SP journal out - article from Scotland on SSP

by Durutti Fri Jun 13, 2003 15:25

How come the SP can put up new articles but wont adress the issue of calling off the FBU strike?

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=52314&start=0

by Joe Fri Jun 13, 2003 15:34

Err Durruti you seem to be getting a little carried away here. The SP hardly had the power to 'call off' the fire strike. They simply supported the deal that had been struck.

If the actual vote of the delegates was representative (75% voted for) this is no big deal and may well have been the best choice to make. After all a partial victory is always better then a total defeat. And if you reckon that was the best that could be got then advocating a return to work would have been the right thing to do. Demanding (other?) people stay on strike when you think they can only be defeated* is about as dum as it gets.

If there is any real doubt about it being representive then obviously a ballot of the entire membership should now take place.

* The 'donkeys led by lions' is as far as I know a reference to a description of the British army of the first world war. The generals (donkeys) then had a strategy based on the fact that there were more allied troops then axis ones. So they reckoned that if they just kept fighting battles in which enormous numbers on both sides were killed they would win in the end because they had the bigger army. In the context its an odd criticism of the settlement unless there is something here I don't understand.

by Durutti Fri Jun 13, 2003 15:38

Let the SP explain, there was a significant bloc at the conference who wanted to continue. But the SP come out backing the leadership.

There is still the question of why the membership were not allowed to vote on calling off or continuing the strike.

Are you suggesting that anyone other than all of the members involved should have the right to decide on how a dispute is to be fought?

by Joe Fri Jun 13, 2003 15:46

IE "If there is any real doubt about it being representive then obviously a ballot of the entire membership should now take place."

I've no idea if these delegates were locally mandated or not. If they were then there should be no need for a ballot as 3:1 is a pretty clear result. If they were not then there should be a ballot.

Back to the donkeys led by lions. The point is that sometimes the best strategy is not to keep fighting a war of attrition. Sometimes the thing is to take what is on offer and return to the fight another day. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the dispute to say if this is the case here. I'm just pointing out that urging people to keep going over the top when you reckon they are heading for a massacre is not the 'most revolutionary' thing to be doing.

by Durutti Fri Jun 13, 2003 15:56

Is that the strike has already been called off. It would be virtually impossible to reignite the struggle now.

Surely a mandate cannot equal a direct vote? Some at meetings would have voted in favour some against. This would not have been represented by delegates at the conference.

I cant say if it is the case in the FBU, but generally smaller branchs are over represented at union conferences.

As revolutionaries surely the SP shopuld have demanded a vote of the entire membership.

by Cheka Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:00

The SP could clarify this, their silence suggests they are embarrassed by the whole thing. If SWP, SF or WSM shop stewards had been involved then the UCD Boy Bolsheviks would be howling sellout from the rooftops.

by Tom Luby Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:18

They are even attacking the Bloody Sunday Tribunal because it is costing too much! This is the exact same argument used by the Tories and Trimble. They make mealy mouthed comments about the need for investigations but no tribunal!

Are the SP afraid that a proper investigation into collusion might uncover a "Socialist" mole?

Is there no depth too low for the SP to stoop. They make the sticks look like Republicans.

by Joe Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:25

Very true of course, it is a depressingly familar thing for such moments to become 'we are more revolutionary then you' pissing matches with the least influential organisations making the boldest of demands.

And Durruiti again I'm not is a position to comment on the specifics of the dispute here but in theory it would certainly be possible to have a mandated delegate decision here that accurately reflects the way most members feel. Certainly where you have a 3:1 majority unless things were very fucked up this gives should give a reliable result.

But your right that a general ballot of members would remove any doubt about how accurately this decision reflects their views. Your also right that with the strike now called off it would be hard to re-start if that ballot turned out to have a majority in favour of continuing the dispute straight away. Anyone able to comment on the specifics in a more definitive way?

by KaM - LSP (CWI) Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:38

Is this an anti-SP site or what? Don't you have anything better to do? I don't understand why my comrades even bother to post messages and articles on this site only to read the same sh*t over and over again.

But if the amount of crap you (SP) get on this site is a good indication of the work you do in Ireland. Good work!

