Public Service Work-To-Rule - What game are the trade union leaders playing?

by Charles B. Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:15

What are the Union leadership doing?

Well it appears as though they are listening to the concerns of their membership actually.
There is simply not the support for all out action amongst the rank and file.
If they were to call for strikes tomorrow, then there would be a mass exodus from several of the Unions.
Ordinary workers are unused to the prospect of serious industrial action and would be loath to engage in such.
Most are not hardcore or experienced Trade Unionists, simply ordinary workers who joined the Union to ensure that they had representation if required.
While the OP may think that there is the support for a general strike and the potential for a great bringing together of public and private sector workers, this may occur, but it is not as close as you may think.
We are not Greece and do not have the culture of industrial action that they do.

As far as I can see, this is simply another example of splintering within the Left Wing, with a more extreme element criticising another more conservative one.

I can understand your frustration, but solidarity is not born of bickering parents.

by Mike Novack Thu Mar 11, 2010 17:54

Depends on the circumstances. Sometimes "work to rule" can be extremely effective. If the rules are silly, if when actually followed nothing gets done, can be even more effective than "out". The problem here is you have a broader agenda which would not be advanced if a "work to rule" action turned out to be sufficient but whether effective for YOUR agenda isn't the relevant question. You need to look at this from the point of view of the folks in THESE unions and what they judge to be in THEIR best interest. You can't draft them for your revolution; they have to volunteer, and you have no legitimate gripe if they don't.

you want to argue things like ......... (all tactical considerations for choosing/not choosing a "work to rule" action)

1) Are the rules suitable or unsuitable for this sort of action. Will following them cause serious disruption or just minor deterioration of business as usual.
2) How will the people affected by the action see this vs how they would see complete closure? Who would they blame? Who would they side with? NOTE: in making the case here you mustn't go by your ideology, not by who the people affected SHOULD side with but WILL side with.
3) Other tactical considerations? This usually applies where "replacement" of striking workers would be practical, occupiers tossed out by force, but remaining in place "working to rule" remaining an effective obstruction. I don't think you have to discuss that one in your situation.

by Gregor Kerr - Workers Solidarity Movement - pers. cap. Thu Mar 11, 2010 18:17

Thanks for the comment Charles. You definitely have a point when you say that there may "not [be] the support for all out action amongst the rank and file." We could have a debate about why that is. I would feel that the lack of a convincing strategy designed to WIN rather than just to lodge a protest contributes greatly to the feeling of helplessness/lack of support.

But, as the article states a more fundamental worry is that the trade unionists participating in the industrial action and the trade union leaders appear to have very different agendas, and very different ideas of what would constitute a successful outcome to the industrial action.

Listen to the speeches of McLoone, Nunan, O'Connor etc. and they constantly talk about the willingness of the unions to deliver on the 'transformation agenda'. For example, Sheila Nunan incoming general secretary of my own union, the INTO, and vice chair of ICTU's Public Services Committee said in a statement the other day
"Teachers are looking for government to enter talks to reverse these cuts over time through savings achieved through transformation."

But this "transformation agenda" which involves a wholesale change in members' working conditions - longer working hours, more work etc. - has never been put to the members of the union for their approval. Thus the union leaders have no mandate to negotiate on it, and indeed many elements of the "transformation" package as outlined in the pre-budget talks run completely counter to union policy as agreed at successive annual Congresses.

The union branch of which I am a member, Dublin City North, along with several other branches and Districts within the INTO attempted to have a Special Congress of the union called after the budget to discuss the focus of our action and to mandate the leadership but this was not successful so we are continuing to press within the union for a debate and vote on the 'transformation agenda' to mandate the leadership either for or against that course of action.

The problem as I see it is that what the leaders see as the objective of the industrial action would be seen as a defeat by most members, and that members want to oppose pay cuts outright and are not willing to trade terms and conditions fro a reversal of the pay cuts. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Maybe it is the case that union members would have no problem with conceding changes in terms and conditions in exchange for a reversal of the cuts. BUT this debate has never happened so the leaders are working without a mandate while many of the members have a different perspective on what the objective of the action is.

What needs to happen now in my view is that a debate must take place in all the unions about what the objective of the industrial action is, and a decision made about exactly what mandate the leaders have.

by EF Wed Mar 17, 2010 09:56

While union members have thus far not had a chance to vote on whether or not they want to accept the reforms agreed last December, if an agreement is reached this time around they will have a chance to vote on it. I expect an agreement if reached will include a gradual reversal of the paycuts and I would very surprised if such an agreement was not ratified by union members.