Workers Party Press Release

by O Morain Wed Nov 27, 2002 00:13

The Workers Party was invented by Eoghan Harris, now an arse-licker of the bigot Trimble. They murdered Seamas Costello. No one shoud pay them any attention.

by hot trot Wed Nov 27, 2002 00:25

In a summary of a pamphlet by the WP there is not mention of any principled opposition to "partnership". The WP write a pamphlet on "partnership" and dont say if they're opposed to the very concept of "partnership"

WP say that "if there is to be a partnership deal..."

Any real socialist would oppose partnership on principle. The bosses and their friends in FF-FG-Lab-PD are not our partners. It is the task of socialist not to sow illusions in 'bargains' and comromises with the bosses. We should true to build a fighting Trade Union movement independent of bosses, and their parties. We should be concentrated on building a mass workers party.

WP, what side are you on? the bosses or the workers? from what I can see you are on the side of the bosses.

by Denis K Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:23

I don't see any mention of the word "partnership" in the piece attributed to the Workers' Party. They refer to "National Agreements", not partnership and had you been at the recent WP Trade Union Group meeting you would have heard vociferous opposition to "partnership"

by hot trot Wed Nov 27, 2002 13:02

Who would the WPers be having a 'national agreement' with then? I presume it's the government and the employers.

Could someone from the Workers' Party please clarify their position to "national agreements"/"partnership". Are you opposed to them in principle or not?

by John Jefferies - The Workers' Party Wed Nov 27, 2002 14:12

The Workers' Party has always supported the principle of Collective Bargaining - that is workers through their trade unions using their collective muscle to get the best possible deal in relation to pay and working conditions. That is after all why Connolly, Larkin and others founded and built trade unions - to improve the pay and conditions of their members.

We are strongly opposed to "consensus politics" and as a revolutionary socialist party our key aim is the creation of a secular, socialist republic; a unitary state on the island of Ireland.

For the record the Workers' Party Trade Union Group actively opposed the so-called "Programme for Prosperity and Fairness" as we regarded it as a very bad deal for workers and for society in general.

by pat c Wed Nov 27, 2002 16:06

national agreements are desirable if they favour the working class; however under the present congress leadership, a sellout is more likely.

given that there is unlikely to be a revolution withinn the next few months (ok, so i'm being defeatist) we should aim to achieve the possible result.

if we succeed in defeating the burocracy, then it should not mean an emmployment by employment struggle. this will only result in the weaker, less organised workers being screwed.

what is required is collective, industry wide agreements which also allow for workers to gain extra from more profitable firms. this means opening up the books, our financial advisers examining the accounts rather than crooked auditors.

if the congress delegate conference decides in favour of a national agreement, then lets ensure its the best one possible & organise to break its terms whereever possible.

in the past the WP made mistakes in their support of some Agreements, but so did the SP in backing the second Restructuring Agreement in the CPSU. I made mistakes myself when I was on the rebound from Trotskyism and supported an Agreement.

Let those who are perfect cast the first aspersion.

The rest of us should get on with building a fightback.

by hot trot Wed Nov 27, 2002 16:17

You even admit it quite openly. You are not opposed in principle to doing deals with the Bosses and their friends in the FF-FG-Lab-PD establishment.

WP believe in "collective bargaining", ie you believe in a collective sell out. The key is to build TUs that will fight for the working class. A collective fight not a collective sell-out.

All socialist should want to build an alternative to capitalism, not cosy up beside it! It's not possible to call yourself a socialist an advocate doing deals with the bosses. Socialists should be putting their efforts in to building the workers' movement on it's own strengths, not compromising.

You envoke the name of Connolly. But unlike the WP Connolly was on the left of the Labour movement during his time! WP are supporters of "partnership" and "bargaining", you've supplied your fair share of bureaucrats in your time (Geraghty, Rabbitte, Gilmore, ...)

by Alan Wed Nov 27, 2002 17:10

You may wish to spend your days reinterpreting what someone else writes to justify your own existence, but not everyone lives such a narrow existence. Your Trotskyite paranoia is as boring as watching paint dry.

by Ghost of Christmas Past Wed Nov 27, 2002 23:22

I had a £5 note once -- signed by Cathal Goulding. Trouble was there were a couple of mistakes (Upside down, "Bank of Toytown", Stickie Back).

Do you remember the tall bloke that was in the Dail for a while? Queer cove.

How's everybody down at the Flowing Tide -- ooops!

Do you remember the bloke in Ballymun that took Dublin Corpo to court to get them to bring in English scabs to break the Lift workers' strike.

Funny how the mind trips down memory lane ...