SWP member sends in the cops?

[Devrim]

I am not sure of the accuracy of this story, but it is pretty damming if it is true.

The airport workers have now come down from the canopy at the front of Transport House and are continuing their protest and hunger strike at the front gates of the building. They were forced to come down from the canopy because the PSNI threatened to arrest them. Jimmy Kelly UNITE T&G Regional Secretary and SWP member called in the PSNI to arrest the airport workers. http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/apr2008/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_transport_house_april_7_2008_ 055.jpg

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87064

Devrim

[Colonello Buendia]

if that's true then I have lost alot of respect for the SWP. or if not the whole party then that stinking scab. what a fuggin wanker!:cursing:

[Enragé]

would be typical

bureaucrats -_-

[Forward Union]

I am not sure of the accuracy of this story, but it is pretty damming if it is true.
http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/apr2008/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_transport_house_april_7_2008_ 055.jpg

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87064

Devrim


It's happened numerous times before.

[BOZG]

Oh Rosa, oh Rosa, where art thou?

[BOZG]

And take note, Jimmy Kelly is certainly not just an SWP foot soldier, he's a senior member.

[Hit The North]

Oh Rosa, oh Rosa, where art thou?

Rosa is not a member of the SWP - least of all the SWP in Ireland.


And take note, Jimmy Kelly is certainly not just an SWP foot soldier, he's a senior member.True - and a prize **** if he did call the police.

But did he?

And what were the circumstances if he did?

[BOZG]

I know she isn't but she's always keen to leap to their defense.

Yes, he did. And regardless of the police issue, he has still stood by Woodley's position of the treacherous sell-out of the airport workers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BOZG:


I know she isn't but she's always keen to leap to their defense.

I leap to the defence of any comrade unfairly under attack. I just happen to know more about the UK-SWP.

I have heard this sort of thing before, and it has always turned out to be false.

But, I will try to find out the facts in this case.

However, Devrim is well known for believing any old rubbish about the SWP.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ, please do not use a word for female genitallia as a swear word!

[Devrim]

However, Devrim is well known for believing any old rubbish about the SWP.


I am not sure of the accuracy of this story, but it is pretty damming if it is true.

Please post one example of a fact I believed about the SWP that turned out not to be true.

Devrim

[chimx]

However, Devrim is well known for believing any old rubbish about the SWP.

That's not fair. Devrim went out of his way to say he wasn't sure the credibility of the news source in the original post.

[Jazzratt]

Is there a way of verifying this story?

I know the SWP are a fairly politically backward organisation but I wouldn't expect them to be such outright back stabbing oppurtunists.

[BobKKKindle$]

Even if a member did make this decision, I don't see how this relates to the SWP as an organization - he took the decision without consulting the leadership as to whether it was the right decision to take, something he should have done, given the political nature of the dispute at hand, and the symbolic importance of calling the police to resolve a dispute. He should be condemned and ejected from the SWP is this report is true.

Members of other organizations and political tendencies have made silly decisions, and it's immature to apply the mistake of one member to an entire movement. For example, Bakunin made remarks that are considered by many to be anti-semitic, and yet no Trotskyist has ever argued that all Anarchists are anti-Semites, or that antisemitism is a central principle of the anarchist movement.

[BOZG]

bobkindles,

I accept some of your point but there must be questions raised when one your leading cadres takes such actions, irregardless of whether he directly confronted the leadership or not.

Secondly, I'm glad to see that you believe that he should be expelled from the organisation if this is true but I'm not all too optimistic that the Irish section will take any sort of action against Kelly, considering that he's probably their most importantly placed industrial figure.

[Unicorn]

Members of other organizations and political tendencies have made silly decisions, and it's immature to apply the mistake of one member to an entire movement. For example, Bakunin made remarks that are considered by many to be anti-semitic, and yet no Trotskyist has ever argued that all Anarchists are anti-Semites, or that antisemitism is a central principle of the anarchist movement.
You are comparing apples to oranges.

Bakunin's views were understandable because he lived in the 19th century. His personal prejudices can also be separated from his ideology.

The SWP member used police against striking workers. That is in fundamental contradiction with socialism.

[BOZG]

Is there a way of verifying this story?

I know the SWP are a fairly politically backward organisation but I wouldn't expect them to be such outright back stabbing oppurtunists.

I'm ringing around now but nobody is answering their phones. :)

[Marsella]

Why does Devrim always get all the first-hand gossip about the SWP? :/

[BOZG]

It was on Indymedia, hardly first-hand. ;)

[BOZG]

They're about 42 hours into their hunger strike and have began a thirst strike.

[chegitz guevara]

Anything in indymedia needs to be independently verified. In my experience, they have a problem with vetting information.

[BOZG]

Just off the phone with some supporters who were down there. Jimmy Kelly threatened the workers that if they didn't move, he would seek an injunction against them and what's the point of having an injunction if you won't enforce it? And guess who enforces it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that BOZG, but I am having friends who know comrades in the SWP-Ireland check the facts.

As soon as they find out, I will report back.

[chegitz guevara]

Next question is why would Kelly do such a thing?

[BOZG]

Such are the things that union bureaucrats do.

Yeah, let us know. I can guarantee you that Kelly went to Dublin today as a number of comrades went to poster up around the RC meeting to let him know all about it.

[YKTMX]

Such are the things that union bureaucrats do.

If that's your position, then why bring it up? Surely if this "just the type of thing" these people do then this is just story is just "dog bites man"? Furthermore, does this mean you're opposed on principle to socialists attempting to achieve middling positions in the working class organisations?

If the details as described are accurate then they're unsupportable. The behaviour described is quite clearly contrary to any existing or previously existing SWP policy and I'm sure it'll be dealt with accordingly.

Is anyone here going to argue (rather than just insinuate) that this behaviour reflects an aspect of SWP theory regarding industrial policy?

If not, then it's clear that this guy being a member of the SWP had nothing to do with this decision, and the idea that it did is moronic.

[black magick hustla]

I think its really revealing that a main cadre of an organization does this type of shit YMNX.

The SWP has a terrible track record, so I think there is something going on here.

[YKTMX]

I think its really revealing that a main cadre of an organization does this type of shit YMNX.

The SWP has a terrible track record, so I think there is something going on here.


Will you please stop staying shit like it's "revealing"? What do you mean? Explain in simple English what your argument is on this point or stop gossiping like a Californian schoolgirl.

And what do you mean by "terrible track record"?

The last case similar to this was two SWP members decisions to back the PCS sell-out pensions deal in 2005. One members was forced to apologise and the other resigned, because they broke party discipline.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=7801

I wouldn't be surprised if SWP members are involved more often than other groups in things like this, but of course there aren't many fucking "New Communists", or "Hoxhaists", or fucking Anarchists in Trade Unions are there, so the problem of how they behave barely comes up.

The reason socialists are sometimes caught up in things like this is because our comrades are REAL WORKERS and REAL HUMAN BEINGS, who exist in the REAL WORLD, and are not part of ultra-left fairytale universes where every fucker is perfect and where every decision is easy.

[black magick hustla]

at least ultra left fairy tale californian girls dont send the cops to striking workers

[black magick hustla]

Also, I think most people here know about the terrible SWP track record.

Lets see.

