tactically I think it is a mistake. The reason is last week’s decision by the leadership of the National Union of Teachers not to participate in a joint national strike on March 28. Although 73% of NUT members voted for strike action, the national leadership overturned that decision by 24 votes to 15. Some have claimed that the turnout was not good enough at 40% - but they went on strike following a similar turnout last June and November. To their credit, the left on the executive, including the Socialist Party, voted for strike action and managed to get the executive to agree at least to limited regional action in London on that day. The lecturers’ University and College Union are now limiting their action to just London following the PCS decision.

The turnout of the PCS ballot was even lower than that of the NUT: less than 33% of PCS members voted. That is not good, but it’s not the worst turnout we’ve seen. Only the three Socialist Workers Party members on the PCS leadership voted for striking on March 28. But Socialist Party members, who politically dominate the executive, voted against.

Of course, the NUT decision was a huge blow for our fight. We have made big play out of the coalition of unions resisting the attacks on pension and I can understand why the leadership doesn’t want to take out our members on their own. However, I made the point at the Yorkshire and Humberside regional committee last week that in my view the action should go ahead. Firstly, that would have put more pressure on the NUT. And, secondly, it would have shown what the strength of feeling is within the PCS if we go it alone. We didn’t take a vote at the regional committee, but nobody spoke against this point of view.

The PCS executive has instead decided to “continue to pursue a joint union campaign, including a coordinated national strike in April”. The plan is to wait for the NUT conference at the beginning of April in the hope that the NUT activist layer will get conference to vote for strike action and overturn the decision of their executive.

Mark Serwotka says he is “very confident” that there will be a joint action with the NUT in April.

I’m not. Of course, it could easily happen that NUT conference instructs their leadership to call a strike. After all, it’s mainly the activists that dominate the branches and go to conference. However, such a vote does not necessarily mean that the leadership will then act on it. I would have thought that the NUT executive must be very convinced of the correctness of their decision - otherwise they wouldn’t have overturned the outcome of a ballot in the first place. I think they will try to stick to their guns, whatever the outcome of the conference.

I can’t say I understand that decision, because many of their members will be very angry. Of course, I very much hope that joint action will go ahead. We need to keep up the pressure if we’re serious about fighting the attacks on our pensions. But, listening to Mark Serwotka, it seems clear that the PCS leadership will not call a national strike in April unless the NUT also calls one.

Can you talk us through the proposed attacks on the pensions?

There are different pension schemes in the public service. I’m on quite an old civil service scheme. From April 1, I have to pay 3.5% of my wages towards my pension, instead of 1.5% .This then goes up again in 2013 and once more in 2014 - all the while, the contribution of the employer remains the same.

Considering the low wages many people in the public service are on, this makes a massive difference. Also, this comes after a two-year pay freeze. And, with the threatened abolition of the national salary scale, it means most people in the public service who live outside the south-east will be hit by years of pay freezes to come. I will also have to work to 68 instead of 65. So, in a nutshell, we will not get pay rises in line with inflation, will pay more towards our pension, will have to work much longer, and in the end will get a smaller pension.

Considering what’s at stake, why do you think the turnout in the PCS was so low?

Turnouts are generally quite low in most unions today. Only about 10% of PCS members vote in national elections. The main reason is the lack of rank-and-file organisation and the lack of shop stewards on the ground. Some members might have thought, ‘It’s only a consultation ballot’, but I don’t think that’s the main reason for the low turnout. We’re missing activists on the ground.

The main organisation within the PCS is Left Unity, which has over 1,000 members. The SWP is part of Left Unity but is tiny and irrelevant - the SP, which is far more dominant, give them a few seats on the NEC and that is it. Unfortunately, Left Unity is nothing more than an electoral machine. It does not even attempt to build a rank and file. Since the SWP closed down rank-and-file organisations in most unions in the late 70s and early 80s, their only interest is to have some of their members re-elected to various committees so that they can then look important.