I have noticed on Belgium Indymedia that there is a direct link between the succes and the good work of an organisation and the number of attacks you get from those 'virtual warriors'. ;)

by Durutti Fri Jun 13, 2003 16:51

The SP have done the following:

1. Supported the FBU leadership against the militants.

2. Refused to call for a ballot of all the FBU members.

3. Supported the Shannon Airport Police against anti war activists.

4. Condemned and opposed direct action at Shannon.

5. Spread scare stories that the police might fire into an unarmed crowd at Shannon.

6. Called activists virtual warriors as 10 of them were being arrested by police.

7. Refused to lobby the ICTU Conference in case it would upset their bureaucrat friends.

8. Accused the Black Bloc of being infiltrated by the police and fascists.

9. Compared the Black Bloc to Individual Terrorists.

10. Supported Loyalist Parades through Catholic areas.

11. Supported a British Army recruiting stall in QUB.

12. Opposed naming a QUB bursary after murdered Human Rights Lawyer Pat Finucane.

13. Supported naming a QUB bursary after a loyalist.

14. Now they are opposing enquiries into State collusion with Loyalist death squads.

If you carry on like that in Belgium then you are probably in a united front with the Vams Blok.

by Cheka Fri Jun 13, 2003 17:00

I dont agree with all of the criticisms made about the SP, but the ones about the North of Ireland are correct. Are you not also curious as to why the SP have not commented on the Fire Fighters strike?

The original piece has been up for 6 hours without a response from the SP. But their members are posting on other threads

by OK - SP Fri Jun 13, 2003 17:22

Durutti, I dont know who you are, and I dont know why you have such a grudge against the SP for no apparent reason.

I think that there is a tiny minority of 2 or 3 people on indymedia that have massive grudges against the SP for no proper reason.

Durutti, Pat C et al- you CANNOT base a polemic against a party based on what is written by shit-stirrers on a website where posters can be anonymous or can adopt other names. And just to remind you the SP have NEVER put official statements on IMC- if you want to debate do it using official statements in our publications and our website.

Now I'll respond to the points made by 'Durutti' beacuse these lies and mistruths need to be answered in case anyone gets the wrong idea about the Party.

"1. Supported the FBU leadership against the militants.

2. Refused to call for a ballot of all the FBU members."

This is wrong. We are opposed to the calling off of the strike! I dont know where you got this blatent LIE. We support the Firefighters in their struggle for £30k. We oppose the sell-outs of the FBU leadership.

"3. Supported the Shannon Airport Police against anti war activists.

4. Condemned and opposed direct action at Shannon.

5. Spread scare stories that the police might fire into an unarmed crowd at Shannon."

We DID NOT condemn the plans for pulling down the fence. We believe that Direct Action is a tactical question and it was not the best move for March 1st to pull down a fence.

We DID NOT support police over anti-war activists. We would NEVER support the police in attacking a left wing protest.

We DID NOT spread scare stories. This is a case of misquoting and misunderstanding.

"6. Called activists virtual warriors as 10 of them were being arrested by police."

No, this is a misunderstanding. Another quote used out of context.

"7. Refused to lobby the ICTU Conference in case it would upset their bureaucrat friends."

To say that the SP are friends with the Union bureaucrats is laughable. The parties of the bureaucrats are Labour and the Workers Party. Yet people like 'Durutti' give support to Labour!

"8. Accused the Black Bloc of being infiltrated by the police and fascists.

9. Compared the Black Bloc to Individual Terrorists."

We DID NOT accuse all BBers of being Police agents. NEVER did we say there were fascists in the Black Bloc.

What was said was that there is evidence of police infiltration. This is widely accepted. It was also siad that there may well be police infiltration of other contingents on anti-capitalist demos.

"10. Supported Loyalist Parades through Catholic areas."

This is a complete LIE. We DO NOT support loyalist marches.

"11. Supported a British Army recruiting stall in QUB.

12. Opposed naming a QUB bursary after murdered Human Rights Lawyer Pat Finucane.

13. Supported naming a QUB bursary after a loyalist.

14. Now they are opposing enquiries into State collusion with Loyalist death squads."

The accusations on Queens are complete rubbish. To think that the SP support the British Army and Loyalist death squads is madness.