Making electoral fronts with muslim buisnessmen, supporting reactionary muhadjeen, the whole free Tibet nonsense ....

:)

[YKTMX]

at least ultra left fairy tale californian girls dont send the cops to striking workers

Ultra-leftists don't "send" anyone anywhere because nobody listens to a word they say.

But I see you've given up any pretence of an argument here, so why don't you just be quiet.


Making electoral fronts with muslim buisnessmen, supporting reactionary muhadjeen, the whole free Tibet nonsense ....



What does this have to do with their union activity? Absolutely nothing. Stop deraling this thread you fucking dunce.

[black magick hustla]

Ultra-leftists don't "send" anyone anywhere because nobody listen to a word they say.

But I see you've given up any pretence of an argument here, so why don't you just be quiet.I'd rather take someone that does "nothing" (Although I don't think participating in electoral fronts with muslim buisnessmen and scabbing workers is doing a whole lot concerning communist politcs) than a scab motherfucker.




What does this have to do with their union activity? Absolutely nothing. Stop deraling this thread you fucking dunce.I said the SWP had a terrible track record without specifying anything:rolleyes:

(lol who uses dunce as an insult anyway)

[YKTMX]

I'd rather take someone that does "nothing"

Of course you would, and that's why you'll remain "Marmot" until you give up, like LSD, and become a full-blown tosser. This is where your attitude leads, inevitably.


I said the SWP had a terrible track record without specifying anythinghttp://www.revleft.com/vb/swp-member-sends-p1118615/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


This thread was posted in WORKERS ACTION and refers specifically to SWP industrial policy. Therefore, it is SWP industrial policy that is significant in this matter.

Your opinions on the wider political outcomes of the SWP are, of course, of no concern to anybody, except perhaps you. But you, of course, have the right to raise these issues as and when they pertain (like, say, in discussion over SWP attitude towards the Muslim community).

You DO NOT have a right to simply blunder into every thread that mention the SWP and spout on about things you quite clearly don't understand.

That's spamming and it's not allowed on message boards.

Do you understand this point?

[black magick hustla]

Of course you would, and that's why you'll remain "Marmot" until you give up, like LSD, and become a full-blown tosser. This is where your attitude leads, inevitably.

Actually, I think your politics are closer to LSD's than mine are. After all, he was a social democrat with little class politics, if any at all.





Your opinions on the wider political outcomes of the SWP are, of course, of no concern to anybody, except perhaps you. But you, of course, have the right to raise these issues as and when they pertain (like, say, in discussion over SWP attitude towards the Muslim community).

They concern you enough to throw angry insults at me.



You DO NOT have a right to simply blunder into every thread that mention the SWP and spout on about things you quite clearly don't understand.

That's spamming and it's not allowed on message boards.

Do you understand this point?

Its not spamming, its completely related to the way the SWP acted right now and has always acted.

Go cry to the CC for what I care.

[RNK]

I don't know what's worse, this, or the fact that everyone seems surprised.

[AGITprop]

Also, I think most people here know about the terrible SWP track record.

Lets see.

Making electoral fronts with muslim buisnessmen, supporting reactionary muhadjeen, the whole free Tibet nonsense ....

:)

Its Mujahideen. :)
Thank me later.

[Devrim]

The last case similar to this was two SWP members decisions to back the PCS sell-out pensions deal in 2005. One members was forced to apologise and the other resigned, because they broke party discipline.


Oh, that is OK then.

Devrim

[Devrim]

However, Devrim is well known for believing any old rubbish about the SWP.
Please post one example of a fact I believed about the SWP that turned out not to be true.

I have noticed that there is no reply to this yet. Could it be because it is complete rubbish designed to discredit criticism of the SWP.

Devrim

[BOZG]

If that's your position, then why bring it up? Surely if this "just the type of thing" these people do then this is just story is just "dog bites man"? Furthermore, does this mean you're opposed on principle to socialists attempting to achieve middling positions in the working class organisations?

If the details as described are accurate then they're unsupportable. The behaviour described is quite clearly contrary to any existing or previously existing SWP policy and I'm sure it'll be dealt with accordingly.

Is anyone here going to argue (rather than just insinuate) that this behaviour reflects an aspect of SWP theory regarding industrial policy?

If not, then it's clear that this guy being a member of the SWP had nothing to do with this decision, and the idea that it did is moronic.

Why did I bring it up? Because I would expect this type of behaviour from a union hack not from someone who is a member of a revolutionary organisation. And no, I'm not opposed to socialists trying to acheive union positions, I'm opposed to them selling out and defending the union bureaucracy as Kelly has done. And yet the SWP remains silent still.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Could it be because it is complete rubbish designed to discredit criticism of the SWP.

Not so; I took advice from this guy:


No, there is a point beyond which you can't be bothered. I think that your point has been crushed on this thread, and can't be bothered to answer your insulting posts anymore.
Devrim

However, a five minute search uncovered these:


SWP members are always going on about Cliff's unique analysis.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1055586&postcount=9

No evidence supplied, except the comments of one SWP member.


I have also read somewhere that they gave in to all of Galloway's points in the letter that started the crisis.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=994204&postcount=3

Devrim's scientific' analysis involves him 'reading somewhere' this or that about Galloway and the SWP


I agree. The SWP will blink first.

I wonder what nonsense they will latch onto next.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=989639&postcount=20

More beaseless allegations


Sad, actually I found it difficult to believe that the SWP cadre were as politically weak as the ones that we see on RevLeft, so I wrote to a friend of mine in London to see if the ones on the ground came across as this clueless. She replied that they did.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=991385&postcount=29

Another example of Devrim's commitment to scientific analysis.


If you can prove (a relevant link will suffice) that both the CWI, and the SWP advocated not voting for Labour in places where they weren't standing their own candidates, I will happily admit to being wrong. You point as yet remains to be proven.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=975837&postcount=27

In other words, unless we prove otherwise, Devrim will believe what he likes (also without proof).

[Kraz]

Hi,
sorry to return this thread to its original topic but the UNITE leadership have started putting out press releases attacking the hunger strikers. I've posted the reply from them below. Sorry for the length but I haven't seen it online anywhere to link to.
________________________________________
Airport workers reply to UNITE statement
- A Fabrication from start to finish

Three sacked airport shop stewards, Gordon McNeill, Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer, began a hunger strike at Transport House Belfast on Monday 7 April demanding justice from their union, Unite. Rather than attempt to resolve this issue through direct dialogue with the shop stewards, the union’s answer has been coercion – in the form of instructions to the police to forcibly remove them from the building – and misinformation – in the form of a Unite public statement that completely falsifies what has happened in this dispute and misrepresents what the protesting shop stewards are demanding.

This statement, which was issued to the press and widely circulated by email, carries the dramatic headline “Protesters demand £1 million each from Unite”. It begins: “Protesters outside Unite HQ in Belfast are demanding the union pay them 1 million each, it was claimed to day. The union said claims by that legal fees had not been paid was incorrect and the men were now seeking £3m from Unite in order to settle the dispute.”

This is false from start to finish. The workers are not on hunger strike for “one million each”. They are on hunger strike because, apart from a small amount paid for hardship last year, the union has not paid or offered to pay them a single penny in compensation for the hardship it caused them.

