Trade Union Activists Forum

by Mark P Mon May 09, 2005 18:24

Alan, it appears that you were at the meeting so any chance of a report from you?

by SUFYRer Mon May 09, 2005 18:15

The cat must have got the tongue of our alleged SIPTU member.
Nothing to say when it's put up to you?

by Alan MacSimoin Mon May 09, 2005 15:40

Hey, ‘SIPTU member’ if you don’t want to name yourself on the internet, tell us which branch you are in. There weren’t many SIPTU members at Saturday’s meeting, so it should be easy for the 40 or so people who were present to work out who you are and if you are a ‘SIPTU member’. It would be nice to know if you were indeed at the meeting, as you report just one half of my very brief comment.

Which was ..instead of looking for the election of ‘officials’ (by which I mean branch secretaries, branch assistants, etc and not ‘officers’ such as General Secretary, President and so on) as the solution to the democratic deficit in our unions; we should look at empowering the membership.

I suggested things like
- getting more members time off to do union courses (and, yes, I know the content is often very lacking but they do boost confidence for many participants and do put people in touch with other union activists).
- fighting for more facility time for shop stewards, to reduce reliance on full-time officials
- fighting for part-time section secretaries/chief shop stewards in larger jobs. This would also reduce reliance on the full-time officials and would keep the people concerned in real touch with the membership.

I also said that the officials should simply be a resource that can be called upon when it is felt necessary (e.g. for info on labour law, agreements in other jobs, etc.) – a back-up which can be called upon by the stewards.

If you were unsure about the point I was making, you could have asked me at the meeting or afterwards; but you did neither.

I wonder why? Maybe you see things much as the bureaucracy do where the membership are regarded as sheep, do you just want better shepherds?

Anarchist trade unionists, on the other hand, want to work with others to rebuild confidence and empower the grassroots membership.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Mon May 09, 2005 13:40

I posted asking for a report of the meeting, not for a diatribe against a small anarchist group and their supposed failure to support the election of union officials. It appears from Joe's link that they do in fact support the election of officials but really what does this have to do with anything?

A word to the wise "SIPTU member": Before you post, take a step back and think about what you are saying and why. All this "organisation x has questions to answer" rubbish is exactly the kind of crap that used to make this site a hellhole. What's more, making anonymous attacks on named individuals is extremely cowardly behaviour.

Now, does anyone actually have a report of the meeting?

by Joe Mon May 09, 2005 13:13

But if you going to post other peoples full names on the internet while making accusations then your required to post yours too. It's not like a lot of people - including members of your own party - don't spot your trolling style right off.

BTW on your actual reponse
"4.1 The response of many on the left is that we have to elect and/or appoint 'better' officials. They see the problem primarily in terms of the individuals who hold the posts. This stems from their conception of "socialism" as some sort of giant state enterprise bureaucracy where things are done "for the workers". Workers' self-activity occupies no leading role in their scheme of things, just as real workers' control is not part of their plan for a "socialist" society. Their ideas are rooted in an authoritarian view of the world."
http://struggle.ws/wsm/positions/tradeunions.html

by SIPTU member Mon May 09, 2005 12:54

"not to change the individuals who occupy the positions"

Well sorry I do want to remove the rotten scum in the SIPTU bureaucracy. Obviously the WSM do not want to have a SERIOUS battle against the bureaucrats if they don't want to remove right-wingers in elections. If your stated position is to have elected officials on average wage, subject to re-call, etc. WHY did Alan Mac Simoin say he was not in favour of there being a demand for the election of officials? WSM have questions to answer.

by Joe - WSM - 1st of May Mon May 09, 2005 12:50

"7.6.5 UNION DEMOCRACY

(a) We fight to change the role of the full-time officials - not to change the individuals who occupy the positions. Their decision-making powers have to be removed and returned to the rank & file membership. They should be elected and paid no more than the average wage of the people they represent. They should only serve for a fixed period of no more than five years after which they return to ordinary work. The unions will have to win the demand for jobs to be kept open in order for this to be realistic.

(b) All officials to be subject to mandation and recall."

http://struggle.ws/wsm/positions/tradeunions.html

by SIPTU member Mon May 09, 2005 12:44

The WSM stated that they do not support the call for the election of officials in Trade Unions. The reason they gave was that if Union officials were put on temporary contracts subject to election then employers would use this as an example of how to undermine permanent contracts! The WSM are a joke. They probably don't want to offend unelected Mick O'Reilly either!

by Mark P Sun May 08, 2005 20:57

Did anyone go to this meeting and if so do they have any reports of what happened?

by Des Derwin Thu May 05, 2005 00:27

Many trade union activists are increasingly frustrated with the way our unions are doing their business. While social partnership helped generate an unprecedented boom the benefits of the boom have not gone to workers. The real issues facing workers are not being addressed:

1.The wage share in national income has declined. As productivity has increased it has generated more profits for employers. Despite our sacrifices we have the worst public services in the western world.

2.Economic policy is now driven by neo-liberalism generating assaults on the conditions of public sector workers with an ever present threat of privatisation.

3.Exploitation of immigrant workers is now being exposed as a key feature of the Irish economy. This is not only bad for immigrant workers but will be used to undercut the wages and conditions of all.

4.The proportion of workers who are unionised is in decline. There is now a vibrant non union sector in the economy with little effort by unions to recruit. We are told by union leaders that the employers are our partners yet cannot deliver on statutory union recognition.

5.Since 1987 each new pay agreement has brought further restrictions on union activity including an increasing trend to binding arbitration. Each agreement means more proposals for “modernisation” in the public sector.

In light of the above it is surprising that there is not more opposition to the policies of the leadership but the reality is that opposition is isolated and sporadic. We believe that it is time for those opposed to the current policies of the union leadership to get organised. On May 7 we are holding a forum to discuss returning the unions to real trade unionism.
If you are interested in joining the debate you are welcome to attend.