"If you carry on like that in Belgium then you are probably in a united front with the Vams Blok."

In Belgium we have played a leading role in countering the Vlaams Blok. We played a leading role in 'Blokbusters'. Our work in Flanders is something we can be very proud of.

by Durutti Fri Jun 13, 2003 18:06

Oisin

A SP member of QUB Students Union Executive;
A Opposed naming a bursary after Pat Finucane.
B Supported naming a bursary after a loyalist
C Supported the British Army having a recruiting stall at a QUB careers day.

This was all discussed on indy. SP members defended his actions. Do you think you can rewrite history?

Domnic Haugh SP;
A Accused the CWM of getting the Airport Police into trouble.
B Defended the AP whenever they were crticised on indy.
C Suggested that the Gardai might fire into an unarmed crowd.

Joe Higgins called GNAW members Virtual Warriors at the same time as ten of them were being arrested.

SP members on indy have implied that the BB have been infiltrated by cops and fascists. If you have any evidence then you should put it before an independent body.

A SP member in the the Times backed the FBU leadership and said the strike should be called off.

I never said you backed loyalist death squads. But in SV you oppose the Holding of a Tribunal into state collusion with loyalist death squads. Are you afraid of what it might uncover?

by Enough Fri Jun 13, 2003 20:27

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by iosaf Fri Jun 13, 2003 21:34

is an anarchist slogan.
you won't get info on Basta
or anarchism in any SP rag.
nor will it come on recycled Greenie hypocrisy advice on "ethical share investment"
nor will it come from Killian Forde and the new 30 something Sinn Fein crew.
nor will you get it from Cathy F and the "they love the Michael D the yung'uns.
nor will you get it from the Catholic Workers.,

NO.
you will only find info on anarchism from practising sunburnt summer a frolicking anarchists.
dont forget that.

by eampnn C5udeen Sat Jun 14, 2003 00:16

Insytead of driving away our readership. and yes if you do we'll feature it

by the school around the corner Sat Jun 14, 2003 00:18

Get up the yard ya basta-rdin' ould citeog ya .....

Come back to Erin and we'll give ya basta in spades ....... yourself and your muppet friends in b-arse-alona .......

by Daithi Sat Jun 14, 2003 02:57

Who is driving away our readership?

by J Doe Sat Jun 14, 2003 10:18

Did any of the above even BOTHER to go thru to the journal? Or is it easier/simpler to indulge.

by Belfast Sat Jun 14, 2003 11:08

We have given up on indymedia, now completely bored with the bickering. All the best though with those who are still trying to make it a worthwhile site

by eampnn C5udeen Sat Jun 14, 2003 16:56

Those content to take over this open space for the purposes of rolling constant and most and worst of all repetitive sectarian bickering to the exclusion of all else. Especially the anonymous ones who do so without ever contributing positively to the site.

I could pretend to be all of these heads at this stage from monitoring the spew - As I'm sure could most of the remaining readership. Paralysis obviously didn't go away with JiMMy J.

Vicious criticism - no problem - but seeding all the space with repetitions (tourettes style) of same in the hope of having a duplicate of the ;last slanging match. AAAHHH

Is it too much to ask ppl to make their point and move on?

It would be preferable at this stage to publish a 'Repetitive Bickering here' post one every 10 on the wire and put it up to these people to have the balls - after publishing their latest critique once in 'public' space - to confine themselves on future occasions to the latest 'RepBicHere' post - shit in their 'own' playground if they want to - and leave it to others to decide if and when they want to tramp around in the 'shit'.

As for who exactly I mean as 'prick' - well it's not you and it's not our barcelona butty

by pat c Sat Jun 14, 2003 18:30

I could do with less bickering as well. I didnt even comment on this thread till now yet Oisin attacks me. On the actual firefighter thread I defended the SP.

One thing I wont be quiet about is the SP alleging that the Black Block are infiltrated by cops and/or fascists. Or that the Black Block are comparable to terrorists.