They are also on hunger strike because, contrary to what is claimed by the Unite statement, the union has not paid the legal costs. They have paid only part of the legal costs, leaving the workers with a huge legal bill that they will never be able to pay.
In short they are on hunger strike because the actions of their union led to them losing their jobs and are now leaving them considerably out of pocket.

How can the Unite leadership make assertions about what the shop stewards want when they are refusing to meet with them to ask what their demands are? Since the start of their hunger strike the only “negotiator” who the union has sent to talk to the strikers has been from the PSNI! Since when does any union “negotiate” with its members via the police?

The Unite leadership can end the hunger strike at any time by arranging a face-to-face meeting with the shop stewards and negotiating a resolution.

What the dispute was about?
The shop stewards are issuing this response to answer, one by one, the false claims made by Unite in their statement. In considering these points it is important to keep in mind what this six year long dispute has been about.

It began when 24 airport security workers were sacked by their employer, ICTS, for striking for a 50 pence per hour pay rise. The company went ahead with the sackings only after the T&GWU official responsible for the airport met secretly with ICTS management and gave them a letter repudiating the strike. This is the main ground for their complaint that the union was complicit in helping ICTS get rid off them.
Last August the shop stewards won their long legal battle with ICTS. They secured a groundbreaking legal ruling that their sacking amounted to political discrimination on grounds of their trade union and socialist beliefs. The issue of payment of their legal bill only arises because the union had previously told them they had no legal case and gave them no legal backing, leaving them to meet the full costs of the case.

Have the union reneged on its commitments?
Last September the shop stewards called off a protest at Transport House only after they received an assurance from Unite General Secretary, Tony Woodley, that the union would pay the legal costs of the Industrial Tribunal case, that it would fund the costs of defending any Appeal against the Tribunal ruling and that it would come back, within seven days, with an offer of compensation for its role in contributing to the 24 workers being sacked.

The Unite statement states that “the union has complied in full with the assurances given in September 2007”. This is completely untrue. Below are the facts of what has happened. These show that the Unite leadership has not honoured a single one of the commitments they gave last year.

1) The legal costs of the case against ICTS

Unite’s claims
The Unite statement says that the union has paid £106,000 of the legal costs and “is involved in constructive and amicable negotiations with the solicitors to reach agreement over outstanding areas of claim”. It goes on: “There is very little chance that Mr McNeill or Mr Gupta will be required to pay a single penny towards the costs bill”.

The facts
The total legal bill for the Tribunal case is over £200,000. When discussing last August and September whether they would pay this bill, Tony Woodley and the other Unite representatives expressed concern that the bill might be too high and that they could not be expected to pay any amount that the solicitor might present. Their concerns were taken on board by the shop stewards and it was agreed that the union and the shop steward’s legal teams would submit the bill to the Taxation Court to either establish that it was reasonable or else to amend it.

The union subsequently reneged on this agreement and this is the root of the present problem. Instead of taking the bill to the Taxation Court they unilaterally decided to pay about half the bill. There has been a suggestion that they would make a further payment of less than half the outstanding amount. The solicitors representing the shop stewards, Breslin McCormick, who are still prepared to go to the Taxation Court , can confirm that there are no “constructive and amiable discussions” about payment of the rest of the bill.

To date the workers have had to pay £38000 from their own pockets just to keep the case alive. Even if the union give way and make another payment as has been hinted the workers would end up having to pay around £20,000 in addition to the £38,000 they have already paid.

What the workers want
They want a commitment that the full bill will be paid. After all they won a victory for all trade unionists and only incurred this bill because of the Union ’s insistence that they had no legal case. After years of broken promises by successive union leaderships they will not accept a vague commitment that “there is very little chance” that they will have to pay a single penny. If Unite have a problem with the amount being demanded they should take the matter to the Taxation Court .

2) The cost of an Appeal

Unite’s claims
ICTS have appealed the Tribunal decision. The Appeal date was originally set for the first week of April but has been postponed until June. Unite’s statement claims that “The costs of the appeal are being paid by the union.” It goes on “The agreement to pay the appeal costs was notified to Breslin McCormick solicitors several weeks ago and will be well known to the individuals.” They also say that “amicable discussions” on the costs took place between legal representatives “as recently as the morning of Friday 4 April”.

The facts
Last September the Union agreed that it would meet the costs of an Appeal. It was also agreed that the barristers who had handled the case at the Tribunal would defend the Appeal. Unite committed to work out an hourly rate which they would be paid and they would be taken on that basis.

Unite has since reneged on this agreement. The claims made in its statement are pure fiction. The union has refused every request from the shop stewards’ legal team to discuss the rate at which the barristers would be paid. How could they have notified Breslin McCormick of their agreement to pay the appeal costs when they have not entered into any discussions about what those costs would be?

As for the “amicable discussions” “between legal representatives” on Friday 4 April, there were not only no “amicable discussions” there were no discussions of any sort on that day, as Breslin McCormick will confirm. It is deplorable that when faced with such a serious issue as three of their members putting their health at risk in order to achieve justice, the Unite leadership just make up the facts as they go along in order to try to present themselves in a good light.

The barristers employed by the shop stewards to represent them at the Tribunal and the Appeal have recently informed their solicitors that, because of the union’s refusal to commit to pay their costs, they are returning all the legal documents relating to the case and will not be handling the appeal.

As things stand the shop stewards will not be able to defend the case. ICTS will win by default. The shop stewards will lose the compensation they were awarded by the Tribunal. The trade union movement will lose the added protection against dismissal that was gained by the Tribunal judgement.

What the workers want?
They want Unite to implement the agreement reached last September.. This means immediate discussions with the legal team who handled the Tribunal case with a view to re-employing them at an agreed rate and a commitment that these agreed costs will be paid in full.

3) The “million pounds compensation”

Unite’s claims
Unite’s statement says: “The union had hoped to reach agreement in relation to this dispute, but the individuals have demanded payments of I million each to settle the dispute. Mr Woodley and Unite are unable to make such payments…”

The facts:
Last September the union agreed that it would come back “within seven days” with an offer of compensation for the fact that the union contributed to 24 of its members being sacked. They broke this commitment. No offer was made within the seven days. Not a penny has been offered since.

The shop stewards had hoped that last September’s deal would be an end to this dispute and no further action would be needed. But when Unite failed to honour what had been agreed they investigated the alternative angle of a legal case against the union for damages. They have made it clear all along that they do not want to go down this road. They do not want to have both sides spend money on solicitors and barristers to resolve something that could and should be dealt with by negotiation.

They have employed a solicitor, Fintan Canavan, of Jones and Company to look into the possibility of a legal case. He has been involved in negotiations with the union solicitors about possible compensation. The figure of £1 million has appeared because this was put forward by Fintan Canavan, on behalf of the shop stewards, as an initial figure to discuss. It was made clear that it was put forward for negotiating purposes.

However it seems that the trade union negotiators at the head of Unite have never heard of negotiation. They are now using the fact that this figure was ever mentioned as an excuse to break off all negotiations and refuse to make any offer. This is in breach of all the commitments given both to Fintan Canavan and to the shop stewards directly.

