 North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty Anti-Empire >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
The Oxford Scientist Trying to Cancel Elon Musk Sat Nov 30, 2024 11:00 | Will Jones
An Oxford scientist has resigned from the Royal Society in an attempt to get Elon Musk kicked out of the prestigious science body over his support for free speech, climate scepticism and opposition to woke.
The post The Oxford Scientist Trying to Cancel Elon Musk appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Zelensky Says He?ll Give up Ukrainian Territory to Russia to Achieve Peace Sat Nov 30, 2024 09:00 | Will Jones
Volodymyr Zelensky said on Friday night that he was willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war for the first time on condition that Ukraine is admitted to NATO "fast".
The post Zelensky Says He’ll Give up Ukrainian Territory to Russia to Achieve Peace appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Jay Bhattacharya, My Great Barrington Declaration Co-Author, is the Right Person to Restore Integrit... Sat Nov 30, 2024 07:00 | Dr Martin Kulldorff
Martin Kulldorff says that Jay Bhattacharya, his fellow Great Barrington Declaration author, is the right person to restore integrity to public health as he succeeds at NIH a man who branded him a "fringe epidemiologist".
The post Jay Bhattacharya, My Great Barrington Declaration Co-Author, is the Right Person to Restore Integrity to Public Health appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
News Round-Up Sat Nov 30, 2024 01:30 | Toby Young
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the ?climate emergency?, public health ?crises? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
?Ulez Architect? and 20mph Zone Supporter Appointed New Transport Secretary Fri Nov 29, 2024 17:38 | Will Jones
One of the 'architects of Ulez' and a supporter of 20mph zones has been appointed as the new Transport Secretary?after Louise Haigh's resignation, raising fears the anti-car measures may become national policy.
The post ‘Ulez Architect’ and 20mph Zone Supporter Appointed New Transport Secretary appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?110 Fri Nov 29, 2024 15:01 | en
Verbal ceasefire in Lebanon Fri Nov 29, 2024 14:52 | en
Russia Prepares to Respond to the Armageddon Wanted by the Biden Administration ... Tue Nov 26, 2024 06:56 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?109 Fri Nov 22, 2024 14:00 | en
Joe Biden and Keir Starmer authorize NATO to guide ATACMS and Storm Shadows mis... Fri Nov 22, 2024 13:41 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Public Service Work-To-Rule - What game are the trade union leaders playing?
 national |
worker & community struggles and protests |
news report
 Wednesday March 10, 2010 23:38 by Gregor Kerr - WSM - Workers Solidarity 114
Since the middle of January civil and public servants have engaged in a work-to-rule in an attempt to force a reversal of the pay cuts announced by the government in the December budget. Across the country workers in government offices, colleges, schools, hospitals etc. are taking action, which they hope will result in a change of government policy. Up to 300,000 public service workers have had their pay cut by up an average of 16% (‘pension levy’ + income levy + pay cut) in just over 12 months and they are rightly angry. They know that the wealthy that caused the financial crisis are getting off scot-free and that government policy is all about making ordinary workers shoulder the cost of the bank bailout, NAMA etc.
It is against this background that the current action is taking place. But while there is an obvious need for a fightback by ordinary workers against these attacks on our living standards, serious questions exist about the nature of the current industrial action.
Firstly, it appears clear that this action is very limited in its scope and seems unlikely to have any real impact on government policy. When the trade union movement took a day’s strike action across the public service on 24th November, we were in a strong position and we’d shown our potential. But this was completely undermined by the subsequent actions of the trade union leadership. (See ‘Trade unionists betrayed by leadership’ from Workers Solidarity 113 http://www.wsm.ie/story/6321).
If a serious campaign of opposition to government attacks is to be mounted, it will have to involve ongoing and intensive strike action building towards a national strike of all public servants and leading on to a general strike which will unite public and private sector workers against the government and the wealthy. There is no indication that the current limited industrial action will be built upon to formulate such a campaign.
There is however a more fundamental worry about the current action. There is a huge gap between the agenda being pursued by ordinary trade unionists engaged in the work-to-rule and the agenda of the trade union leadership who appear more and more unaccountable and removed from the democratic control of the members. Ask any public servant what the objective of the current action is and s/he will be clear that it is to force the reversal of December’s pay cuts. Ask any public servant for his/her view on the so-called ‘transformation agenda’ which was ‘agreed’ in the pre-budget talks and you’ll find out that there is absolutely no support for it and that it is seen for what it is – an unprecedented attack on the rights and conditions of workers which reverses many of the gains made by the unions over several decades.
However, the attitude of the Public Service Committee of ICTU is somewhat different. Peter McLoone, Jack O’Connor et al believe that the ‘transformation agenda’ is the goal of the current industrial action. They are of the view that we should be attempting to get back to the deal, which was ‘agreed’ and then un-agreed in the days before the budget. Rather than seeing the ‘transformation agenda’ as the attack on members’ working conditions that it is, they attempt to peddle it as a modernising step forward. But what they haven’t done is put this ‘goal’ to a vote of the members and looked for a mandate for the views they espouse.
Neither do they even see the reversal of the December pay cuts as an objective of the current action. Indeed it seems as if they’re itching to get back into talks with government on the ‘transformation agenda’ in the hope that this will avoid even further pay cuts in the 2011 Budget. However if they’ve learned anything from the past few months it should surely be that even the act of participating in such talks will be an invitation to the government to put the boot in even more.
Only one thing will reverse current government policy – a campaign of strong and determined strike action. This is not the agenda being pursued by the trade union leaders so are we simply being toyed with by the current work-to-rule? While recognising that union members are taking action and that this may result in increased confidence in some workplaces, should we be telling the union leaders that we are no longer willing to be pawns in their agenda? We should be taking control of our unions and imposing our own agenda of outright opposition to all attempts to blame ordinary workers for the financial crisis.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (4 of 4)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4What 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.
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.
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.
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.