If the SP have any evidence that the BB are infiltrated then they should put it before the Irish Council for Civil Liberties; let them judge as to how reliable the claims are.

by Durutti Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:42

The SP have forced indymedia to delete comments critical of the SP.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=52593&start=0

by ec Mon Jun 16, 2003 12:32

by Durutti Mon, Jun 16 2003, 9:59am
by Durutti Mon, Jun 16 2003, 8:59am
by Durutti Mon, Jun 16 2003, 10:41am
by Durutti Mon, Jun 16 2003, 9:27am
by Durutti Mon, Jun 16 2003, 10:14am
by Durutti Mon, Jun 16 2003, 10:42am

by FBU Member Tue Jun 24, 2003 14:19

The following articles are from The Socialist, the newspaper of the Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales). These articles show that the CWI did not support the deal.


The Socialist 21 June 2003 

Firefighters dispute:

It Didn't Have To Be Like This


"THE FIREFIGHTERS' decision yesterday to call off their long-running dispute marks a signal victory for ministers. The government has secured the guts of what it wanted: changes in working practices tied to a one-off bumper pay increase" (Financial Times 13/6/03)


Bill Mullins, Socialist Party trade union organiser

Delegates to the third special FBU conference this year voted by three to one to end the ten month-long dispute and accept the latest offer of 16% over the next two and half years.

This was primarily a result of a certain amount of weariness by some firefighters and a feeling that the dispute had to come to an end sooner or later.

Frustrations with how the dispute has been conducted by the leadership of the union, particularly Andy Gilchrist the general secretary, was also reflected in the shouts of "sell out" by some delegates.

The 1977 dispute, which ran for 13 weeks of an all-out strike, ended with fisticuffs on the beach at Bridlington, the home of the FBU national conference.

That it did not happen this time does not mean that there is not massive anger against the leadership of the union by many of the rank and file. At the conference, no delegate spoke in favour of the deal from the floor and some have called for Gilchrist's resignation.

The Financial Times and other papers have commented that the FBU would have found it difficult to win in the face of ministers determination to face down their demands.

Andy Gilchrist at the conference said that that those who wanted to overcome the state with periodic strikes lived on a different planet and those who wanted an indefinite strike lived in a different universe. He then recommended the deal saying it was "the best settlement won by any group of public sector workers in this pay round"

Yet, within a few hours of the conference ending, John Prescott's office announced that that they will still be pressing ahead with the Fire Service bill that will give him powers to impose changes and conditions on firefighters and fire stations. They need these powers "if local negotiations break down," said one spokesman.

What this means is that despite all the rhetoric of Gilchrist, the deal in reality means that the buck has been passed down to local level when the employers begin their programme of wholesale jobs cuts, closure of fire stations and cut backs in the crewing of fire engines.

Some areas, such as London and Merseyside, have voted heavily against the deal whilst other areas think that they can live with it and fight back locally against the imposition of any cuts.

The nature of the deal that has been agreed means that the focus of strikes and other action, which will almost inevitably take place, will now be at a local rather than a national level.

Whilst it is true that the national union has a good record on coming to the aid of the local strikes, with national mobilisations and demonstrations backing firefighters engaged in local struggles such as Merseyside a few years ago, the whole idea of a national union is to achieve national action. This will be much more difficult as a result of this settlement.

The main danger now is that the government will pick off the less well-organised areas, and then turn on the stronger areas.

Solidarity

WITH AN 87% vote to take strike action the firefighters were in a strong position from the start. 'Public opinion' was with them (though this can be a two-edged sword as the union leadership seemed more interested at times in keeping 'public opinion' on their side by retreating in the face of hostile press publicity).

The dispute, quite correctly, was seen as the beginning of a widespread offensive by public-sector workers to claw back some of the losses they had suffered for years under various governments. That is why New Labour were so determined to face down the firefighters.

Offensive action soon became a defensive struggle to defend the gains of the past by firefighters, particularly the level of control they had through their union over issues such as overtime, staffing levels and the siting of fire stations themselves.

No other group of workers, except perhaps train drivers, had the confidence in themselves that the firefighters did, but it became clear that confidence would not be enough. The firefighters needed the active support of other groups of workers if they were to win considerable concessions.