For example, Fintan Canavan met with the union legal representative in January of this year. He was told that the workers were asking for much more than the union would give and responded by saying, if that was the case, make an offer. The union agreed, following a phone call from the legal representative to Tony Woodley, that an emergency Finance and General Purposes Committee meeting would be called and an offer, much lower than what was asked for, would be made. The emergency meeting was never called and a subsequent normal F&GPC meeting decided that no offer would be made.
The issue at contention now is not, as Unite are misleadingly trying to claim, that the shop stewards are insisting on 1 million, it is that the union are refusing to offer them a single penny.

What the workers want
They want Unite to do what it said it would do last September and again in February and make them an offer. They want an immediate face-to-face meeting with senior representatives of the union to discuss and hopefully to reach a final agreement on this.

Conclusion
It would not be difficult to resolve this dispute so long as both parties want it resolved. Unfortunately the response of the Unite leadership in calling in the police and launching a campaign of misinformation indicates that they are not interested in resolving it. All trade union members and activists should immediately contact the Unite leadership in Ireland and Britain demanding that they enter into urgent discussions with the shop stewards and meet their just demands.
Tony Woodley, Jimmy Kelly and others at the top of Unite must be held directly responsible for the deteriorating health of the hunger striking shop stewards.

Issued by Gordon McNeill, Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer 21:26pm Tuesday 8th April 2008

[Hit The North]

Just for balance - I am not supporting UNITE on this, just giving information! - the Union statement was, I believe, as follows:


PROTESTERS DEMAND £1M EACH FROM UNITE
Protesters outside Unite HQ in Belfast are demanding the union pay them £1m each it was claimed today.
The union said claims by the men that legal fees had not been paid was incorrect and the men were now seeking £3m from Unite in order to settle the dispute.
The union believes it has acted honourably in responding to the individual’s requests that legal costs be covered … and it has.
Unite the union is aware that a press statement has been issued on behalf of Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta, in relation to a dispute between the two men and the union.
The union had no intention of making public statements about this dispute, but it is compelled to do so because of the incorrect information provided about the union and named officers of the union. It is correct that a case has been pursued in the Tribunal in Belfast and the Tribunal found in favour of the individuals in cases against their former employer ICTS. The individual claimants were represented by Breslin McCormick solicitors of Belfast, and since the Tribunal judgment was issued the union has paid to the solicitors £106000 on account of legal costs, and the union is involved in constructive and amicable negotiations with the solicitors to reach agreement over outstanding areas of claim. The allegation the union has reneged on a promise to pay the costs is wrong and defames those involved on the union’s behalf. There is very little chance that Mr. McNeill or Mr. Gupta will be required to pay a single penny towards the costs bill.
Whilst the individuals have received some compensation from ICTS, part of the Tribunal’s decision is subject to an appeal. The costs of the appeal are being paid by the union. The allegation that the union has reneged on a promise to pay these costs is wrong and defames those involved on the union’s behalf. The agreement to pay the appeal costs was notified to Breslin McCormick solicitors several weeks ago and will be known to the individuals.

In fact, amicable discussions regarding the costs issues took place between legal representatives as recently as the morning of Friday 4th April.

Mr. McNeill and Mr. Gupta (and Mr. Bowyer) have instructed other solicitors (Mr. Canavan of Jones and Company) to pursue a claim for other compensation against the union. The Unite Joint General Secretary Tony Woodley did agree to investigate this claim and the union’s solicitors have engaged in to date confidential discussions with Mr. Canavan, including by visiting Mr. Canavan`s office in Belfast earlier this year. The union had hoped to reach agreement in relation to this dispute, but the individuals have demanded payments of £1 million each to settle the dispute. Mr. Woodley and Unite are unable to make such payments which are without any legal justification, and fail to take into account the sums already payable by ICTS. Mr. Woodley and the Regional Secretary for Ireland Jimmy Kelly have made payments of hardship benefits to the individuals and by agreeing to pay the legal costs, the union has complied in full with the assurances given in September 2007.

The union is disappointed that the press release was issued and contains so many inaccuracies. The union would prefer to continue to negotiate through solicitors as was agreed by Mr. McNeill and Mr. Gupta, and the union will not pay out several million pounds, even when faced with threats to begin a hunger strike. All of the individuals have received compensation and now have no legal bills to face. There is no need to begin a hunger strike and in the light of the above information the threat to do so could be viewed as representing the most unreasonable pressure on the union and individual union officers. Despite these threats and the false allegations made Unite will continue to address the issues concerning legal costs and will continue to fund the appeal. The union has no desire to see Mr. McNeill and Mr. Gupta on hunger strike and they are encouraged to instruct Mr. Canavan to make urgent contact with the union’s solicitor.

Ends

Reference: http://alaninbelfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/sacked-icts-airport-security-workers.html

[Hit The North]

The Socialist Party website also has a good background report on the original dispute here: http://socialistworld.net/eng/2007/09/05nireland.html

and a good commentary on the current action here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/3979

[BOZG]

Comrades, can I suggest posting this information and updates in the thread in the Politics forum as it is a busier forum?

[RedAnarchist]

Two of the three men who were on hunger and thirst strike protest outside Transport House in Belfast have been taken to hospital.
Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta are being treated at the City Hospital.
A spokesman for the men said they had gone four days without food and two days without water.
The three men are taking part in the protest as part of a dispute with the union Unite over the legal costs of fighting their former employer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7339223.stm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that CZ; I am still waiting on my contacts to get back to me.

[chegitz guevara]

Looks like the SWP needs to be expelling a member.

[BOZG]

They fucking better. As far as I know, they've not even responded to the situation yet. Why?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz, if the allegations are correct, I can't disagree with you.

Bozg, the worst thing to do here is make knee-jerk decisons.

[Severian]

I am not sure of the accuracy of this story, but it is pretty damming if it is true.

The airport workers have now come down from the canopy at the front of Transport House and are continuing their protest and hunger strike at the front gates of the building. They were forced to come down from the canopy because the PSNI threatened to arrest them. Jimmy Kelly UNITE T&G Regional Secretary and SWP member called in the PSNI to arrest the airport workers.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87064

Devrim

After reading the article linked, I'd suggest the greater shame is in the union bureaucrats' refusal to back these workers' fight.

(The article is apparently, accurate, BTW - for background on the shop stewards fight against their firing by their employer ISTC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6956290.stm

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/3979. I'd suggest fact-checking this type of thing before posting it, however. Especially anything from Indymedia, frankly.)

Evicting their protest from union property is peanuts by comparison, and follows naturally from the larger betrayal. And it wouldn't really be any better if done by say, union bureaucrats' staff goons rather than the cops.

Opposition to calling in the capitalist cops against fellow workers, while essential, shouldn't be like a religious dietary restriction - the Irish SWP has done something ritually UNCLEAN! (Heck, did the fired workers - airport security screeners - never call the cops on anyone in the course of their jobs?)

I vaguely recall that the LaRouchites, while still far-left-seeming, denounced the Communist Party USA for calling the cops to defend its meetings from their physical attacks. While the CPUSA's actions were a politically wrong and practically ineffective - that denunciation was hopelessly beside the point, as the later development of the two organizations helps show.

My point is, context matters. "I got a competing organization doing something bad" one-liners, even when accurate, don't do a lot to help the difficult search for a better course of political action.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thank you for that input, Severian; I am still trying to find out the context.