And let’s not forget: in 2005, the SWP and the SP in PCS voted for the introduction of a two-tier pension scheme, as did Mark Serwotka. They justified their disastrous decision by claiming to want to protect the pensions of the existing members. Of course, once you make such a concession and allow new workers to get worse deals, it’s only a matter of time until they come for the existing deals. Some of us argued at the time that we should have stood our ground and not let the government divide us. But they all voted ‘yes’. And the current attacks on our pensions are partly the result of that sell-out.

Unfortunately, the left outside Left Unity has recently collapsed and is in no position to put up a fight. Because of the sectarianism of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, the Independent Left in the PCS has split and many members, including myself, left. The IL now consists mainly of members in London that are heavily influenced by the AWL. I predict that in a few years’ time, the AWL will be pushing to get back into Left Unity. Of course, now that the attempt to build an alternative to LU has failed, that could well be the right thing to do for all socialists.

In November, more than 2.5 million people were on the streets - and there was a lot of talk of this being the ‘beginning of the fightback’. In hindsight, it seems that in reality it was the end of it.

It puzzles me that so many people on the left still have illusions in the trade union bureaucracy. The leaders of the big unions don’t actually think they can defeat this assault, so they weren’t even trying. They were happy to take the ‘heads of agreement’ deal, which is slightly better for workers who retire within the next 10 years. That they would sell us out was obvious from the start. They will sell out their members as soon as they have the opportunity.

What I can’t get my head around is how naive or opportunist the SWP in particular have been in all this. They have been sucking up to the trade union bureaucracy all the way through. The platforms of their Unite the Resistance meetings were full of union bureaucrats and not once was there a critical word from the SWP that these are exactly the same people who have sold us out in the past and will do so again. They also quite explicitly argued against having rank-and-file speakers, for example, at their meetings in Sheffield. Only when the sell-out happens will they say, ‘Well, that was, of course, a possibility …’ But, as they have done nothing to prepare members for this outcome, massive disillusionment and demoralisation sets in.

Can this fight still be won?

We should continue to fight and push for national action - but without the NUT, our chances of winning are massively reduced, I have to admit. We urgently have to start considering other actions: the banning of overtime, for example. But also regional and departmental strikes. We need to keep the action rolling and let the government know that they can’t avoid disruption. It’s a kind of guerrilla warfare: we have to try to wear them down. That way, I think, it is still possible to win. And if not to win this time, at least to put a marker down for the next round of attack.

[Q]

And to just barge in from that interview:


And let’s not forget: in 2005, the SWP and the SP in PCS voted for the introduction of a two-tier pension scheme, as did Mark Serwotka. They justified their disastrous decision by claiming to want to protect the pensions of the existing members. Of course, once you make such a concession and allow new workers to get worse deals, it’s only a matter of time until they come for the existing deals. Some of us argued at the time that we should have stood our ground and not let the government divide us. But they all voted ‘yes’. And the current attacks on our pensions are partly the result of that sell-out.
Would someone mind giving me some background on that? It sounds pretty awful I have to say.

[Threetune]

Same=o ...same=0....DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO UNDERMINE THE LEADERSHIP IN A SERIOUS DISPUTE. Drive a wedge between their leaders and members. To what purpose? As sure as the nose on yer face...it is to replace those leaders with their own tendency. That's how it is, that is how it is seen. When the members have had their fill of your nonsense...they can get rid of you.....if they have a mind to. Expose THEM...expose yourselves more like.....self serving wind bags!

Thanks for that, now we can move forward.

[A Marxist Historian]

Same=o ...same=0....DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO UNDERMINE THE LEADERSHIP IN A SERIOUS DISPUTE. Drive a wedge between their leaders and members. To what purpose? As sure as the nose on yer face...it is to replace those leaders with their own tendency. That's how it is, that is how it is seen. When the members have had their fill of your nonsense...they can get rid of you.....if they have a mind to. Expose THEM...expose yourselves more like.....self serving wind bags!

Funny. I have no notion if there even are any Spartacists in the union, and there certainly is no Spartacist caucus in the PCS trying to get elected to union office and take that nice salary away from the Socialist Party piecards. So Dodger should calm down, his friends' pensions are not in any danger, merely those of the rank and file.