The socialist explained that solidarity from other sections of workers was key to winning the dispute, and that would mean union leaders defying the anti-union laws. We raised the possibility early on in the dispute of uniting the public-sector strikes that were happening at the same time, involving local government workers and teachers, into a one-day public-sector pay strike.

When the government threatened to remove the right to strike altogether from the firefighters, then we again raised the demand of a one-day general strike of the whole trade union movement in defence of the democratic rights of the firefighters and of all workers.

However, the issue of solidarity action was never effectively raised. The London tube workers during the first two-day strike refused to work in their hundreds because of the safety issue. When they were threatened with disciplinary action if they did the same thing again, the RMT were too slow to back their members up.

The cancellation of so many of the planned strike days (29 in all compared to the actual 15 days the firefighters were on strike) served to undermine the confidence of other layers in the public sector that the FBU was serious about the action.

The firefighters' strike was a major test of the new left union leaders and unfortunately they were found wanting. On the basis of their experiences during the dispute, many firefighters will now see the need for a democratic broad left organisation within the union that can fight for the kind of effective leadership that will be vital in the battles ahead.

 The strings attached...

FBU GENERAL secretary claimed that the settlement is: "The best settlement won by any group of public sector workers this pay round, with fewer strings." But the strings are tightly knotted round firefighters' pay and conditions:

The pay deal is advertised as 16% but everything beyond the 4% rise from November 2002 is dependent on cuts and changes in working conditions, verified by the Audit Commission.

The second rise, averaging 7%, is based on a new pay structure which has not yet been agreed.

After the pay rises in the settlement, from 2005 there will be a new pay formula which has yet to be agreed. The inclusion of firefighters in the 'professional and technical' classification will only be 'an important consideration.' There is no long-term pay formula, ie after 2006.

The arrangements for long service pay and how the pay structure will affect senior grades is still not clear.

Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMP), which are part of the settlement, will mean fire authorities being able to cut crewing levels unilaterally, removing the union's existing negotiating rights. See issue 303 of the socialist.

Cuts to the shift system can now be made and pre-arranged, overtime can now be used to cover for these cuts.

The disputes and negotiating procedures and the 'Grey Book', pay and conditions agreement, will be replaced in October 2003 but nobody knows any of the details of what will replace them.


Firefighters speak out on pay settlement

FBU MEMBERS in Cheshire gave a mixed response to the deal. They recognised that as a shire brigade they would not feel as many changes as the big metropolitan brigades. The most important thing for them was that the union had survived to fight another day, with many of its rights intact.

FBU steward, Cheshire

They said that the pay part of the dispute had been settled months ago but the critical thing was the removal of many of the strings in the Bain proposals. They hoped that the safeguards in place would enable then to protect members' conditions in the future but they had seen the real face of the New Labour government, demonising and attacking firefighters in collusion with the press.


Alan Kane, membership secretary for the Strathclyde region FBU spoke to Ray Gunnion of the International Socialist (The socialist's sister paper in Scotland)


"It's dreadful, a bloody awful deal. We didn't set out on our strike action for this. It was a pay deal we were looking for. Instead this deal will lead to cuts in staffing levels, the closure of smaller fire stations and an increase in the area to be covered by each station.

We had a 16% pay offer in December last year, Gilchrist should never have gone on to discuss cuts.

Strathclyde region voted very narrowly for the deal but only by 51% to 49%. Seven out of the eight Scottish regions voted in favour. Only Central Scotland opposed the proposal.

It was clearly a tactical mistake to cancel the strikes. Typical union leadership tactic - marching the members to the top of the hill and then bringing them back down again. This led to a wearing down of the members' confidence in the leadership. That's why the deal went through.

There was a lot of criticism of Andy Gilchrist at the conference. A lot of the union leadership could find their re-election difficult"



The anger of the some firefighters was also indicated by Brian McFadyan, from Maryhill fire station in Glasgow, who said:


"Lions led by donkeys. They're as bad as New Labour. They must be removed."



Gordon McQuade from the Central Scotland branch of the FBU said:


"This gives the green light to employers to close down fire stations and move firefighters about. It's a blueprint for industrial unrest over the next five years."