[Devrim]

Two of the three sacked airport workers on hunger-strike outside their union offices in Belfast are now in hospital. Earlier today Gordon McNeill was rushed to hospital only to be released, Gordon and 72 year old diabetic Madan Gupta are now both in hospital.


Just hours after addressing a solidarity rally outside Transport House in Belfast hunger striker Gordon McNeill was rushed to City Hospital for treatment. An ambulance was called to the scene at Transport House due to a deterioration in his condition. Gordon is on his fourth day without food and his second day without water. Also on hunger strike are Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer. The former airport shop stewards have taken the action to demand talks with the leadership of Unite/TGWU, who have refused to meet with the workers.
Both Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta have been rushed to Belfast City Hospital in a critical condition.
Gordon has been hospitalised for a second time. Quickly after returning to Transport House, he and 72 year-old diabetic Madan Gupta were both rushed to Belfast City Hospital. Doctors earlier today warned that both McNeill and Gupta are likely to have suffered irreversible kidney damage as a result of their refusal to eat and drink. UNITE still refuse to meet with the workers who have been fighting for over 6 years for justice.
This dispute began seven years ago when the shop stewards approached the then ATGWU (now part of UNITE) to ballot airport security workers for industrial action to secure a pay increase from a paltry £5.50 an hour to £6.00 an hour. The shop stewards were unlawfully dismissed by multi-national security firm ICTS as a result. The current hunger strike outside Transport House is in protest at UNITE/ATGWU's reneging on a promise to pay the legal costs of an appeal lodged by ICTS.
Last year the shop stewards won a tribunal (without ATGWU backing) that ruled that they had been unlawfully dismissed because of their socialist and trade union beliefs. The leadership of UNITE/ATGWU, who Madan Gupta referred to as "Scum" at a solidarity rally on Wednesday 9th, have refused to pay the legal costs of defending the appeal despite agreeing to meet those costs last September.
ICTS was able to sack the workers because the leadership of the ATGWU repudiated the strike six years ago behind the airport security workers backs. The strike was since found to have been fully legal. UNITE General Secretary Tony Woodley and Irish Regional Secretary and SWP member Jimmy Kelly have continuously reneged on commitments to back the sacked workers. Instead Jimmy Kelly used the police against the hunger strikers and their supporters on two occasions.
Support the hunger strikers. Visit the url listed in the comments below and let UNITE/ATGWU officials know what you think of their treatment of these workers. Visit the protest on the steps of Transport House. Attend the rally today at lunchtime outside Transport House and show your support.
for more into go to indymedia ireland (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87083) or contact Chris Bowyer on 07764850945, Madan Gupta on 07810290938 or Gary Mulcahy on 07743282321.



Devrim

[BOZG]

Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta were released from Belfast City Hospital this morning and have rejoined their protest outside Transport House in Belfast.

Chris Bowyer, Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta are continuing their hunger-strike against the advice of doctors at Belfast City Hospital who have warned them that they face possible death within 24 hours if they do not recommence eating.

Gordon McNeill, 38, who suffers from asthma and has a serious heart condition has been told that he is entering the first stages of renal failure. When he was taken to hospital his blood sugars were dangerously low. He is in a high state of ketosis and is at serious risk of a heart attack. In 2007, Gordon McNeill was admitted to hospital with an irregular heartbeat.

Madan Gupta, 72, a diabetic who has not taken medication since Monday morning has been told his potassium levels are dangerously high and has also been told he is entering the first stages of renal failure. Doctors have warned because of his diabetis his health is at very serious risk.

The Unite union continues to refuse to talk to the workers.

For more comments contact Gordon McNeill on 07934632366 or Dr. Ciaran Mulholland on 07703736713.

[BOZG]

Bozg, the worst thing to do here is make knee-jerk decisons.

No, I accept that. But the SWP have not even issued a statement of solidarity with these workers or that they were even investigating the actions of one of their members.

[chegitz guevara]

To be honest, if this was in my organization, I'd be doing an internal investigation to try and get all the facts before I said anything beyond we were looking in to the matter. The SWP hasn't even said that much, I gather.

I hope someone convinces those two comrades to start drinking water. A hunger strike is one thing, but a water strike will almost certainly kill them.

[Redmau5]

There's a protest tomorrow at 1pm outside Transport house in Belfast to support the sacked workers. I encourage any comrades in or around Belfast to be there if they can.

[RedAnarchist]

Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta were released from Belfast City Hospital this morning and have rejoined their protest outside Transport House in Belfast.

Chris Bowyer, Gordon McNeill and Madan Gupta are continuing their hunger-strike against the advice of doctors at Belfast City Hospital who have warned them that they face possible death within 24 hours if they do not recommence eating.

Gordon McNeill, 38, who suffers from asthma and has a serious heart condition has been told that he is entering the first stages of renal failure. When he was taken to hospital his blood sugars were dangerously low. He is in a high state of ketosis and is at serious risk of a heart attack. In 2007, Gordon McNeill was admitted to hospital with an irregular heartbeat.

Madan Gupta, 72, a diabetic who has not taken medication since Monday morning has been told his potassium levels are dangerously high and has also been told he is entering the first stages of renal failure. Doctors have warned because of his diabetis his health is at very serious risk.

The Unite union continues to refuse to talk to the workers.

For more comments contact Gordon McNeill on 07934632366 or Dr. Ciaran Mulholland on 07703736713.

Are they actually more willing to be responsible for the deaths of three people rather than back down? Some people are just mindless.:(

[RedAnarchist]

I hope someone convinces those two comrades to start drinking water. A hunger strike is one thing, but a water strike will almost certainly kill them.

I agree - you can go weeks without food, but only days without water.

[BOZG]

One of the SWP's leading members in Ireland, Kieran Allen just said at a public meeting that they don't support the protests because they're "demonising the union leadership too much" and that the main enemy is the capitalist system. Before this, they claimed that they didn't attend the protests because they didn't know what the demands were even though all the emails that were sent to them contained the demands. Treacherous fucking swine. Defend that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'd like to see his full argument, if you have it, before I decide.

[BOZG]

I haven't. I was on the phone briefly to see if there were any updates and was just told about the public meeting before being cut off by a dead battery on the other end, so I've no updates as to the condition of the three men either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, my source has failed to deliver too!

[Coggeh]

Can we get this moved to politics ?

Also why are we waiting for the SWP to release some statement this is unacceptable their are lives at stake .

[BOZG]

Union management has backed down and the shop stewards have received a letter from Unite solicitors committing to pay the legal fees as well as agreeing to negotiate compensation with all the workers at a meeting within a set time frame. I'll post a full explanation when I have more details.

Thanks for everyone's support!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is from the SWP-ie, today:


Unite members hunger strike in Belfast

Written by Socialist Worker

Friday, 11 April 2008

The Socialist Workers Party believes that the Belfast airport workers did a great service for the Irish labour movement when they took their company to an industrial tribunal and won a case which set a precedent against sacking union representatives because they were political activists.

The case arose because an anti-union firm had tried to rid itself of organised labour and used the classic tactics of victimisation to achieve that.

ATGWU had let down these men when a union official went behind their backs and called off a strike against their company ICTS.

The SWP welcomes the fact that the present leadership of UNITE (the successors of ATGWU) has agreed to meet the full legal costs of the
tribunal case that the airport activists undertook. As members dues are at stake, the union has every right to fully examine the figures presented by the legal profession. But nevertheless the principle of covering costs has been accepted.