Dodger's posting is absolutely indistinguishable from anything ever said by any lackey of a union bureaucrat anywhere in America. Only difference being that in America, a little speech like that sometimes ends with the goons grabbing the dissidents and drop-kicking them down a flight of stairs. I don't think that American custom has hit England yet.

-M.H.-

[Threetune]

Funny. I have no notion if there even are any Spartacists in the union, and there certainly is no Spartacist caucus in the PCS trying to get elected to union office and take that nice salary away from the Socialist Party piecards. So Dodger should calm down, his friends' pensions are not in any danger, merely those of the rank and file.

Dodger's posting is absolutely indistinguishable from anything ever said by any lackey of a union bureaucrat anywhere in America. Only difference being that in America, a little speech like that sometimes ends with the goons grabbing the dissidents and drop-kicking them down a flight of stairs. I don't think that American custom has hit England yet.

-M.H.-

Oh yes it has. At least 800 years worth of capitalist class intimidation to say the least. We know all about it, believe me and the rest of the Brit workers also know about it also.

[daft punk]

And to just barge in from that interview:


Would someone mind giving me some background on that? It sounds pretty awful I have to say.


funny, could have sworn you said you were in the CWI





http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/campaign/Workplace_and_TU_campaigns/PCS/4698

Clearly, New Labour hope to make most savings through introducing a worse scheme for new starters - effectively a two-tier scheme with new starters either having to pay more to keep retirement at 60 viable or working on to 65.
Understandably, this has caused some anxieties amongst workers and activists in the trade unions who correctly see the dangers and problems of a two-tier scheme (see article on page 3 on Whipps Cross). Much detail still needs resolving in the negotiations before any union should sign on the dotted line.
What's more, local government and fire service workers still possibly face the government imposing worse conditions for existing and future members of their scheme. Other public-sector workers will not want to see them left isolated - particularly after the successes of standing together against the government.
UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis has made statements accepting this uncritically as a wonderful deal, without addressing the protection of local government workers. This may have complicated the prospect of fighting back should the government choose to impose worse conditions.
Consultation

There are issues to be resolved, with the need for the widest consultation amongst public-sector union members about the implications of this framework agreement. But it nevertheless represents a serious setback for the government's pension proposals and plans to take on public-sector unions.
However, the question of what the unions should now do, whether or not to reject what is on offer (keeping the present conditions for existing workers) is the concrete issue most workers now want addressed.
The PCS NEC meeting last week endorsed the deal, welcoming the continuation for existing members of their right to retire at 60 without detriment. It emphasised that this came about through trade union unity - drawing the lesson that this unity should be a base for other campaigns, such as against privatisation of public services.
It also agreed to have a members' ballot once the negotiations conclude for the new entrants' scheme.
For the PCS, along with other unions, to reject the deal now means going back to the members to argue for strike action to defend future new starters in the civil service. Sometimes it's necessary to put down a marker for the future and go to the membership even if you expect to lose. But in this case most members would say: "We hear what you say about future members but to ask us to take strike action now when we have kept our arrangements intact seems a step too far."
Under these circumstances it's unlikely a vote for strike action would be successful.
And, to be defeated in a ballot would have consequences, including giving a weapon to the right wing in the unions, especially those in the PCS who are waiting to see the leadership rejected by the membership.
However, the union must demonstrate to young people that they are not forgotten and that their rights will be protected in the negotiations.
The whole process of the battle over pensions is one of the most important lessons for the workers' movement in the last decade.
The government's retreat in the face of united struggle shows to those most involved and broader layers of the working class that action and the threat of action can force the bosses to retreat.
Workers now realise unity brings dividends but they also will conclude they need a leadership that knows what it is doing and - like the PCS - how to keep the confidence of union members.
Workers can fight two-tier conditions!



read more at link

[Q]

funny, could have sworn you said you were in the CWI
What exactly does that have to do with anything? Surely, the interests of the working class go above and beyond any membership allegiance? Surely it is a duty of any communist to find out what the story is here? That you even ask this question tells a lot about your politics that seem to be based on loyalism as opposed to class politics.


