Boyd Barrett calls the lyndsey strike 'racist'

by james - SWP Wed Apr 01, 2009 23:31

you obviously haven't seen the video clips of marchers chanting 'what do we want.. foreigners out.. when do we want it ..NOW!'
obviously not racist then eh?
the socialist party are like that annoying kid in school who everytime you try and walk away from the fight and get on with more important things keeps poking u in the back...

anyway i'm sure people on indymedia have more important things to be reading and doing in the midst of a world crisis than reading this...

by james - SWP Wed Apr 01, 2009 23:34

i meant walk away from the fight between groups on the left not the fight as in the struggle... just thought i'd emphasise that as our friends in the SP love to exaggerate...

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Wed Apr 01, 2009 23:48

You really should try and read what actually happened during the Lyndsey strike rather than listening to this nonsense from Boyd-Barret and McCann trying to paint the strike as racist - and even worse - view the strike through the eyes of the capitalist media.

It should be instructional to you to note that the SWP in Britain did cartwheels and changed their position from one claiming it was racist (like Boyd-Barret and McCann two nights ago) to one of supporting the strike - something that was prompted by pressure from the trade union activists with the SWP who actually understood what was going on.

It should also be interesting to note that Boyd-Barrett and the SWP supported exactly the same demands when made by building workers in Ireland.

Socialists have a responsibility to tell the truth - and Boyd-Barrett and McCann behaved disgracefully on the RTE programme attempting to portray a strike by British workers as racist when it was a strike against unemployment and an attempt by contractors to force down wages by using immigrant labour. Of course Boyd Barrett and McCann never stated the fact that the BNP were run off the picket line - all of the Italian workers kept their jobs at improved rates - and 100 jobs were given to local unemployed building workers. Nor did they mention that when the Italian media attempted to attack the strike the Lyndsey workers consciously intervened in the Italian trade union movement to explain what the strike was about.

by Zimbra Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:30

I heard Boyd Barrett on RTE 1 radio yesterday and he said what we need in Ireland to regenerate the economy is what happened in the US in the 30s Roosevelts New Deal!

by Reality Checker Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:54

The strike was about ordinary workers standing up to mass immigration, that they see is driving down wages, and replacing them in employment. This will go down here, like a tonne of bricks, but that is reality. It is the first spontaneous workers action, in many years, and leftists all over Europe, are giving out about it. If you want to understand the strikers, maybe ye should walk in their shoes for a wild.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Thu Apr 02, 2009 14:38

You are miles aware from the reality of the situation. The strike was led by left wing trade union activists - including members of the Socialist Party. It had been building up for almost 12 months. It was a strike against unemployment and attempts to drive down wages - it was not a strike against mass immigration (and the workers repeatedly made this clear through resolutions passed overwhelmingly at mass meetings). The fact that the establishment would like to paint it as a strike against immigrant workers demonstrates the fear they have of workers taking action to defend their jobs and livelihoods. But this strike - and others that have taken place since then have had the support and in some cases the active participation of immigrant workers.

by ava tossof Thu Apr 02, 2009 19:44

The strike was hijacked by the capitalist media and portrayed as a strike against foreign workers, as opposed to a strike against greedy capitalist employers.

EU rules allow all european citizens to work in EU member states, so irish workers are entitled to work legitimately in the uk, france, italy etc and should be paid the same wages, have the same rights and working conditions as the european host country, similarly italian and other european nationals are entitled to the same wages, rights and working conditions as locals, if they work in Ireland and the uk, there can be no discrimination either way.

It is the racism and backwardness of the bosses and employers who are violating EU law and attempting to use racism to pay european nationals lower wages, and at the same time drive down working conditions and local workers rights.

by Tom Shelley Thu Apr 02, 2009 20:00 Boulder, CO USA

I'll be honest, I'm open-minded, through lack of information, about how quickly and to what degree the tone of the strike was changed, and therefore how wrong McCann and Boyd Barrett are. Also, although I'm fairly fond of McCann, even with what he says in recent years about SF and the GFA, in general I'm not an SWP supporter, and to whatever degree I am, that's largely because of McCann.

But in one of the comments the article's author DOES say it was a response to the use of immigrant labor, although he specifies how employers were using that labour to affect wages. I'll be honest, I'm not sure about Britain or Ireland, but in America, as far as I can tell, undocumented and probably to a very small degree documented, workers can have that effect, but that can be negated through union solidarity and anti-racism. As far as the undocumented, if the employer can threaten you with Immigration, you'll shut up about your wages, and if you help organize, Immigration will be called- I'm not sure how often that happens, but it does. More generally, for both documented and undocuemented, the employers would probably have less luck driving down wages if the immigrants had more support in public- if there were more people saying that immigrants should be welcomed and paid what native-born workers are paid for doing the same job, and then put preassure on bosses identified as not doing that. This talk of "British jobs for British workers" does not have the appropriate effect.