We also understand that the union will also underwrite the legal costs of defending against an appeal mounted by the company.

Both of these actions are important contributions to correcting past mistakes.

The current dispute between the workers and their union concerns the issue of compensation for further campaign costs and hardship endured.

The SWP believes that a process of mediation should be set up between the union officials and the victimised workers to resolve this issue.

This should involve both formal and informal face to face discussions.
If necessary, someone drawn from the ranks of organised labour should also be involved to mediate between both sides and so cut out further legal costs.

We fully recognise the pain and suffering the airport workers have endured over these many long years.

We urge them to come off the hunger and thirst strike so as not to cause themselves any more physical harm.

We also urge the union leadership to move as quickly as possible to enter mediation on the outstanding issue in dispute.
http://www.swp.ie/news/pressrelease/unitemembershungerstrikeinbelfast.html

[Redmau5]

Yes this is great news. I've heard from a few comrades that some of the SWP members on the ground in Belfast are pretty disgusted with the inaction of the leadership, and even more so with the position taken by Kieran Allen on the issue.

[BOZG]

Yes this is great news. I've heard from a few comrades that some of the SWP members on the ground in Belfast are pretty disgusted with the inaction of the leadership, and even more so with the position taken by Kieran Allen on the issue.

And so they should be.

[KC]

So is SWP gonna expel these fuckers or what?

[chegitz guevara]

One of the SWP's leading members in Ireland, Kieran Allen just said at a public meeting that they don't support the protests because they're "demonising the union leadership too much" and that the main enemy is the capitalist system. Before this, they claimed that they didn't attend the protests because they didn't know what the demands were even though all the emails that were sent to them contained the demands. Treacherous fucking swine. Defend that.

I believe the word you're looking for is "SCABS!"

[Severian]

One of the SWP's leading members in Ireland, Kieran Allen just said at a public meeting that they don't support the protests because they're "demonising the union leadership too much" and that the main enemy is the capitalist system.

Allen might be making a legitimate point as far as tactics for how to deal with the problem of the union bureaucrat's betrayals - that is, a frontal assault on them isn't usually the best way. In fact, that approach is often the approach of dissident factions of the union officialdom which seek to take the top bureaucratic posts themselves, rather than seeking primarily to increase the involvement and power of the rank-and-file through taking on the bosses.

But in this case, members of the Irish SWP are the betraying union bureaucrats. That ain't a tactical question, it's a question of which side you're on.

[Destroy capitalism]

Kieran is running -hopelessly -for SIPTU leadership. He is also getting a bad name for having changed his stance on Partnership -he now says it's too entrenched to fight. This is all part of his latest plan to try to mobilise middle class support -Richard Boyd Barrett was very nearly elected to the Dail and will probably make it next time. the Trinity SWP student society have already disassociated themselves from the leadership, ie Allen and Boyd Barrett. Everyone is mystified as to why he's throwing everything at a losing battle, the SIPTU leadership. I'll be seeing some of them tomorrow night. I'll find out what's going on. Kieran can be sound enough, there'll be a method in his madness. I already told him I personally don't want my proletarian consciousness diluted by having to consider the problems of the middle-class in order to somehow second them as eventual comrades -in my opinion it's a doomed scheme. But that's what he says he's at.

[Destroy capitalism]

P.S.I'm not defending the action of the SWP member if true, and i'm not in the habit of defending the SWP as a general principle. I'll just wait till I can ask one of them about it, either Kieran Allen or Richard Boyd Barrett. I'll post the response tomorrow night when I get home.

[Destroy capitalism]

So far Richard Boyd Barrett 'doubts very much it's true knowing Jimmy' but does not have all the info. Awaiting reply from Kieran Allen

[BOZG]

Allen might be making a legitimate point as far as tactics for how to deal with the problem of the union bureaucrat's betrayals - that is, a frontal assault on them isn't usually the best way. In fact, that approach is often the approach of dissident factions of the union officialdom which seek to take the top bureaucratic posts themselves, rather than seeking primarily to increase the involvement and power of the rank-and-file through taking on the bosses.

But in this case, members of the Irish SWP are the betraying union bureaucrats. That ain't a tactical question, it's a question of which side you're on.

No, I agree, tactically it's incorrect. Our comrades have always argued against them going on hunger strike but nonetheless, that is the method they chose and they should be supported and defended against the bureaucracy regardless. This is something which Kieran Allen did not though.

[BOZG]

So far Richard Boyd Barrett 'doubts very much it's true knowing Jimmy' but does not have all the info. Awaiting reply from Kieran Allen

RBB can doubt all he wants but it's the truth.

[BOZG]

Kieran is running -hopelessly -for SIPTU leadership. He is also getting a bad name for having changed his stance on Partnership -he now says it's too entrenched to fight. This is all part of his latest plan to try to mobilise middle class support -Richard Boyd Barrett was very nearly elected to the Dail and will probably make it next time.


Kieran can be sound enough, there'll be a method in his madness.

That's quite interesting actually. When the SP attacked Kieran Allen over the position he took on partnership during the talks arguing that the negotiators should go back for a better deal, he said that if we weren't a left organisation, he'd sue us for libel. Has he now accepted that he is no longer arguing against social partnership? I haven't been reading much of his material on going for the leadership so it might be contained in that.

I've never heard Kieran Allen and sound mentioned in the sentence! :P

[Destroy capitalism]

maybe. RBB says someone in the office could have done it. i have experience of observing SWP members attitudes to police -they are non-cooperative-and I've seen Kieran Allen dragged into police cars so I would be very shocked if it's true. things like this put me in a difficult position because I'm comrades with Joan Collins (who is very much loved in my working class suburb of Dublin) and she's involved with People Before Profit and Campaign for an Independent Left with the SWP so it's important to me to prove it one way or the other. Are you sure it was Jimmy Kelly personally and not just someone in his office? I'll ask Eamon Mc Cann tomorrow night what he knows, he won't lie.

[Destroy capitalism]

yes comrade I had an intense private meeting with Kieran Allen many many years ago and whilst obviously I'm not his type as a I'm Republican and my Communist Party friends wouldn't give him the time of day I have to concede that beneath the cynical realpolitik, beneath the desire to advance the SWP (which has been at the expense of left unity on many many occasions) at all costs, I found him sound on many points. However it is not my mission in life to defend what way his politics have gone since that meeting, I would need to give him another grilling to know!

[BOZG]

maybe. RBB says someone in the office could have done it. i have experience of observing SWP members attitudes to police -they are non-cooperative-and I've seen Kieran Allen dragged into police cars so I would be very shocked if it's true. things like this put me in a difficult position because I'm comrades with Joan Collins (who is very much loved in my working class suburb of Dublin) and she's involved with People Before Profit and Campaign for an Independent Left with the SWP so it's important to me to prove it one way or the other. Are you sure it was Jimmy Kelly personally and not just someone in his office? I'll ask Eamon Mc Cann tomorrow night what he knows, he won't lie.


Anyone that was there told me it was Kelly personally and that he also made the point of threatening to get an injunction against them.

I thought that CIL had all but wound up these days?