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/campaign/Workplace_and_TU_campaigns/PCS/4698


Clearly, New Labour hope to make most savings through introducing a worse scheme for new starters - effectively a two-tier scheme with new starters either having to pay more to keep retirement at 60 viable or working on to 65.
Understandably, this has caused some anxieties amongst workers and activists in the trade unions who correctly see the dangers and problems of a two-tier scheme (see article on page 3 on Whipps Cross). Much detail still needs resolving in the negotiations before any union should sign on the dotted line.
What's more, local government and fire service workers still possibly face the government imposing worse conditions for existing and future members of their scheme. Other public-sector workers will not want to see them left isolated - particularly after the successes of standing together against the government.
UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis has made statements accepting this uncritically as a wonderful deal, without addressing the protection of local government workers. This may have complicated the prospect of fighting back should the government choose to impose worse conditions.
Consultation

There are issues to be resolved, with the need for the widest consultation amongst public-sector union members about the implications of this framework agreement. But it nevertheless represents a serious setback for the government's pension proposals and plans to take on public-sector unions.
However, the question of what the unions should now do, whether or not to reject what is on offer (keeping the present conditions for existing workers) is the concrete issue most workers now want addressed.
The PCS NEC meeting last week endorsed the deal, welcoming the continuation for existing members of their right to retire at 60 without detriment. It emphasised that this came about through trade union unity - drawing the lesson that this unity should be a base for other campaigns, such as against privatisation of public services.
It also agreed to have a members' ballot once the negotiations conclude for the new entrants' scheme.
For the PCS, along with other unions, to reject the deal now means going back to the members to argue for strike action to defend future new starters in the civil service. Sometimes it's necessary to put down a marker for the future and go to the membership even if you expect to lose. But in this case most members would say: "We hear what you say about future members but to ask us to take strike action now when we have kept our arrangements intact seems a step too far."
Under these circumstances it's unlikely a vote for strike action would be successful.
And, to be defeated in a ballot would have consequences, including giving a weapon to the right wing in the unions, especially those in the PCS who are waiting to see the leadership rejected by the membership.
However, the union must demonstrate to young people that they are not forgotten and that their rights will be protected in the negotiations.
The whole process of the battle over pensions is one of the most important lessons for the workers' movement in the last decade.
The government's retreat in the face of united struggle shows to those most involved and broader layers of the working class that action and the threat of action can force the bosses to retreat.
Workers now realise unity brings dividends but they also will conclude they need a leadership that knows what it is doing and - like the PCS - how to keep the confidence of union members.
Workers can fight two-tier conditions!



read more at link

I'm not sure how this answers my question. Ok, we saw the problems of the deal back then, good. But this doesn't explain why we voted for it, in a positive sense anyway, only in a negative. In fact, the deal is presented as a result of "the successes of standing together against the government" and the assumption that a new ballot would fail due to the conservativeness of the membership, presumably holding on to their own arrangement at the cost of newcomers, so we get a realpolitik statement of "giving a weapon to the right wing in the unions" if such a ballot failed.

I'm sorry I'm not the faithful and loyal member you seem to have as a membership requirement, but this totally fails to convince me. The bit your quoted comes over to me as a deal that exactly plays along the divide-and-rule schemes of capitalist politics. I think we are owed a serious explanation to the PCS membership that mandated us (you know: representation, right of recall and such democratic rights) as to why we sold them out and why the older layers, despite our promises back then, are now likely to lose their arrangement as a result. Of course, our story to the younger workers is even weaker.

If this is the only possible thing we can do inside the union bureaucracy (which it likely is), we ought to ask ourselves if this is really what we should be doing there at all, if gaining NEC positions are really the be-all-end-all of socialist union politics.

