The workers and IMPACT

by Paddy Hackett Wed Mar 25, 2009 21:47 rasherrs at eircom dot net

Albitrot’s claim that it “is the nature of IMPACT as a union crippled by bureaucracy and undemocratic rules” that is to blame is actually another reason for supporting my view that the leadership of IMPACT is the problem of the working class. It is the reason the vote for strike action turned out as it did and as to why the union has a bureaucratic undemocratic character.

AR’s criticism of the conservative nature of IMPACT as a union supports my very claim that the leadership of IMPACT is responsible for the failure of the union to reach its two thirds majority to get the motion for strike action through. And if it is true that around five thousand of its members received no ballot papers, as one contributor by the pseudonym “Impact member” suggests, then this constitutes further evidence of the correctness of my claim that the leadership is reactionary and needs to be replaced.

by Impact member Wed Mar 25, 2009 09:44

Approximately 5,000 members didn't even receive ballot papers. Some were'nt even informed of next Monday. Impact were reliant on a passive membership and when the union leadership had to deliver results to Congress they proved they couldnt muster up that result.

If everyone had been balloted properly the result would have been different. But posters have been accurate. Impact did not reject the strike. There was a fraction of 1% below the required 2/3. Indymedia is assisting the main stream media by repeating the same guff that Impact rejected the strike and implying that there isn't wide support for strike action. 35% were opposed to industrial action. That does not mean that Impact members are not in favour of strike action, thay just didn't hit that 66% rule. So look a little bit behind the facts to get to the truth.

by Voice of Reason Wed Mar 25, 2009 00:54

Both 'Hackett' and 'A.R' are talking crap! The fact is that as 'Albatrot' and 'Jerry Cornelius' have already pointed out had you bothered to read their comments is that 65% of IMPACT members who took part in the ballot voted in favour of strike action Hardly sounds like rejection to me 'Hackett' and 'A.R'. That's A MAJORITY to me, and a large majority too! Also SIPTU, TEEU, CPSU, PSEU, TUI, INTO, INO, ASTI have all voted in favour of strike action. That's lots of Unions represting MANY different groups of Workers, BOTH Public AND Private Sector Workers. March 30th IS GOING Ahead, EVEN IF ICTU do stab us in the back. Unofficially if necessary, and maybe that's not a bad thing as it'll free us from the cancer of conservative Trade Union leaders. Roll on next Monday.

by Jerry Cornelius Tue Mar 24, 2009 18:44

Please note that 65% of IMPACT members who took part in the ballot voted in favour of strike action. CPSU, PSEU, TUI, INTO, INO, ASTI have all voted in favour of strike action.

by A.R Tue Mar 24, 2009 17:33

It is far too simplistic to conclude that workers in IMPACT did not vote overwhelmingly for the National Strike because of their Trade Union 'leaders'. As much as I am disappointed that it was not carried I am not hugely surprised. It is futile blaming the leaders. A more detailed and nuanced analysis is required if we genuinely want to build a successful labour movement in the current crisis. It is building this movement of labour, aimed at a complete restructuring of the societal organisation of work that is important. To achieve it there has to be an honest evaluation of the Irish labour force.

Public sector workers (particularly civil servants) are extremely conservative. Public sector unions reflect this political conservativism. They generally view themselves as service providers, and reflect the hierarchical nature of public sector organisations. Horizontal organisation is the absolute opposite of how this sector operates. Public sector workers are used to a situation whereby they passively allow their 'leaders' make decisions for them. This is not the fault of the trade union leaders; it is a reflection of how they operate in their day to day workplace. Their members pay a fee and they bargain for better wages. They are not remotely interested in workplace democracy and certainly not interested in a full blown class struggle. Anybody who has experience of the trade union movement will be fully aware of this conservativism.

Political studies have conclusively shown that public sector workers vote overwhelmingly for Fianna Fail, and have done so for over twenty five years. The most that public sector workers will contribute toward class-struggle is shifting their electorate preference toward Labour (hardly radical). But, it is a reflection of the political consciousness of the Irish public sector. The fact that 40 % did not turn out to vote in the IMPACT ballot speaks more than the 65% who did vote. Overall, less than 40 per cent can be accurately said to have voted for strike action. The harsh reality is that whilst the pension levy is extremely inequitable it does not hugely affect the upper echelons of the public sector. Middle managers whilst disappointed that they have lost disposable income are not so pissed off that they want an all out strike. They recognise they have a relatively secure job (and I exclude any new teachers, and those employed over the past 24 months etc from this 'security) and will most likely express their 'class consciousness' through the ballot box by voting Fianna Fail out of office. This is about the full extent of 'radicalism' we can expect from a huge section of the public sector workforce.

The rejection of participation in a national strike by IMPACT members is now a social fact and it is more important to build support in sectors of the Irish workforce that will favour a national strike.

On a more theoretical level: The real position which differentiates me from traditional Marxist analyses of 'class struggle' is my conviction that even with the methods of the classical critique of political economy, we cannot make precise economic predictions today: for these presuppose an autonomous, self-reproducing economic system. Just because capitalism is in crisis and is contracting it does not mean that workers will inevitably collectively favour an anti-capitalist outcome. I do not believe in a Marxist self-reproducing system that informs most 'class-struggle' analyses. The laws governing the contemporary economy are no longer identical with those analysed by Marx. This does not mean that his analysis of its mechanisms is inaccurate, but rather that this analysis only remains valid so long as the intervention of the political system is ignored. The political system will not ignore the capitalist crisis. In the 1930's we ended up with Fascism in Germany and the New Deal in the US not a classless society.

The state will mediate class struggle and diversify its effects. The lines of battle have been fundamentally restructured over the past 50 years. The classical arch-type form of class struggle is not a useful tool for the contemporary situation we are in. We need new analyses if we want to build a new Labour movement. We need new tools, new strategies and new analysis. Blaming IMPACT leaders for the failure of their members to participate in a national strike is rhetorical and not useful if we really want to build change.

by Albatrot Tue Mar 24, 2009 15:47

I would suggest that the strike ballot was not voted down. 65% of those balloted were in favour. It is the nature of IMPACT as a union crippled by bureaucracy and undemocratic rules by which a 2/3 majority is needed to pass a strike ballot that is to blame.