As for Kieran Allen being sound, I was alluding to his personality rather than his politics. ;)

[Destroy capitalism]

I need to console myself somehow, my daughters joined them. She finally rebelled at 31! The C.P. tell me it's a phase, and knowing her she'll probably have an explosive falling out with them eventually.Well the CIL seems to have wound up, the ISN pulled out, seems to be just Joan's lot and the S.W.P. The No Campaign should be used to try and hammer out some unity/solidarity deals. It seems like a lot of people won't touch anything to do with the SWP, I zone in and out of it and everytime I look it's a mess. I retreat back in to Connolly Books like a monk to the temple. This is all indefensible stuff that I've read here tonight. I just hate to write anyone off who is any way to the left. I'm anti-sectarian. Naive I suppose. Well I just keep trying to get through to people.The Socialist party comrade probably would define me as a Stalinist and he/she/other would be wrong. So knowing that that's an elementary misunderstanding that i'm aware of I wonder whether other differences cannot be hammered out.There are a few of us nameless going around enquiring who was serious about a socialist revolution and who's invested in capitalism. Walking through the ruins of a movement spaced out, wondering where everybody is. Is any party correct to wish to preserve unique identity when the aim is to cohere into a mass revolutionary movement? I don't have an answer.So for the umpteenth time we have : the SWP can't be in MY revolution. They're flawed. Well I don't know who the perfect party are, who can't learn and develop, who can't have a change of leadership, an evolution of ideals. this all sounds like a reprehensible episode, and I don't think the SWP can continue to call themselves a revolutionary party while condoning such behaviour. I know all about having to stand by personnel who've been involved in reprehensible episodes. Jayzuz can we not get some revolutionary unity going, no-one need worry about the Irish, we can be relied upon to eternally fight amongst ourselves, tear it up and start again.But be assured I'll have this out tomorrow night. I suppose if i really want to cohere the left I could found the antiSWP coalition. There is no doubt they inspire virulent hatred. It's a phenomenon. I can imagine Eugene Mac Carten saying: what did you expect.I'll communicate to them the anger here tonight. We've all had bad experiences with the SWP it seems.But we will keep on bumping into each other at the same protests so let's keep communication channels open, let's hear their explanation.

[BOZG]

This is all indefensible stuff that I've read here tonight. I just hate to write anyone off who is any way to the left. I'm anti-sectarian. Naive I suppose. Well I just keep trying to get through to people.

The actions in this situation are indefensible but in reality, they were the actions of the leadership and not necessarily of the rank-and-file. There are still genuine people in the SWP and I certainly wouldn't write them off. From what I've heard, the SWP members in the North were quite uncomfortable with the position of the leadership and I believe one came down to the picket lines.

[Destroy capitalism]

Kieran Allen says: he's as opposed to Partnership as he ever was, false rumour. He showed me a recent statement of his proving it.The dispute with Unite was he says ' a manipulated conflict' He doesn't know if jimmy called in the police, nobody who knows him, including one of my best mates/comrades who's in Unite believes him capable of it. Kierans position was : Unite offered the workers compensation for a wrong they suffered before Jimmy's time. He also seemed to be saying he had problems with compensation coming out of current workers dues. but to tell you the truth labour relations are not my strong point -he was losing me in his explanations. His position seemed to be that the workers were offered adequate and appropriate compensation and he does not feel he was obliged to support them in seeking more than this.Too much detail for me, it's not my area. My CP comrade, a very senior experienced operator also vouched for Jimmy. It's important we all support the Raytheon 9 and keep comradely to defeat Lisbon. I'll be up in Belfast for the trial. I may be able to get it cleared up then.Probably can ask Jimmy himself.Routine SWP bashing is a waste of everyone's energy. I always just try to get along with them. they never called me a Stalinist yet!though they told my daughter i'm 'on the central committee of the IRSP' which would come as a major shock to the IRSP if they heard it as they don't know me! It sounds like they've either deeply upset some people in Belfast OR antiSWP feeing is blowing this up but I'm coming to this after the fact and not in a position to call it- all I can report is Jimmy is very highly regarded OUTSIDE SWP circles in Dublin.

[BOZG]

This is where Kieran is talking bollocks. The union agreed to offer compensation and to cover union costs, correct. But what Kieran doesn't point out is that since this was agreed months ago, the union has taken no steps whatsoever to honour their committments. This is what the hunger strike was over.

As for Kieran's position on compensation, this was no run-of-the-mill sellout that Kieran believes. It wasn't a forced dodgy deal. It was a union official meeting management for lunch and telling him that he was going to sell his members out. On top of this, the actions of that official and of the union bureaucracy has pushed massive financial and emotional pressure onto these workers and has meant that they are blacklisted workers. Why? Because they took a fight on that their union wouldn't. I'm sorry but Kieran Allen absolutely disgusts me. He's nothing but a treacherous fuck trying to defend the union bureaucracy behind a left face.

I'm sure you trust your friend's opinions but they're wrong, I'm sorry. I've spoken to numerous people who were there at the time. I'm not particularly surprised that you did mention a CP comrade considering that they play the same bureaucratic role in the unions up there.

[Destroy capitalism]

I don't know any 6 county CP members or anything about any union activity of theirs so i'm not in a position to comment, I just reported what Kieran said, i hold no brief as to whether it's bollocks or not, I have noticed myself that comrades who get union jobs seem to get somewhat depoliticized more caught up in jostling for position/support for themselves inside the union -as if now they are ABOVE the level of mere worker- I've noticed it. I have comrades who's chief political activity seems to be the union, people who formerly would be involved in Palestine, Cuba support, anti-war, anti-imperialism drop all that for union politics.It's a syndrome innit?However I intend to show solidarity to the Ratheon 9, i've rejoined Irish antiwar, but the No to Lisbon campaign I'll be working on is seperate to the SWP's.Unite have come out against Lisbon, so they have some redeeming features. You seem to have more damning information about Kieran Allen than I have, you obviously don't despise him for no reason. I just repeated back to you all the information i could get.My watching brief is the Republic so probably it would have been best for me to keep my nose out of all this. I do have enough to be fretting about.I'll wait for Kieran to give me personally a reason to despise him, I can't take on other people's emnities.I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my comments about the very structure of unions creating an artificial barrier between officials and those they are meant to represent. A union job is a position of power and authority -the individual holding the post is at psychological risk of becoming more invested in their own union career than they are in solidarity with the lowest paid worker. My one experience of calling in my union -it was the ATGWU at the time, was that they were useless, my employer wiped the floor with my union rep and I solved my problem by sending around a big heavy lookin dude to intimidate my employer into paying up. Not everyone has a ready supply of big heavy lookin dudes, personally i'm not a big fan of unions THE WAY THEY ARE CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, i'm not a fan of any system that places any individual in the lower position and i believe currently workers are structurally in the lower position vis a vis union reps.

[Kraz]

For comrades info -the hunger strikers have returned to protesting as Unite have now reneged on the promises they made after the original protest.

PRESS RELEASE - Thursday 15th May 2008
SACKED AIRPORT WORKERS
RECOMMENCE PROTEST AT TRANSPORT HOUSE

For Immediate Release

Unite leadership go back on their promises to pay legal fees and compensate the sacked shop stewards.