[Jolly Red Giant]

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5666

[Martin Blank]

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5666

This seems like a re-hashing of what's already been said on here about the leadership of PCS. It answers and/or resolves nothing. The facts remain: the workers of PCS voted in overwhelming numbers to reject the deal and strike; the PCS leadership undemocratically overturned the decision of the membership for its own sake. The workers knew about the decision of the NUT executive, yet voted for strike action anyway. For the PCS leadership to scrap this membership vote because of their own fears is a betrayal.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Cthulhu~~~Your comment is just a rehash of your previous observations; and actually you are wrong. The membership did not vote to go on strike on the 28th March; the date was decided by the NEC of the PCS not the membership. And what the leadership of the PCS put forward to its membership was only on the basis co-ordinated unified action to defeat the ConDems proposals would take place. Now the co-ordinated basis took a set-back when the NUT and EIS in Scotland and the UCU, ( and the UCU members would not have come out in Scotland anyway) took a step back from the action. As I have said before there will be hopefully action at the end of April not only on pensions but also on pay and allowances.

I want to keep this you, and others, as fraternal as possible, because you do not live in Britain and your own experiences have coloured your perceptions of what has taken place over the PCS issue. But the PCS did not scrap the action only put it back to April so that they can discuss more fully with the other smaller and larger public sector unions to have a co-ordinated and unified action. Again let me remind you that it was the right wing trade union leaders immediately after the 30th November strike that derailed the strike movement, not the PCS leadership. In fact the Socialist Party at the time in all the public sector union were agitating and calling for an escalation in the strike action when they were calling for a 24 General strike for both the public sector and the private sector; as a means to defeat the government on pensions, pay and jobs.

[Martin Blank]

Your comment is just a rehash of your previous observations; and actually you are wrong. The membership did not vote to go on strike on the 28th March; the date was decided by the NEC of the PCS not the membership. And what the leadership of the PCS put forward to its membership was only on the basis co-ordinated unified action to defeat the ConDems proposals would take place.

If my observations are based on inaccurate or incomplete information, I can accept that criticism. As I told you before, I'm not in this conversation to score tendency-war points. That said, your above comment leaves me with more questions than answers. To wit:


When was the March 28 date first raised by the PCS leadership, before or after the vote?
If it was before the vote, did the PCS leadership say to the membership that strike action on that date would be contingent on coordination with the NUT and UCU?
Given that the NUT executive decision rejecting a strike occurred before the PCS vote, how could the PCS leadership make strike action contingent on them?


Now the co-ordinated basis took a set-back when the NUT and EIS in Scotland and the UCU, (and the UCU members would not have come out in Scotland anyway) took a step back from the action. As I have said before there will be hopefully action at the end of April not only on pensions but also on pay and allowances.

Sorry to be blunt, but what NUT et al. did was more than "a step back", it was abandoning the field. Because of that, I wonder if looking to the NUT conference in two weeks is more wishful thinking than anything else.


Is there precedent in recent memory for a TU conference overturning a decision made by the executive?
If the NUT conference upholds the exec decision, where does it leave that vast majority of PCS members who voted to strike?


I want to keep this you, and others, as fraternal as possible, because you do not live in Britain and your own experiences have coloured your perceptions of what has taken place over the PCS issue. But the PCS did not scrap the action only put it back to April so that they can discuss more fully with the other smaller and larger public sector unions to have a co-ordinated and unified action.

My experiences certainly have colored my perceptions. I cannot deny that. That would be quite un-materialist of me to do. But as I said before, I have seen this happen before, including when a "left", "radical" leadership was in charge.

Look, I understand that there are moments when it makes sense to be the airbrakes on the speeding truck, to slow it down before it tries to take the hairpin turn and ends up plunging off the cliff. But these are very rare moments, and it really has to be an obvious danger to consider it the correct course. In the case of the PCS, my question would be: What would likely happen as a result of the PCS beginning a strike action without the presence of NUT and UCU -- not the worst-case scenario, but the most likely one?


Again let me remind you that it was the right wing trade union leaders immediately after the 30th November strike that derailed the strike movement, not the PCS leadership. In fact the Socialist Party at the time in all the public sector union were agitating and calling for an escalation in the strike action when they were calling for a 24 General strike for both the public sector and the private sector; as a means to defeat the government on pensions, pay and jobs.

Fair enough. I'm not questioning what you're saying here. But it does reinforce the reasoning behind the question of whether hanging all of the PCS' hopes on the NUT and UCU is predicated by little more than wishful thinking.