Also, even if the BNP were run off, that talk is what the BNP is saying and is more or less racist and some of workers then get the idea that there might be something to what the BNP says. If this anti-immigrant stuff fuels racism during tough times, some of the people affected by it who become racist will not abandon their racism when things improve, just one more reason to not say that stuff. It's not clear if the article author is admitting and defending that it was about immigrants or not. If it's about immigrants at all, that's bad. More generally, the racism it fuels weakens the labor movement. So, overall, it really is bad for labor to be anti-immigrant. And for those of us who are internationalists, we should welcome immigrants. My advice to people who still want fewer immigrants coming to their country- work to change the behavior of your government and the corproations based in your country in other parts of the world so there will be fewer things like intense poverty and/or persecution driving people out of their countries to yours. And doing things which weaken the labor movement make it less likely that that will happen. (and if your country is perfect on this, it's still a bad idea to bash immigrants, and you can probably do things to address the behavior of other governments and corporations) (some of this is not aimed at more than a small number of Indy readers, but I like to practice refuting racist shit)

As far as McCann and Boyd Barrett saying the same thing, I imagine that's a reference to the mention in the article about them calling for local workers to get jobs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they mean Cork jobs for Cork people, Galways jobs for Galway people, which seems significantly off for socialists but not racist (assuming their statement is not being totally mis-represented). I'd be very surprised if they meant Irish jobs for Irish workers.

I think that's it.

Tom

by Jolly Red Gaint - Socialist Party / CWI Thu Apr 02, 2009 20:44

some links with information related to the strike -

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0203.html

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0202.html

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0502.html

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0701.html

by Cillian Gillespie - Socialist Party Thu Apr 02, 2009 23:42

James i thought it was quite funny that you talked about walking away from an argument. In January you attended a Socialist Party public meeting on the situation in Gaza where, as is your right, you criticised our position on this issue. You then left the meeting before the comrade who have was giving the initial introduction could reply to the points you raised.

Clearly the Socialist Party did not agree with the slogan "British jobs for British workers" but we recognised that the key issue at the heart of the dispute was the use of a certain section of workers to undercut the conditions and wages of all workers, it's called the race to the bottom, you may have heard of it!. It would be absolutely counter-productive for the left,as the SWP et al did to denounce the strike as racist because of the initial demand was one we would correctly oppose. The Socialist Party's approach speaks for itself as through the intervention of one of comrades on the strike committee the official demands of the strike were as follows:

* No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
* All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.
* Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
* Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people.
* All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
* Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.
* Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

At the end of the dispute most of the placards with "British jobs for British workers" were gone and as has been pointed out were placed with placards saying "workers of the world unite". It is a fact of life that workers in strikes or in disputes will sometimes have backward attitudes that socialists need to oppose. Such attitudes will undoubtedly sometimes exist when issues around the race to the bottom and migrant workers are concerned. The lesson of the Lyndsey dispute is that these can be challenged not denouncing the strike as racist by those who have a superficial observation of the dispute but by skillfully re-directing the anger felt by workers in the right direction i.e the bosses not migrants. I would be interested to hear what problem James and others who like him who opposed the strike would have with the above demands and this general approach.

by Rob C - Socialist Party Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:07

The behaivor of the SWP during this dispute is common knowledge but this is the first I've heard of this interview. It's very interesting.
Perhaps the fact that the SWP in Britain turned their noses up (initially) at the Lindsey strikes and stayed away gave a decent opportunuty for genuine revolutionary socialists to win the arguments. The example given of the SWP intervention into a strike such as this illustrates the true definition of a 'sect'.

More than this, the attitude of B. Barrett on this issue shows his true political colours. On this issue, he appears eager to go to the maximum to distance himself from a workers struggle he knows nothing about...yet has no problem pedalling the lies of the capitalist press or tut-tutting at the so called 'racist' workers. Perhaps somebody should organise a phonecall from one of the Lindsey strikers to put him straight before he goes onto the radio next time. On second thought, leave the SWP be...if this issue turns up on a future Irish picketline...it might be better if they turn their noses up and stay away!

by old codger - pensioner Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:45

People of any nation wil always seek to look after their own first, that is natural, it is not racist. That fact that some people in the crowd may well be racist does not mean that they all are.
The gready people that have caused all trouble and the loss of jobs will be delighted that once again the left are at each others throats.
WAKE UP FOR OUR OWN SAKE> Both of these men are good people as i believe we are.
WE HAVE TO LEARN TO STICK TOGETHER OR WE WILL LET THE GREADY CAPITALISTS WIN AGAIN.

by lulu Fri Apr 03, 2009 22:28

It's not legal for the company at Lindsey to exclude British workers, even if it's by indirect racism.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Fri Apr 03, 2009 23:27

for anyone interested in listening to the programme -

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/spiritmoves/1231937.html

click on programme 26 Sunday 29th March 2009

Boyd Barrett's initial comments are at the start of the programme.

by leftist - non-alinged Tue Apr 07, 2009 19:27

I don't think any of these strikes are clearcut. There will always be differing elemets vying for an ear. its up to people on theleft to push their view forward. I don't think you could call the SP racist, After all when the Gama strike happened it was al foreign workers, yet never throughout the strike was Irish jobs for Irish workers used,