"We have learned that nothing the Unite leadership say can be trusted. Every member of the union would do well to note the way we have been lied to and fobbed off" Gordon McNeill

The three sacked airport shop stewards who called off a week long hunger and thirst strike on 11 April, after they received assurances from their union, Unite, that commitments made to them last September would be met, have resumed protest action at Transport House. In a repeat of the action that last month led to the union calling the police to remove the protestors, Gordon McNeill this morning occupied the awning at the front of the building. Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer have said they will take his place if the union has him arrested.

The previous hunger strike ended with a promise from the union that they would pay the outstanding legal bill for the long court action taken by the sacked workers against their former employer, ICTS. Unite also said that they would make an offer of compensation to the shop stewards for the hardship which the actions of the union leadership had put them through. All this was to have been done by 30 April.

The 30 April deadline passed without any movement by the Unite leadership on any of these issues. Instead, on 8 May, the shop stewards received a letter from the union solicitor which went back on all the previous promises that had been made.

On four occasions over the last eight months the Unite leadership gave firm guarantees that they will pay the legal bills and offer compensation. Their latest letter revokes all these promises. All it offers is to continue discussions which have already dragged on for years. For the first time it introduces strings and conditions on any offer. In a recent meeting with the shop stewards, Unite Irish Regional Secretary, Jimmy Kelly, made clear that, as a precondition for any settlement, he wanted a letter from the shop stewards exonerating himself and current General Secretary, Tony Woodley, for their role in the dispute.

Faced with this double dealing and intransigence the shop stewards can only conclude that the Unite leadership have never had any intention of resolving this dispute and have been stringing them along with false promises. They have therefore decided to begin an escalating campaign of public protest action to force the union leadership to stand by their earlier promises.

Gordon McNeill today explained his decision:

"I have been left with no choice but to begin a campaign of protest action to expose the treacherous and dismissive treatment we have received at the hands of Tony Woodley and other senior Unite officials. I intend to begin with an occupation of Transport House and, if the union leadership still refuse to act in a reasonable manner and grant our demands, will escalate my action to a hunger and thirst strike. My two colleagues, Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer, will be supporting me in this.

The union leadership has gone back on every promise they made to us. They have lied to us and to the public. For example when we started our hunger and thirst strike in April they immediately issued a statement to the press saying that our legal bills had been paid and that this was no longer an issue of dispute. This was a blatant lie.

"Our legal bill has still not been paid; the union has had no further discussions with our solicitor over this. There is no commitment in their 8 May letter to ever pay it.

"I have had enough of all this deception. We can only conclude that Tony Woodley has no intention of giving us justice. This can only be because he does not want the full truth about his role to ever come out. He clearly wants to cover up the fact that he told us we had no legal case and tried to bully us into accepting a rotten deal that he negotiated with ICTS.

"We have also faced paramilitary death threats. Two of us were bundled into a van at gunpoint and told to walk away from the dispute or else. We have alleged evidence that at least some of this intimidation was organised from within Transport House and have passed this evidence on to the police.

"We won't sign any letters exonerating Tony Woodley and Jimmy Kelly. What we need is not a whitewash of the role of Unite leaders but a full investigation into what they have done so that every member of the union is fully informed about what has been going on.

"I regret once again having to engage in public protest action against my union leadership. I would far rather be joining with them in helping to build the union. But their on going intransigence leaves me with no choice. The actions of union officials in getting me sacked and refusing to support our legal action against our employer, ICTS, have left me with debts I can never afford to pay. It makes no difference to well paid full time officials how long this dispute drags on. But every week and month that passes I go further into debt and it is my family and especially my children who suffer.

"I know that it will be difficult to shift a leadership who are obviously determined to endlessly spin this out in the hope that we will eventually just go away. That is why we are appealing to fellow trade unionists to help us by contacting the Unite leaders and demanding that they fulfill the promises they made to us in September, and then repeated in January, and twice in April. We will not be ending this protest unless and until they do."

END

Fintan Canavan, the Solicitor who has been involved in negotiating with the union, and who can confirm that they have reneged on the commitments they gave to end the April hunger strike, can be contacted at 028 9024 5471

Issued by Gordon McNeill, Madan Gupta and Chris Bowyer 15th May 2008

[Coggeh]

Link ?

Sickening news altogether on the part of Jimmy Kelly and the swp leadership

[Kraz]

belfastairportworkers (dot) wordpress (dot) com/

[Redmau5]

Just checked my emails there now and seen the news. This is sickening. What is even more sickening is that Jimmy Kelly had the nerve to speak at the May Day rally in Belfast, without a hint of embarrassment.

I would urge all comrades to email both Jimmy Kelly and Tony Woodley about this matter. We need to put as much pressure on the union as possible before one of the airport workers ends up hurt or worse.

[email protected]
[email protected]

[Redmau5]

Hunger striking airport worker in critical condition.


http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/05/19northa.html

Gordon McNeill, who has been on a hunger and thirst strike for the past 5 days, is now in a critical condition. He has said that if he is taken to hospital he will refuse all medical treatment unless the Unite leadership fulfills its promises.

One of the other sacked airport workers, Chris Bowyer, has also joined the strike.

[BOZG]

Gordon's been hospitalised according to Indymedia.

[piet11111]

damn i hope these guys are going to be alright.

[Aurora]

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/justice-for-sacked-belfast-airport-workers.html

Comrades please sign this petition in solidarity with the belfast workers.

[BOZG]

Gordon checked himself out of hospital and will be going back to Transport House in the morning.

[Billy Stephens]

Red Menace would you like to comment on the current situation with the Belfast Airport Workers? You posted comments here defending Jimmy Kelly and Kieran Allen. What do you think of them now? Airport workers in their sixth day of hunger strike because you union leadership of Tony Woodley and Jimmy Kelly have broken ALL of their commitments!

[Hit The North]

Given that there is not a shred of evidence that an SWP member called in the cops, isn't it time that the title of this thread was changed?

[BOZG]

I previously asked for updates around the situation to be posted in a thread in Politics on the situation.

But in response to your post, Jimmy Kelly was/is a well known member of the SWP. So far, the SWP have not contradicted claims about him being a member, which I think would be a logical step if he wasn't a member especially considering the serious charges being made against him. The logical conclusion is that he remains a member of that organisation. And it is fact that Kelly called the cops and said that he would have an injunction placed against the airport workers. That is based on the fact that there were eyewitnesses there. I don't know what other evidence you want. I doubt Kelly is going to sign an affadavit saying that he did it.

[Redmau5]

Airport workers suspend hunger strike to await offer

Legal bills understood to be paid - Unite union promise to make compensation offer
Press Release by sacked Belfast airport workers

PRESS RELEASE - Friday 23rd May

Decision whether to recommence the hunger strike under review

The sacked airport shop stewards, Gordon McNeill and Chris Bowyer, who have been on hunger strike on the balcony outside Transport House [Unite union offices, Belfast] suspended their action at 9 am this morning.


The men have come off the Transport House balcony. Gordon McNeill, who went five days without food and water, and a further three days without food, was suffering from chest pains and had to be assisted off. Chris Bowyer has been suffering bowel problems. Both men have now gone for urgent medical assistance.

Full article at http://socialistworld.net/eng/2008/05/23ni.html

Hopefully this will be the end of this whole saga, if the union keeps its promise of course.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm not holding my breath.